Delhi District Court
The State vs Suresh @ Sunny on 3 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 204733/2016
PS- Crime Branch
U/Sec. 14(3), 17, 25(2) Antiquities &
Art Treasures Act, 1972
In The Matter Of :-
The State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
(Through Public Prosecutor)
Delhi.
.... Appellant
Versus
1. Suresh @ Sunny
S/o Sh. Krishan Pal
R/o H. No. 31-7/3, Shakti Vihar
Mithapur, Badarpur, Delhi.
2. Nepal Singh
S/o Sh. Ganga Saran
R/o H. No. 509, Gali No. 5
Pir Baba Basti, Jaitpur
Delhi.
.... Respondents
Date of Institution : 28.10.2016
Date of Reserve for judgment : 24.12.2022
Date of Judgment : 03.01.2023
State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 1 of 20
JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the State, thereby challenging judgment of acquittal dated 27.05.2016 passed by Ld. Trial Court in FIR No. 96/2009 PS- Crime Branch.
2. Respondent herein was accused before Ld. Trial Court and therefore, he will be referred as accused in my subsequent paragraphs.
3. IO SI Nirbhay Singh Rana had filed charge-sheet in this case. Regarding investigation and fact of this case, he had stated in the charge- sheet that on 22.06.2009, he received information regarding two persons trying to strike a deal of two antique idols/ sculptures Near McDonald Restaurant, Community Centre, NFC, Delhi, which were stolen from somewhere. Based on that information, Constable Harvinder was sent as Decoy Customer, with instructions to settle the deal of the said two antiques with said persons. After sometime, Constable Harvinder came back and informed that he was shown photographs of one antique metal idol of Lord Mahavir from 14th Century and one antique stones sculpture of 9th Century by said two persons. Constable Harvinder also told that he had finalized the deal to the tune of Rs. 50 Lacs for purchasing idol of Lord Mahavir and Rs. 30 Lacs for antique stone sculpture of 9th century. Constable Harvinder also told that as per the deal, said two persons will come around 6 pm, near parking, NAFED Building, Ashram Chowk, Delhi, for taking the money and handing over the antiques. Thereafter, trap was State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 2 of 20 laid near NAFED Building Parking and accused persons were apprehended when they were trying to take the money with respect to the antiques. From the search of accused Suresh, one antique metal idol of Lord Mahavir of 14th Century in meditation posture was recovered and from accused Nepal Singh, one antique stone sculpture of 9th Century was recovered. Archaeologist from Archaeological Survey of India (In short 'ASI') was contacted and he confirmed after examining the said recovered articles that they were precious antiques, covered under the provisions of Antiquity and Art Treasures Act, 1972. Case was registered and accused persons were arrested. During investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded and recovered antiques were sent to the office of Director, Antiquity, ASI, Janpath, for examination. After examination, said office of Director, Antiquity, ASI, Janpath reported that said antiques were covered by Antiquity & Treasures Act. Their reports were collected and after obtaining sanction from prosecution, charge-sheet was filed alongwith said reports u/sec. 14 (3), 17 & 25 (2) of Antiquities & Art Treasures Act.
4. Ld. Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned accused persons. After appearance of accused persons, proceedings u/sec. 207 CrPC were concluded and based on record of this case, they were charged with offences punishable u/sec. 14 (3), 17 & 25 (2) of Antiquities & Art Treasures Act. They did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. Prosecution examined 06 witnesses in total.
State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 3 of 206. PW1- Dr. Urmila Sant, Director (Antiquity), ASI, Janpath, in her testimony identified her report Ex.PW1/A bearing her signatures at point A with regard to objects recovered from accused persons.
7. PW2- Mohd. K.K., Superintendent, ASI Safdarjung Tomb, Delhi Circle, New Delhi, deposed that he had inspected the two objects on the information received from Inspector, Special Operation Squad, Crime Branch, Sunlight Colony, New Delhi. After examination, he suspected said objects as antiquities and referred the matter to Director General for examination and for final opinion.
8. PW3- HC Rajbir Singh deposed that on 22.06.2009, he received rukka sent by SI Nirbhay Singh, based on which, FIR in question was registered. He identified copy of FIR in question as Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. He also identified endorsement on the said rukka as Ex.PW3/B bearing his signature at point A.
9. PW4- HC Harwinder deposed that on 22.06.2009, when he was posted at Constable, at around 12.30 pm, one secret informer came to his office and met IO/ SI Nirbhay Singh and gave secret information. Thereafter, at around 2 pm, he alongwith secret informer reached at McDonald Restaurant at Community Centre, New Friends Colony, for the purpose of selling two stolen antiques. He claimed that those persons can be apprehended if raided. IO shared the said information with senior officials and on the directions of senior officials, he carried out further State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 4 of 20 action. IO told him to visit the said spot with secret informer for ascertaining the veracity of secret information. He was also directed to enter the negotiations with accused persons for apprehendig them and for seizing their antiques. Thereafter, around 2 pm, he alongwith secret informer, reached at the said spot and met accused persons and introduced himself to be antiques expert. He told accused persons showed him two photographs idol of Bhagwan Mahavir in sitting posture and made up of metal and second photograph depicted a stone idol of Bhagwan Mahavir Swami. Accused persons told him that they wanted to sell those idols for a total sum of Rs. 80 Lacs. He agreed to the said proposal. Thereafter, time of delivery of said antiques was fixed at 6 pm in parking area of NAFED Building, Ashram, New Delhi. He returned back to his office making the said deal and informed IO about the same.
10. Thereafter, SI Nirbhay Singh formed the raiding party comprising him, SI Ravinder Tewatiya, HC Balbir, Ct. Rajinder, Ct. Kishan Pal and Ct. Devender. All of them in civil dress left their office at around 5 pm and headed towards NAFED Building, Ashram Chowk, on foot. In their way, IO requested 6-7 public persons/ passerby to join raiding team but none of them agreed citing their personal inconveniences. Subsequently, all the said officials reached at parking area of NAFED Building, on the directions of IO took their respective positions. On 6.15 pm, one black colour Indica Car bearing no. DL3C AX 0749 reached in the parking area and stopped. Thereafter, secret informer pointed towards the said car and confirmed about accused persons and reached near the said car. He found accused State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 5 of 20 Suresh sitting on the driver seat whereas accused Nepal Singh sitting besides him on front seat. Accused Suresh got down from the car having a black colour bag in his hand and showed him idol of Mahavir Swami. In the meantime, accused Nepal also got down from the said car having a black colour bag in his hand and showed him a stone idol of Dwarpal kept inside the bag. Thereafter, he touched his head with his hand and gave signal for calling police team for apprehending accused persons. After receiving the same, entire team rushed and cordoned of accused persons. SI Nirbhay Singh alongwith staff apprehended accused persons carried out their personal searches. From the personal search of accused Suresh, one yellow colour idol of Mahavir Swami in sitting posture was recovered from the black colour bag which accused Suresh was having in his hand and a black colour stone idol of Dwarpal was recovered from the black colour bag which accused Nepal Singh was having in his hand. Both accused persons did not give satisfactory reply regarding the manner in which they had received the possession of said idols. Subsequently, IO alongwith his staff apprehended the accused persons.
11. Thereafter, on sustained interrogation, accused Suresh disclosed that the idol found from his possession was given to him by one Rajesh, whereas accused Nepal Singh disclosed that the idol found from his possession was given to him by one Gurdeep Singh for the purpose of selling. IO called expert from ASI Safdarjung Madarsa, Delhi, who reached his office and examined the said idols and told that the idols seemed to be antiquities. IO taken photographs of the same and separately sealed them in State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 6 of 20 plastic box with the seal of 'NSR' vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. The IO also marked the sealed idol of Mahavir Swami with Mark A and sealed the stone idol of Dwarpal with Mark B. IO also seaized both the black colour bags found from possession of accused persons separately in white cloth pulanda after sealing the same with the seal of 'NSR' and gave them serial no. A1 and B1. IO also seized the above mentioned Indica Car bearing no. DL3C AX 0749 vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. Both accused persons were arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D and they were personal searched vide Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F. Disclosure statement of accused persons are Ex.PW4/G and Ex.PW4/H, were recorded. He identified photographs of said recovered antiquities as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. He also identified the said idols as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. He also identified the accused persons in the court.
12. PW5- Chander Prakash Tyagi, Section Officer, Antiquity Section, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi deposed that he was Director Antiquity in the office of ASI since 2008. During his tenture, he worked with Dr. Urmila Sant and have seenher writing and signing several times during his course of duties. He identified signature of Dr. Urmila Sant on letter dated 11.12.2009 regarding covering letter of authorization of IO to file charge-sheet in present case as Ex.PW5/A bearing signature of Dr. Urmila Sant. He also identified the photographs of antiques in question as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2.
State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 7 of 2013. PW6- SI Nirbhay Rana deposed about the manner in which, he had conducted the investigation as mentioned by me in my preceding paragraphs. Same needs no repetition. He identified the box he had seized from the accused persons as Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B, rukka Ex.PW6/B, arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW4/C to Ex.PW4/F. Disclosure statement of accused persons Ex.PW4/G and Ex.PW4/H. He identified the site plan Ex.PW6/C. He also identified idols seized by him as Ex.X and Ex.Y. He also identified photographs of seized car placed on record, as Ex.P-3 (colly).
14. After examination of said witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused u/sec. 313 CrPC.
15. All the incriminating evidence was put to accused persons u/sec. 313 CrPC, to which they refuted. They took the plea of being falsely implicated in this case. They preferred not to lead defence evidence and therefore, defence evidence was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
16. Arguments heard.
17. Ld. Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 27.05.2016 had acquitted accused persons. Hence, this appeal.
State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 8 of 2018. While passing said judgment, Ld. Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution story by observing that "If the facility of expert from ASI Department was so easily available and none of the police witnesses had the requisite expertise, it is hard to believe as to why such an expert from ASI was not joined either in the negotiations or at the time of raid itself, so as to make the entire exercise of raid and recovery as credible and trustworthy." Ld. Trial Court also highlighted that IO should have made efforts in joining public witnesses, in the investigation and discarded prosecution story, on account of non-joining of public persons. Further, Ld. Trial Court did not believe the whole negotiation of the decoy witness, while discarding prosecution story.
19. The above appreciation was wrongly done by Ld. Trial Court. Reason being, that all the prosecution witnesses were official witnesses. There is presumption of correctness, in the manner said official witnesses had performed their duties. Whether said performance or duties was water tight or not, was something, which was subjectively appreciated by Ld. Trial Court.
20. PW1 and PW2 were government officials from ASI Office. PW1 identified her report Ex.PW1/A bearing her signatures at point A. She therefore proved the said report Ex.PW1/A. That report categorically proved the fact that on the basis of examination done by PW1, objects seized by police during course of investigation were antiquities. PW2 was another official from ASI Office, who testified that he had inspected the State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 9 of 20 objects seized by police during investigation in this case and had suspected them to be antiquities. Therefore, he referred the matter to Director General for examination and final opinion. His testimony only supported prosecution story regarding his opinion being taken by police during investigation for the purpose of appreciating the value and nature of objects seized by police during investigation. Both the said witnesses were not cross-examined by accused persons. Therefore, their testimonies remained unrebutted. I believed their testimonies to be trustworthy and reliable.
21. PW3- HC Rajbir Singh was the police official who had recorded the FIR in question, during course of his official duties. He identified FIR in question and endorsement made on the said FIR, in his testimony. He was also not cross-examined by accused persons. Therefore, based on his unrebutted testimony, I believed it to be trustworthy and reliable.
22. PW4- HC Harvinder was the police official who was the decoy witness or a trap witness, in this case. Here, I must mention, relevant law which courts have to bear in mind, while appreciating testimony of a decoy witness or trap witness.
23. Trap Witness means a person who entices or lures another person or thing as into danger, trap or a like. Decoy witnesses are witnesses who are used by police to trap accused.
State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 10 of 2024. The rule of prudence requires that evidence of decoy witness must be corroborated in material particulars. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case law titled as State of Gujarat Vs. Bairadha (1968) 9 Gujarat LR 278.
25. The necessity of corroboration of evidence of trap witness, depends upon facts and circumstance of each case. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case law titled as Keshao Parshad Vs. State 1967 Delhi 51.
26. Uncorroborated testimony of a trap/ decoy witness, can be accepted if the court is satisfied from the facts and circumstance of a case, that witness is a witness of truth. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case law titled as Prakash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 1 SCJ
512.
27. Accused can be convicted on the testimony of a trap witness when there is no evidence that he was anyway personally interested to get accused convicted. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case law titled as Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (1) RCR (Cr) 647 (SC). It was also held in the said case that ;
(a) A trap witness is an interested witness and his testimony to be accepted in believed upon require corroboration.
(b) The corroboration would depend upon the facts and circumstances, nature of crime and character of the witness.
State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 11 of 20(c) There is no invariable rule that the evidence of a witness of the raiding party must be discarded in the absence of any independent corroboration.
(d) Though a trap witness is not an approver, he is certainly an interested witness, in the sense that he is interested to see that the trap laid by him succeeds. He can at least be equated with a partisan witness and it would not be admissible to rely upon his evidence without corroboration when his evidence is not a tented one.
28. So, in the wake of above law, it is clear that evidence of a decoy witness, cannot be discarded, merely on the basis of him being a decoy witness. Such evidence as such is weak type of evidence which requires corroboration in material particulars, as rule of prudence demands it. At the same time, whether corroboration is required or not and to what extent corroboration is required, are aspects which depend upon facts and circumstances of each case.
29. Based on aforesaid understanding of law relating to decoy witness, I am proceeding further and appreciating evidence brought on record by prosecution.
30. As per prosecution story, IO SI Nirbhay Rana had received secret information in his office from secret informer regarding the fact that two persons namely Suresh and Nepal were trying to sell stolen antique idols in front of McDonald Restaurant, New Friends Colony, Community Centre, State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 12 of 20 New Delhi. That information was given to PW4- HC Harvinder and HC Harvinder was asked by SI Nirbhay Rana to verify the secret information. It was HC Harvinder who had struck a deal with accused persons by meeting them for purchasing antique idols. HC Harvinder had verified the fact that accused persons were carrying antique idols and he agreed to purchase the said idols for a total amount of Rs. 80 Lacs. That deal had to executed in the evening. Based on said verification, trap was laid by SI Nirbhay Rana and during said trap proceedings, at the instance of HC Harvinder, accused persons were apprehended and from the possession of accused persons, antiques Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 were recovered.
31. PW4- HC Harvinder in his testimony deposed facts, in tune with above mentioned prosecution story. As per him, he had verified the secret information around 2.00 pm, on 22.06.2009 and on the same day, at about 6.00 pm, he had met accused persons, for the purpose of purchasing antique idols in question. So, there was evidently gap of about 04 hours only between the time when secret information was verified and the time when accused persons had to be apprehended. Within 04 hours, SI Nirbhay Rana had to prepare raiding team. Since, all the team members were police officials so possibility of said police officials, being readily available all the time, was grim. In such circumstances, I find that there was not much time available with SI Nirbhay Rana for conducting said raid. Therefore, non- joining of public persons as such did not create any doubt regarding the oral testimony of PW4 HC Harvinder and PW6-SI Nirbhay Rana.
State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 13 of 2032. In the wake of above mentioned appreciation, I conclude that if official of ASI Department was not joined by IO, prior to raiding at the spot, then that inaction on the part of IO did not make the prosecution story. I reiterate that IO had shortage of time while conducting raid in this case. IO is a human being and possibility of him skipping the aspect of him joining official from ASI Department, during said raid, can be attributed to be a human error which did not make the whole prosecution story, doubtful. Even otherwise, none of the police officials were cross-examined on the basis of non-joining of ASI Official in raiding team. Ld. Trial Court also did not seek any explanation from IO, by putting court questions. So, I find that conclusion of Ld. Trial Court in impugned judgment based on non- joining of official from ASI Department in raiding team, was not correct.
33. Ld. Trial Court as such doubted the prosecution story by observing that public witnesses were not joined by the IO during investigation and ASI officials also were not joined during raid. Based on that appreciation, Ld. Trial Court concluded that prosecution story was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. That conclusion was not legally correct. In this regard, I am referring to observations of Hon'ble Apex Court, made in Shivaji Saheb Rao Bobde Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1973 2 SCC 793, as mentioned below;
"The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and community, demand special emphasis in the contemporary context State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 14 of 20 of escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherish principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt...... . The evil of acquittal of a guilty person, light heartedly as a learned author Glanville Williams in "Proof of Guilt" has sapiently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law and this inturn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicated persons and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus, to frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law eventually eroding the judicial of protection of the guiltless........ A miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less then from the conviction of innocent.
34. So, in the wake of above mentioned law, courts have to appreciate as to whether judgment of acquittal is based on proper appreciation of evidence. Consequences of judgments based on acquittal on society, are adverse. So, courts have to guard itself from the said impression also, while deciding a case.
State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 15 of 2035. Further, in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, a witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tented and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such an enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely....... . Each case must be judged on its own facts.
36. Again, in Masalti Vs. State of UP, AIR 1965 SC 202, it was observed "but it would, we think, be unreasonable to content that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses....... The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious, circumspect and careful."
37. So, in the wake of above mentioned law, it is clear that each case has to be decided by the court on the basis of appreciation of evidence, existing in that very case. No strait jacket formula can be laid down regarding the manner in which appreciation of evidence has to be tone by court in different cases. Evidence of each witness has to be appreciated individually in each case. Based on said understanding of law, I am moving further.
State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 16 of 2038. Coming back to the case in hand, I find that PW4- HC Harvinder being a police official had verified the secret information by meeting the accused persons and thereafter had aided IO in apprehending accused persons. From the possession of accused persons antiques were recovered. To that extent, testimony of PW4- HC Harvinder, held its ground. This witness not only identified case property rather identified accused persons from whom said case properties were recovered. He refuted the suggestions based on him not visiting the spot and apprehending accused persons, as was the prosecution story. He refuted the defence of accused persons regarding them being falsely implicated. As such, he stood the acid test of cross-examination. He believed his testimony to be trustworthy.
39. PW6- SI Nirbhay Rana was the IO who deposed about the manner in which he had carried out investigation. His examination-in-chief was insync with prosecution story. In his cross-examination, he was asked about non-joining of public persons. He admitted that he had not joined any public persons during investigation but explained that he had requested public persons to join raiding team but those public persons had not joined the raiding team citing their personal inconveniences. His evidence was discarded by Ld. Trial Court on account of the fact that he had not joined independent public persons in raiding team. That conclusion was wrong. In this regard, I am relying upon observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of UP (2016) 4 SCC 357, wherein, it was observed ;
State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 17 of 20"As far as the non-examination of any other independent witness is concerned, there is no doubt that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness. But the prosecution case cannot be doubted on this ground alone. In these days, civilized people are generally insensitive to come forward to give any statement in respect of any criminal offence. Unless it is inevitable, people normally keep away from the court as they find it distressing and stressful. Though this kind of human behavior is indeed unfortunate, but it is a normal phenomenon. We cannot ignore this handicap of the investigating agency in discharging their duty. We cannot derail the entire case on the mere ground of absence of independent witness as long as the evidence of eye witness, though interested is trustworthy."
40. So, non-joining of a public person, by itself did not make the prosecution story doubtful. More so where, PW6 SI Nirbhay Rana refuted all the suggestions based on false implication of accused persons. Therefore, testimony of PW6-SI Nirbhay Rana was trustworthy and reliable.
State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 18 of 2041. The net result is that prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that accused persons were found in possession of antiques Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2.
42. Testimony of prosecution witnesses were trustworthy and reliable. I believed the same to be true.
43. So far as accused persons are concerned, they failed to raise any probable defence. They failed to explain as to why they were implicated in this case, falsely, as alleged by them. Accused Nepal Singh stated that he was lifted from his house and accused Suresh stated that he was lifted from his shop in Jaipur by police, when their statements u/sec. 313 CrPC were recorded. They did not give details of their respective house and shop from where they were lifted. They did not give details of time and persons before whom they were lifted. They did not explain the details of police officials who had lifted them. They did not explain as to why they did not lodge complaint against the persons, who had lifted them. As such, they failed to put any defence by way of suggestions to prosecution witnesses. They simply remained mum, after being allegedly falsely implicated by police, which did not match with conduct of reasonable prudent person, placed in their position. So, they failed to raise any probable defence in their favour. I discarded their explanation given u/sec. 313 CrPC.
State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 19 of 2044. The net result is that prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, following facts :-
a) That accused persons were carrying two antiques, i.e. metal idol of Lord Mahavir of 14th Century in meditation posture and another stone's sculpture of 9th Century.
b) That accused persons were having common intention to sell those antiques on 22.06.2009 at about 6.20 pm, Near NAFED Building, Ashram Chowk, New Delhi.
c) That accused persons were not having any registration in terms of Sec. 14(3) of the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972.
d) That accused persons did not intimate to the registering officer, in terms of Sec. 17 of the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972.
45. So, accused persons are convicted for offence punishable u/sec. 25(2) of the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972.
46. Ld. Trial Court as such, passed illegal judgment by wrongly appreciating evidence brought on record by prosecution. Therefore, impugned judgment dated 27.05.2016, stands set aside. TCR be sent back along-with copy of this judgment.
Announced in the Open Court Today [PRASHANT SHARMA] ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi 03.01.2023 State Vs. Suresh @ Sunny, CA No. 204733/2016 Page 20 of 20