Delhi District Court
State vs Ranjeet on 2 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 27270/2017)
FIR No. 331/2013
Police Station Paharganj
Charge-sheet filed under 394/397/411/457/392/34 IPC
Sections
Charges framed against accused Sec. 394/397/34, 457/34, 414
Ranjeet. IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act.
Charges framed against accused Sec. 394/397/34, 457/34, 411
persons namely Bhura @ Tohin IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act.
& Anual.
State Versus 1. Ranjeet,
S/o Sh. Vishwanath,
R/o Gali No. 6, Kachha
Khajuri, Sri Ram Colony,
Khajuri Khas, Delhi.
2. Bhura @ Tohin,
S/o Sh. Shahjahan,
R/o E-75, Puja Colony, Loni,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
3. Anual,
S/o Sh. Lal Sharif,
R/o H. No. 2990, E-Block,
Bawana, Delhi.
Permanent Address:-
Village Banga, PS Badarpur,
Distt. Karimganj, Aasam.
...Accused Persons.
FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj
State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 1 of 62
Date of Institution of case 31.03.2014
Date of Arguments 21.04.2026 & previous dates
Judgment reserved on 21.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on 02.05.2026
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Ranjeet, Bhura @ Tohin & Anual are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 394/397/34 IPC, Sec. 457/34 IPC & Sec. 25/54/59 Arms Act. Additionally accused persons namely Bhura @ Tohin & Anual are facing trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 411 IPC & accused Ranjeet is facing trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 414 IPC. The story of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 02.11.2013 & 03.11.2013 at about 01:50 am at H. No. 3515, third floor, Arjun Gali, Dariba Pan, Paharganj, Delhi all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of cash in sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the Almirah of the complainant after entering her house (which was closed from inside) from the terrace and some other documents along with gold ornaments including four bangles, one chain, ear rings, one ring and cash in sum of Rs. 18,000/- which were kept in the pant of the husband of complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi and one Samsung mobile phone belonging to the husband of complainant, by using deadly weapon i.e. knife and also caused hurt to husband of the complainant by giving him kick blows during commission of robbery. Further, on the aforesaid date, time and FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 2 of 62 place, aforesaid three accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed offence of lurking house trespass by night in order to commit an offence of robbery. Further on 07.11.2013 at Gali No. 6, Sri Ram Colony, Kachha Kajuri, Khajuri Khas, Delhi accused Ranjeet was found in possession of knife. Further on 07.11.2013 at E-75, Puja Colony, Loni, Ghaziabad, accused Bhura @ Tohin was found in possession of knife (chapat) & on 07.11.2013 at Park, near Gagan Cinema, Nand Nagari, Delhi, accused Anual was found in possession of (chapat), in contravention of Delhi Administration Notification. Further on 10.11.2013 at F-75, Puja Colony, Loni, Ghaziabad, accused Bhura @ Tohin was found in possession of Voter i-card bearing no. RJN155640 of Sh. Ashok Kumar, husband of the complainant and gold tops of the complainant. Further on 08.11.2013, accused Anual was found in possession of gold chain embedded with photo of Sherawali Mata of the complainant and further on 05.11.2013, accused Ranjeet disposed off the stolen mobile phone make Samsung belonging to husband of the complainant by selling it to witness Tasleem Ansari, which he knew or had reason to believe to be stolen property.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the case are that on the intervening night of 02/03.11.2013, on receiving DD No. 5PP, Ex. PW-8/A & DD No. 6PP, Ex. 8/B, regarding theft at H. No. 3515, 3rd Floor, Dariba Pan, Paharganj, Delhi, PW-8 SI Khajan Singh along with Ct. Anil Kumar went to the spot, where PW-1 complainant Smt. Pushpa met them and got FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 3 of 62 recorded her statement, Ex. PW-1/A. Thereafter, PW-8 SI Khajan Singh made endorsement, Ex. PW-8/C on complaint of Smt. Pushpa and got recorded the present FIR at PS Paharganj, through Ct. Anil. Thereafter, further investigation of this case was entrusted to PW-23 Inspector Vimal Kumar. Thereafter, PW-23/IO Inspector Vimal Kumar reached at the spot and got inspected the spot through Mobile Crime Team, tried to lift chance print from the spot, prepared site plan, Ex. PW-1/C at instance of complainant and seized blood lying on the roof & a bag containing one rope, three screw drivers, one pilas etc., which were left by the accused persons vide seizure memos Ex. PW-8/D & Ex. PW-1/B. During investigation, IO also seized footage of CCTV camera installed near the spot vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/A and kept the robbed mobile phones of victims on surveillance.
3. On 06.11.2013, it was revealed that one of the stolen mobile phone of victims was found activated with mobile phone no. 9971538058 of Airtel company and its subscriber's name was revealed as Tasleem Ansari. Thereafter, IO along with police staff went at the house of Tasleem Ansari situated at 838, Gali No. 19, A-Block, Sri Ram Colony, Khajuri Khas, Delhi, where Tasleem Ansari met them and informed that the said mobile phone was given to him by Ranjeet in sum of Rs. 400/-. Thereafter, IO seized the said mobile phone vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/A. Thereafter, Tasleem Ansari led the police party to the house of accused Ranjeet situated at Gali No. 6, Kachha Khajuri, Sri Ram FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 4 of 62 Colony, Delhi, where two persons were seen sitting outside the house and Tasleem Ansari identified one of them as Ranjeet. On seeing police party, both the persons tried to ran away from there but IO along with police staff apprehended both of them and name of other person was revealed as Bhura @ Tohin. Thereafter, on cursory search of accused Ranjeet, one knife (chapad) and Voter i-card of husband of complainant namely Ashok Kumar Gupta were recovered and on search of accused Bhura @ Tohin one knife (chapad) was recovered. Thereafter IO prepared sketch of both the knives (chapad), Ex. PW-9/B & Ex. PW-9/C and seized the same vide seizure memos, Ex. PW-9/D & Ex. PW-9/E. IO also seized the voter id card of husband of complainant vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/F. Thereafter, IO arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memos, Ex. PW-9/G & Ex. PW-9/H, conducted their personal search vide memos, Ex. PW-9/I & Ex. PW-9/J and recorded their disclosure statements, Ex. PW-9/K & Ex. PW-9/L. Thereafter, pursuant to disclosure statements, accused persons namely Ranjeet and Bhura @ Tohin got recovered one LED TV and one Laptop from the house of his brother namely Sanjeev which were also seized by IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-9/M.
4. During investigation, on 08.11.2013, accused persons namely Ranjeet & Bhura @ Tohin led the police party to the spot near Gagan Cinema, Nand Nagri and got apprehended co- accused Anual and on his personal search, one knife and one yellow coloured chain locket belonging to complainant were FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 5 of 62 recovered from right pocket of his trousers. Thereafter, IO seized the chain vide seizure memo Ex. PW-11/A, prepared sketch of knife, Ex. PW-11/B and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-11/C. Thereafter IO arrested accused Anual vide arrest memo Ex. PW-11/D, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-11/E and recorded his disclosure statement, Ex. PW-11/F. Thereafter IO moved and application, Ex. PW-23/A for conducting TIP of all three accused persons before the Ld. MM but they refused to participate in TIP proceedings. During investigation, all the three accused persons pointed out spot of incident vide memos Ex. PW-11/H to Ex. PW-11/J and in the meantime, complainant also came at the spot and identified all the three accused persons as robbers. During investigation, accused Bhura led the police party to his house and got recovered ear tops which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-12/B and thereafter, IO also got conducted TIP proceedings of recovered stolen articles. Efforts were also made by the IO to trace accomplice of accused persons namely Hanan but he could not be traced. During investigation, IO also collected notification regarding Arms, Ex. PW-19/A, obtained CDR/CAF of relevant phone numbers, collected Crime Team Report along with photographs and PCR Form. On completion of investigation, IO prepared charge-sheet and filed the same before the Court through the SHO.
5. Vide order dated 11.03.2014, copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to all three accused persons under Section 207 FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 6 of 62 Cr.P.C and vide order dated 25.03.2014, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
6. Vide order dated 12.12.2014, Ld. Predecessor was pleased to frame charges under Sec. 394/397/34 IPC, Sec. 457/34 IPC, Sec. 414 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act against accused Ranjeet and charges under Sec. 394/397/34 IPC Sec. 457/34 IPC, Sec. 411 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act against accused persons namely Bhura @ Tohin and Anual. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.
7. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 23 witnesses. The testimonies of presecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
8. PW-1 Smt. Pushpa Devi, was the complainant in the present case. She deposed that she was a housewife and she was residing at H. No. 3515, 3rd Floor, Arjun Gali, Dariba Pan, Paharganj, New Delhi along with her family consisting of herself, her husband and her son Rahul Gupta. She further deposed that she did not remember the date of incident but it was Dhanteres i.e. one day prior to Diwali in the year 2013. She further deposed that on that day, she along with her hsuband was sleeping in the house and her son had gone for some marriage party at Ashok Vihar and he was expected to return at about mid night. She further deposed that at about 12:30 am (night), she made a call to her son and he informed her that he would return shortly. She further deposed that after about 30-45 minutues of FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 7 of 62 making call to his son, four persons entered from roof as main door of their house was bolted from inside and they entered their bed room and surrounded the bed. She further deposed that all the four persons were having knives in their hands and had covered their faces with the handkerchiefs lying in her laundary. She further deposed that one of them put knife on her neck and one of them put blanket over her husband. She further deposed that they also tied a duppata around his neck but her husband inserted his finger in between the dupatta and his neck so that he could breath. She further deposed that three mobile phones i.e. Samsung, one Reliance and the make of third one she did not remember, which were kept near the bed were taken by those persons after removing the SIM from mobile phones. She further deposed that thereafter they made her to remove her gold ring, her gold nose pin and her gold ear rings. She further deposed that they extended threat to their life due to which she handed over the aforesaid gold articles. She further deposed that they also removed cash of Rs. 15,000-20,000/- from the pocket of the pant of her husband which was hanging near almirah. She further deposed that during this process when her husband objected to the acts of assailants, one of them commanded her to ask her husband to keep quiet or else they would kill them. She further deposed that robbers also opened the Godrej almirah and they took out cash of Rs. 50,000/- and they asked asked her to hand over them the key of locker. She further deposed that they broke open the locker and took out one bundle of Rs. 10/- denomination i.e. Rs. 1,000/- and they also opened her purse FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 8 of 62 lying in the almirah and took out four gold bangles, two wrist watches (gents) and they also ransacked their house. She further deposed that at about 02:56 am (night), her son Rahul Gupta returned and he called her from outside and asked her to open the door. She further deposed that accused persons heard the noise and out of the four, three fled away from there by jumping to the roof of other house from the roof of her house while the fourth one who had overpowered her husband remained inside the room. She further deposed that the said person came to the main door from her room and on seeing him with knife, her son bolted the door from outside and thereafter the said person bolted them inside their room and managed to flee away through the balcony. She further deposed that her son made a call to the police and police reached the spot and made inquiries from her. She further deposed that she disclosed description of robbers to the police. She also deposed that during incident handkerchief from the face of one of the robbers fell down and she had seen him. She further deposed that after detailed inquiry, she made her statement, Ex. PW-1/A to the police and disclosed him that she could identify those robbers, if appeared before her. She also deposed that the robbers left behind their bag which on checking was found containing one plastic rope, water bottle and other articles which were seized by Police vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-1/B. She further deposed that robbers fled away via the roof of house no. 3496, Dariba Pan, Paharganj. She also deposed that the fourth robber had sustained injuries while fleeing and his blood was found on the boundary wall, ground floor and balcony of house.
FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 9 of 62 She also deposed that she had shown the spot to the IO and IO prepared site plan, Ex. PW-1/C and IO seized the blood which were lying on the aforesaid places. She also deposed that on 08.11.2013, she had identified the three accused persons who were in the custody of IO. This witness duly identified all the three accused persons as well as case properties during her deposition before the court.
9. In her cross-examination, PW-1 Smt. Pushpa Devi deposed that the light of the room in which she was sleeping was not switched on. She admitted that before the incident, she had slept and she woke up when the robbers had put knife on her neck. She denied the suggestion that due to dark in the room, she could not see the faces of the robbers. Voluntarily, she deposed that the robbers had switched on the light in the room. She also deposed that she did not tell any specific identification mark on the faces of the robbers to the police. She also deposed that she had told the police that robbers had tied her husband with dupatta. She also deposed that accused persons had told her and her husband to keep quite otherwise they would cut them. She also deposed that she had not told the detailed description of her gold jewellery. She also deposed that police did not show the CCTV footage to her. She denied the suggestion that none of the accused had come her house or that they had not robbed her and her husband. She also deposed that she did not see the accused at any stage between the date of incident and on her examination- in-chief recorded on 30.08.2015 & 11.08.2015. This witness was FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 10 of 62 also confronted with her statement, Ex. PW-1/A recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC at various points.
10. PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, was the husband of complainant as well as one of the victim. He deposed that on the intervening night of 02/03.11.2013, he along with his wife namely Smt. Pushpa Gupta was sleeping in the house and his son Rahul Gupta had gone to Ashok Vihar to attend some party of his friends. He further deposed that at about 01:30 am, four persons entered in his house and one of them put a blanket on him. He further deposed that accused Ranjeet along with the said three persons were having big knives in their hands. He further deposed that his wife was asked by the accused persons to sit on the bed by showing knives. He further deposed that accused persons robbed the jewellery articles of his wife, which she was wearing and they broke open the almirah and took out Rs. 50,000/- and four gold bangles. He further deposed that they also took Rs. 20,000/- and his voter ID card from the pocket of his pant. He further deposed that in the meantime, his son Rahul Gupta came at about 02:45 am and he knocked the door. He further deposed that one of the accused persons went to open the door and after seeing the accused, his son bolted the door of the house from outside and raised the alarm and thereafter all the accused persons ran away through the roof of the flat. He further deposed that he could not see the faces of other persons. He also deposed that accused persons had left behind their bag which was containing some instruments. He also deposed that accused FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 11 of 62 persons had also taken away their 2-3 mobile phones but they had thrown the SIM of mobile phones there. He further deposed that his son had called the police by dialing 100 number and police came at about 04:30-05:00 am and inspected the spot and recorded his statement and that of his wife. He also deposed that during investigation, police seized the bag which the accused persons had left and same was containing the screw driver etc. He also deposed that thereafter he never joined the investigation of this case nor he had seen any accused. This witness was cross- examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which he admitted that he had stated to the police in his statement that one boy, who had put blanket on him and sat on his chest and gave beatings to him with leg and fist blows. He also admitted that the amount which was taken out of his pocket of the pant was Rs. 18,000/- only. He also deposed that he had not stated in his statement that when his son had knocked the door, accused started running hither and thither due to which the respective handkerchiefs from the faces of the other accused slipped and he had also seen the faces of other three accused persons. He also deposed that he did not state before the police that in the process of running, one of the accused got injury in his leg, however, his neighbourers had told him about the injury received by one of the accused. He admitted that on 08.11.2013, police had brought other three accused persons to his house and they were shown to them and his wife had identified them. He also deposed that he did not state in his statement that he had also seen them and identified them. He also deposed that he had not stated in his statement that he also FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 12 of 62 narrated the role of the said three accused to the police. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberetly suppressing the identity of other three accused, out of which two were present in the court besides accused Ranjeet Singh or that he had seen the faces of all the four accused persons at the spot. This witness was confronted with his statement Mark PW-2/2 on various aspects. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he deposed that he did not get up after hearing some noise but one of the accused straightaway put blanket on him and sat on his chest. He deposed that he had seen the face of the said accused when he started running away and said accused was accused Ranjeet. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the said accused as there was dark. He denied the suggestion that since his old voter card became useless and hence he gave the same to the police in order to falsely implicate the accused in this case. He also deposed that after some days, police had shown them some photographs but they could not identify any of the persons from the said photos. He also deposed that photo of accused Ranjeet was never shown to him and he had seen him while he asked him to run away on the day of incident. He denied the suggestion that accused Ranjeet never entered his house on the day of incident or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the police.
11. PW-3 Sh. Prince Arora, was neighbour of complainant. He deposed that he did not remember the date, however, on the night of 'choti diwali' prior to the festival of Diwali, he was sleeping in FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 13 of 62 his house. He further deposed that at about 01:30-02:00 am, he heard some noise of running of persons from the roof of his house. He also deposed that he came out from his house and saw that some persons were running after jumping from the roof of his house. He also deposed that he saw them in gali and out of those persons, someone's blood was there on the wall of his house. He further deposed that police came and lifted the said blood from the boundary wall of his house and they also took blood stained earth control from the boundary wall. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he had called the police from the mobile phone of his brother and the police may have reached after about 15 mintues. He also deposed that he did not sign any document prepared by the police. He also deposed that he did not recollect as to how the earth control was taken by the police but it was broken in his presence.
12. PW-4 Sh. Subhash Sahani, was also neighbour of complainant. He deposed that on the intervening night of 02/03.11.2013, he was present in his house and at about 02:45 am suddenly he woke up and he heard some noise from the house of his neighbour. He further deposed that he he had also heard some sound of jumping of someone on his terrace. He further deposed that thereafter he made a call on 100 number of his mobile phone no. 8010862010. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the abovesaid mobile phone was in his name. He denied the suggestion that he did not hear any sound or that he did not make any call to the police.
FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 14 of 62
13. PW-5 Sh. Rahul Kumar Gupta, was the son of the complainant. He deposed that on the intervening night of 02/03.11.2013, he had gone to the house of his friend and he returned to his house at about 02:30-03:00 am. He further deposed that he knocked the door which was bolted from inside. He also deposed that he heard some noise of crying and he also heard some sound of jumping of someone on the roof. He further deposed that he suspected that some persons were inside his house and thereafter he made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone no. 8010001137. He also deposed that he did not see any person. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he along with some of his neighbour namely Bharat Arora went inside his house from roof side and opened the door. He also deposed that police recorded his statement in the morning in the police station. He also deposed that he did not remember whether the statement of Bharat Arora was recorded or not.
14. PW-6 Sh. Manoj Porwal, deposed that their office had a store at premises no. 8690-91, Arakasa Lane, Paharganj, near Sant Anthony School. He further deposed that a CCTV camera was installed at abovesaid store which was being controlled from his office. He further deposed that on 03.11.2013, police officials of PS Paharganj came to their office and asked for CCTV footage of intervening night of 02/03.11.2013. He further deposed that he checked the abovesaid footage and found that two three boys were going towards Arakasa Road in the Gali. He further deposed that he had taken out the copy of abovesaid footage from FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 15 of 62 DVR through computer system and handed over the same to the IO in pen drive/CD, which was seized by IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-6/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had given the copy of footage through pendrive and IO did not seal the pendriver in his presence. He also deposed that he did not give any certificate under Sec. 65B in respect of retrieving CCTV footage.
15. PW-7 SI Madan Singh Bisht, was In-charge at Mobile Crime Team. He proved his detailed report regarding inspection of spot of incident as Ex. PW-7/A. He also deposed that no fingerprints were found at the spot. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he remained at the spot from 04:30 am to 05:30 am.
16. PW-8 SI Khajan Singh, was the first IO in the present case. He further deposed that on the intervening night of 02/03.11.2013 DD No. 5, Ex. PW-8/A & DD No. 6, Ex. PW-8/B were assigned to him. He further deposed that he along with Ct. Anil Kumar went to the spot i.e. H. No. 3515, 3rd Floor, Dariba Pan, Paharganj, Delhi, where complainant Smt. Pushpa met them and got recorded her statement, Ex. PW-1/A. He further deposed that he made endorsement, Ex. PW-8/C on complaint of Smt. Pushpa and got recorded the present FIR at PS Paharganj, through Ct. Anil. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, further investigation of this case was entrusted to Inspector Vimal Kumar, who came to the spot and he joined the investigation along with him. He further deposed that SI Vimal Kumar called Crime Team and got inspected the spot of incident and tried to FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 16 of 62 lift the chance print. He further deposed that IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. He further deposed that complainant informed the IO that robbers had jumped out through a window of the room on the third floor and she showed the said window to IO. He further deposed that some blood was found lying on the roof of adjoining house which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/D. He also deposed that a CCTV camera was installed near a school and the footage was checked and four persons were seen running. He also deposed that IO seized the said footage through a CD vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-6/A. He also deposed that accused person had left their bag at the spot and same was checked which was found containing one rope, three screw drivers, on piler etc. which was seized by IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-1/B. This witness correctly identified case property during his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the abovesaid DD entries were assigned to him at around 03:00 am. He also deposed that the CCTV camera was installed at a distance of approximately 200 meters from the spot. He also deposed that no chance print could be developed from the articles found at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot at any point of time or that no proceeding was conducted by him or in his presence at the spot.
17. PW-9 ASI Mahesh Kumar, deposed that on 07.11.2013, he along with SI Vimal Kumar and other staff members went to Khajuri Khas in a private Maruti van and reported to the house FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 17 of 62 no. 838, Gali No. 19, A-Block, Sri Ram Colony, Khajuri Khas where one Tasleem Ansari met them and they came to know that he was using his SIM card in a mobile phone of Samsung . He further deposed that on inquiry, Tasleem Ansari told that he had purchased the said mobile set from Ranjeet for Rs. 400/- on 05.11.2013. He further deposed that the said Tasleem Ansari further told that when he asked Ranjeet for bill on which Ranjeet told him that he would provide the bill later on. He also deposed that SI Vimal Kumar seized the said mobile phone vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-9/A. He further deposed that Tasleem Ansari further told that said Ranjeet was residing in Gali No. 6 and he took them to the house of Ranjeet where he identified accused Ranjeet who was sitting along with some person. He further deposed that accused Ranjeet was apprehended by the IO along with said person namely Bhura @ Tohin. He further deposed that on their formal search one chopper each was recovered from their possession. He proved sketches of both the choppers as well as their seizure memos exhibited as Ex. PW-9/B & Ex. PW-9/E. He also proved seizure memo of election ID card of husband of complainant recovered from possession of accused Ranjeet exhibited as Ex. PW-9/F. He also proved arrest memos of accused Ranjeet & Bhura @ Tohin exhibited as Ex. PW-9/G & Ex. PW-9/H, their personal search memos exhibited as Ex. PW-9/I & Ex. PW-9/J and their disclosure statements exhibited as Ex. PW-9/K & Ex. PW-9/L. He also proved seizure memo of LED TV and one laptop recovered at instance of accused persons exhibited as Ex. PW-9/M. This witness duly identified both the FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 18 of 62 accused persons as well as case property during his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the statement of Tasleem Ansari was not recorded at his house when he met them for the first time. He admitted that there were many houses in the Gali. He also admitted that no public witness joined the investigation. He also deposed that no family members of accused Ranjeet joined the investigation. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were not arrested from Gali No. 6 or that they were lifted from their houses. He also denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused persons or that case property was planted upon them. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the IO or that accused persons had no role in this case.
18. PW-10 Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. proved CDR for the period of 05.11.2013 to 06.11.2013, CAF along with ID proof, Cell ID chart & certificate under Sec. 65B of Indian Evidence Act of mobile phone number 9971538058 issued in the name of Tasleem Ansari exhibited as Ex. PW-10/A to Ex. PW-10/D. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the record which was brought by him was tampered with.
19. PW-11 HC Kuldeep, deposed that on 08.11.2013, he joined the investigation in the present case along with other police staff. He further deposed that accused persons namely Ranjeet and Bhura @ Tohin led the police party near Gagan Cinema, Nand Nagari, where accused Ranjeet pointed towards a person, who FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 19 of 62 was standing in a park and told that the name of said person was Anual. He further deposed that the said person was apprehended and his name was confirmed as Anual. He also deposed that his formal search was taken and one knife was recovered from right pocket of his trousers. He also deposed that one yellow coloured chain locket was also recovered from the right pocket of his trouser. He proved seizure memo of chain, sketch of knife and its seizure memo as Ex. PW-11/A to Ex. PW-11/C. He also proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Anual exhibited as Ex. PW-11/D to Ex. PW-11/F. He also proved site plan of place of recovery of knife and gold as Ex. PW-11/G. He also narrated about production of accused persons in muffled face before Ld. MM and refusal for TIP proceedings by accused persons. He also proved pointing out memos of spot of incident by accused persons exhibited as Ex. PW-11/H to Ex. PW-11/J. This witness correctly identify accused persons as well as case property during his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that five to seven persons were present in the park when accused Anual was apprehended. He also deposed that at the time of taking formal search of accused Anual, IO had asked some public persons who were present in the park to join the investigation but none of them agreed. He also deposed that there were houses near the park but no permanent resident of the area was called to join the investigation. He also deposed that accused was kept in muffled face before producing him in the court. He denied the suggestion that none of the accused persons had pointed out the place of FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 20 of 62 occurrence or that memos in this regard were prepared by the IO of his own. He also denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused Anual.
20. PW-12 ASI Shiv Kumar, deposed that on 07.11.2013 he joined the investigation in the present case along with IO. He narrated identically on the lines of PW-9 ASI Mahesh Kumar regarding apprehension of accused persons namely Ranjeet & Bhura @ Tohin at instance of Tasleem Ansari and recovery of choppers from their possession. He also proved seizure memos of theft mobile phone, sketches of both recovered knives and their seizure memos, exhibited as Ex. PW-9/A to Ex. PW-9/E. He also proved seizure memo of recovered voter id card of husband of complainant and site plan of recovery of choppers exhibited as Ex. PW-9/F & Ex. PW-12/A. He also proved arrest memos of accused Ranjeet & Bhura @ Tohin, their personal search memo and their disclosure statements exhibited as Ex. PW-9/G to Ex. PW-9/L. He also narrated about recovery of LED Tv and one laptop at instance of accused Ranjeet. He also narrated about apprehension of co-accused Anual at instance of accused persons namely Ranjeet & Bhura @ Tohin and recovery of knife and gold chain from his possession, on the lines of PW-11 HC Kuldeep. He also proved seizure memo of gold chain, sketch of knife and its seizure memo exhibited as Ex. PW-11/A to Ex. PW-11/C. He also proved arrest memo, personal search and disclosure statement of accused Anual exhibited as Ex. PW-11/D to Ex. PW-11/F. He also proved pointing out memos of spot of incident FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 21 of 62 by the accused persons exhibited as Ex. PW-11/H to Ex. PW-11/J. He also narrated about recovery of one gold tops at instance of accused Bhura @ Tohin from his house situated at E-75, Pooja Colony, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP and proved its seizure memo Ex. PW-12/B. This witness correctly identified accused persons as well as case property during his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had made departure entry while leaving the police station but he did not remember the DD number. He also deposed that he had asked 4-5 residents of the locality to join the investigation but none of them agreed and he did not give any notice to them for their refusal. He deposed that he had taken formal search of accused Anual at the place of his arrest. He also deposed that some persons were present in the park but none of them joined the investigation despite requests made to them. He denied the suggestion that he had shown the photographs of accused persons to witnesses before their TIP. He also deposed that accused Bhura took out one piece of gold tops from the box which was kept in his house. He also deposed that the signature of wife of accused Bhura was not taken on the seizure memo of tops. He also deposed that IO did not take any photograph at the time of recovery of articles. He denied the suggestion that no proceedings were conducted at the spot or that due to this reason no public witness had joined the investigation. He also denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused persons or that accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case. He also denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation of FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 22 of 62 this case or that all the documents were prepared in the police station.
21. PW-13 HC A. Khalique, deposed that on 10.11.2013 he joined the investigation in the present case along with IO. He further deposed that accused Bhura led the police party to his house situated at E-75, Pooja Colony, Ghaziabad and got recovered one top (gold ear ring). He proved seizure memo of gold ear ring as well as site plan of place of recovery exhibited as Ex. PW-12/B & Ex. PW-13/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that there were many residential houses around the house of accused and many public persons had gathered after seeing the police. He also deposed that no public person joined the investigation despite request and no notice was served by the IO to the public persons who refused to take part in the investigation. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation of this case at any point of time or that accused Bhura did not get anything recovered from his house. He also denied the suggestion that gold top was planted on the accused in order to falsely implicate him in this case.
22. PW-14 Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services proved CDR for period of 02.11.2013 to 03.11.2013, CAF along with ID proof & certificate under Sec. 65B of Indian Evidence Act of mobile phone no. 8860746016 issued in the name of Rahul Kumar, exhibited as Ex. PW-14/A to Ex. PW-14/C. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 23 of 62
23. PW-15 Ct. Sanoj, was DD Writer at PP Sangatrashan, PS Paharganj. He proved copy of DD No. 5 & DD No. 6, exhibited as Ex. PW-8/A & Ex. PW-8/B. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that both DD entries were ante-dated and ante-timed.
24. PW-16 Sh. Amit Kumar Sharma, Nodal Officer, Reliance Communication Ltd. proved CDR for the period of 02.11.2013 to 03.11.2013, his letter regarding destruction of CAF after limitation, circular of Department of Telecom regarding storage of CAF & certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act of mobile phone no. 9310263385 issued to Hotel Great Shiva, Ashok Kumar, Sangatrashan Bazar, opposite Banke Bihari Mandir, Paharganj, Delhi, exhibited as Ex. PW-16/A to Ex. PW-16/D. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had brought the documents at the instance of the police.
25. PW-17 HC Badlu Ram, was Duty Officer at PS Paharganj. He proved copy of present FIR, his endorsement on rukka and certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, exhibited as Ex. PW-17/A to Ex. PW-17/C. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion no rukka was received by him or that FIR was recorded at the instance of the IO to falsely implicate the accused persons.
26. PW-18 W/HC Kiran, was Operator at Central Police Control Room. She deposed that in the intervening night of 02/03.11.2013 at about 03:10 am, an information was recorded FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 24 of 62 about entry of thieves in H. No. 3715, Dariba Pan, opposite Sheela Cinema, Paharganj. She proved PCR form regarding this information exhibited as Ex. PW-18/A. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she did not remember the mobile number by which the said call was made. She denied the suggestion that no such call was received at CPCR.
27. PW-19 Sh. Ramesh, Assistant Clerk, Deputy Secretary, Home (General), Delhi Administration proved notification no. F.13/203/78-Home (G) dated 17.02.1979 exhibited as Ex. PW-19/A. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
28. PW-20 HC Anil Kumar, deposed that in the intervening night of 02/03.11.2013, on receipt of DD No. 5 & DD No. 6, he along with ASI Khajan Singh went to the spot i.e. 3515, Dariba Pan, 3rd floor, Paharganj, Delhi, where complainant Smt. Pushpa Gupta met them. He further deposed that ASI Khajan Singh recorded her statement and made his endorsement on the statement and handed over rukka to him and sent him to PS Paharganj for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he got the case registered and further investigation of this case was assigned to SI Vimal Kumar. He further deposed that he took original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to SI Vimal Kumar. He further deposed that dog squad and crime team were called at the spot and the spot was inspected by Crime Team In-charge. He further deposed that on inquiry, it was revealed that a back-pack of the robbers had been left at the spot and IO lifted FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 25 of 62 the blood from different places at the spot with the help of cotton. In his cross-examination, he deposed that ASI Khajan Singh handed over the rukka to him at about 04:40 am. He also deposed that no footprint was taken by the Crime Team in his presence. He also deposed that no chance-print was developed from the spot. He denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation of this case or that he did not visit the spot.
29. PW-21 Mr. Harun Pratap, OSD to Hon'ble Lokayukta, NCT of Delhi proved TIP proceedings of the case property, application of IO for conducting TIP of case property & application of IO for supplying copy of TIP proceedings exhibited as Ex. PW-21/A to Ex. PW-21/C. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he did not remember the shape of the locket and the chain which constituted the case property and those which were brought as mixing material. Voluntarily, he deposed that they were identical in shape and size.
30. PW-22 Retd. ASI Akhilesh Kumar was MHC(M) at PS Paharganj. He proved entries in register no. 19 regarding deposit of case properties by the IO, exhibited as Ex. PW-22/A to Ex. PW-22/D. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the entries Ex. PW-22/A to Ex. PW-22/D were ante-dated and ante-timed as made in Register No. 19. He denied the suggestion that the said exhibits were tampered with when it remained in his custody. He admitted that he had not obtained signatures of SI Vimal Kumar on the aforesaid entries in register no. 19. He deposed that he did not obtain certificate under Sec. 65B of FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 26 of 62 Indian Evidence Act and photographs of the articles released to the owners as mentioned in entries no. Ex. PW-22/B to Ex. PW-22/D.
31. PW-23 Inspector Vimal Kumar was the Investigating Officer in the present case. He summed up the case of the prosecution by narrating the proceedings conducted by him. He deposed that on 03.11.2013, further investigation of present matter was assigned to him after registration of FIR. He further deposed that he went to the spot i.e. H. No. 3515, 3 rd Floor, Arjun Gali, Dariba Pan, Paharganj where dog squad and crime team also visited the spot. He further deposed that he prepared site plan, Ex. PW-1/C at the instance of complainant and seized blood lying on the roof & a bag containing one rope, three screw drivers, one pilas etc., which were left by the accused persons vide seizure memos Ex. PW-8/D & Ex. PW-1/B. He further deposed that he also seized footage of CCTV camera installed near the spot vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/A and kept the robbed mobile phones of victims on surveillance. He further deposed that on 06.11.2013, it was revealed that one of mobile phone of victims was found activated with mobile phone no. 9971538058 of Airtel company and its subscriber's name was revealed as Tasleem Ansari and thereafter, he along with police staff went at the house of Tasleem Ansari situated at 838, Gali No. 19, A- Block, Sri Ram Colony, Khajuri Khas, Delhi, where Tasleem Ansari met them and informed that the said mobile phone was given to him by Ranjeet for Rs. 400/-. He further deposed that he FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 27 of 62 seized the said mobile phone vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/A. He further deposed that Tasleem Ansari led the police party to the house of accused Ranjeet situated at Gali No. 6, Kachha Khajuri, Sri Ram Colony, Delhi, where two persons were seen sitting outside the house and Tasleem Ansari identified one of them as Ranjeet. He further deposed that on seeing police party, both the persons tried to ran away from there but he along with police staff apprehended both of them and name of other person was revealed as Bhura @ Tohin. He further deposed that on cursory search of accused Ranjeet, one knife (chapad) and Voter i-card of husband of complainant namely Ashok Kumar Gupta were recovered and on search of accused Bhura @ Tohin one knife (chapad) was recovered. He further deposed that he prepared sketch of both the knives (chapad), Ex. PW-9/B & Ex. PW-9/C and seized the same vide seizure memos, Ex. PW-9/D & Ex. PW-9/E. He further deposed that he also seized the voter id card of husband of complainant vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/F. He further deposed that he arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memos, Ex. PW-9/G & Ex. PW-9/H, conducted their personal search vide memos, Ex. PW-9/I & Ex. PW-9/J and recorded their disclosure statements, Ex. PW-9/K & Ex. PW-9/L and pursuant to disclosure statements, accused persons namely Ranjeet and Bhura @ Tohin got recovered on LED TV and one Laptop from the house of his brother Sanjeev which were also seized by him vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-9/M. He further deposed that on 08.11.2013, accused persons namely Ranjeet & Bhura @ Tohin led the police party to the spot near Gagan FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 28 of 62 Cinema, Nand Nagri and got apprehended co-accused Anual and on his personal search, one knife and one yellow coloured chain locket belonging to complainant were recovered from right pocket of his trousers. He further deposed that he seized the chain vide seizure memo Ex. PW-11/A, prepared sketch of knife, Ex. PW-11/B and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-11/C. He further deposed that he arrested accused Anual vide arrest memo Ex. PW-11/D, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-11/E and recorded his disclosure statement, Ex. PW-11/F. He also deposed that he moved application, Ex. PW-23/A for conducting TIP of all three accused persons before Ld. MM but they refused to participate in TIP proceedings. He further deposed that all the three accused persons pointed out spot of incident vide memos Ex. PW-11/H to Ex. PW-11/J and in the meantime, complainant also came at the spot and identified all the three accused persons as robbers. He further deposed that accused Bhura led the police party to his house and got recovered ear tops which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-12/B and thereafter, he also got conducted TIP proceedings of recovered stolen articles. He further deposed that efforts were also made by the IO to trace accomplice of accused persons namely Hanan but he could not be traced. He further deposed that he also collected notification regarding Arms, Ex. PW-19/A, obtained CDR/CAF of relevant phone numbers, collected Crime Team Report along with photographs and PCR Form. This witness correctly identified all the three accused persons as well as case properties during his deposition before the court.
FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 29 of 62
32. In his cross-examination, PW-23 Inspector Vimal Kumar deposed that no fingerprint could be developed from the articles at the spot. He also deposed that he checked for CCTV cameras but no camera was found at the spot, however, one camera was found in gali across the road which was about 500 meters from the spot. He also deposed that he did not verify any bill of robbed items. Voluntarily, he deposed that complainant did not give any bill. He also deposed that no public persons joined the investigation and no notice was served upon the public persons who refused to become witness. He denied the suggestion that he had not made complainant to join the investigation as no such incident occured with him. He also deposed that he did not remember whether TIP of case properties was conducted or not. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were shown to the complainant before TIP in Police Station. He also deposed that he did not remember as to how many time, he recorded statement of complainant. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from accused persons. He also denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were conducted while sitting in the police station or that he had not visited the spot of incident.
33. During trial, accused persons admitted the genuineness of their TIP proceedings, exhibited as Ex. PA (colly), under Sec. 294 Cr.PC.
34. After closing of Prosecution Evidence, separate statements of accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein they denied all the charges against them. They claimed FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 30 of 62 themselves to be innocent. They further claimed that it was a false case against them and they had not committed any offence and police had falsely implicated them in the present case. They further claimed that they used to work as a helper with Halwai and while they were returning back from their work, they were apprehended by the police officials and were falsely implicated in the present case.
35. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. R. K. Saini, Ld. Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for accused persons.
36. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi and PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta have narrated the incident in detail. He further argued that PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi has correctly identified all the three accused persons while PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta had identified accused Ranjeet in the court at the time of recording of their testimonies. He further argued that PW-3 Sh. Prince Arora and PW-4 Sh. Subhash Sahni have also deposed that robbers had entered the house of PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi and thereafter they ran away from the spot after jumping from the roofs of their houses. He further argued that PW-6 Sh. Manoj Porwal has proved the CCTV footage in which the accused persons are visible. He FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 31 of 62 further argued that the accused Ranjeet had sold the robbed mobile phone to one Tasleem Ansari. He further argued that some of the robbed articles have been recovered from the possession of accused persons. He further argued that none of the prosecution witness has turned hostile. He also argued that the all the proceedings have been duly proved by the police witnesses and all the prosecution witnesses are of the sterling quality and hence all the accused persons should be convicted under all sections of law under which charges have been framed against them.
37. Per Contra Ld. Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his point, he argued that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an arbitrary manner. He further argued that as per testimony of PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi, the handkerchief from the face of only one accused had fallen and in these circumstances, it was not possible for her to identify all the accused persons. He further argued that accused persons have shown PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi and PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta and hence the identification of accused persons is doubtful. He also argued that the light of the room when the alleged robbery took place was switched off. He further argued that the faces of accused persons are not visible in the CCTV footage. He further argued that no ownership proof of case properties was given by the complainant to the IO. He also argued that no public person was joined in the investigation by FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 32 of 62 the IO at the time of recovery of case properties. He further argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, accused persons should be acquitted under all sections of law under which charges have been framed against them.
38. In the present case, charges under Sec. 394/397/34 IPC, Sec. 457/34 IPC, Sec. 414 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act have been framed against accused Ranjeet & charges under Sec. 394/397/34 IPC, Sec. 457/34 IPC, Sec. 411 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act have been framed against accused persons namely Bhura @ Tohin & Anual. These Sections have been elaborated as under:-
394. Voluntary causing hurt in committing robbery:-
If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery shall be punished with imprisonment or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.
397. Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt:-
If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or cause grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 33 of 62
457. Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment:-
Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
414. Assisting in concealment of stolen property:-
Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 411: Dishonestly receiving stolen property:-
Whosoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:-
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 34 of 62 Section 25 Arms Act provides punishment for the possession of arms without any license which has been defined as under:-
(1) Whoever--
(a) [manufactures, obtains, procures], sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm [or convert from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms] in contravention of section 6; or
(d) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term 5 which shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.
[(1A) Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which 7 shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to fourteen years] and shall also be liable to fine.
[Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.] [(1AB) Whoever, by using force, takes the firearm FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 35 of 62 from the police or armed forces shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.] (1AA) whoever manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less 9 than [ten years] but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.] [(1AAA)] Whoever has in contravention of a notification issued under section 24A in his possession or in contravention of a notification issued under section 24B carries or otherwise has in his possession, any arms or ammunition shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which 11 shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.
(1B) Whoever--
(a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3; or
(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; or FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 36 of 62
(c) sells or transfers any firearm which does not bear the name of the maker, manufacturers number or other identification mark stamped or otherwise shown thereon as required by sub-section (2) of section 8 or does any act in contravention of sub- section (1) of that section; or
(d) being a person to whom sub-clause (ii) or sub- clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of that section; or
(e) sells or transfers, or converts, repairs, tests or proves any firearm or ammunition in contravention of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9; or
(f) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 10; or
(g) transports any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 12; or
(h) fails to deposit arms or ammunition as required by sub-section (2) of section 3, or sub-section (1) of section 21; or
(i) being a manufacturer of, or dealer in, arms or ammunition, fails, on being required to do so by rules made under section 44, to maintain a record or account or to make therein all such entries as are required by such rules or intentionally makes a false entry therein or prevents or obstructs the inspection of such record or account or the making of copies of entries therefrom or prevents or obstructs the entry into any premises or other place where arms or ammunition are or is manufactured or kept or intentionally fails to exhibit or conceals FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 37 of 62 such arms or ammunition or refuses to point out where the same are or is manufactured or kept, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term 12 which shall not be less than [two years but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine] and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 13 less than [two years].] [(1C) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1B), whoever commits an offence punishable under that sub-section in any disturbed area shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, disturbed area means any area declared to be a disturbed area under any enactment, for the time being in force, making provision for the suppression of disorder and restoration and maintenance of public order, and includes any areas specified by notification under section 24A or section 24B.] (2) Whoever being a person to whom sub-clause (i) of clause
(a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of that section shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
[(3) Whoever sells or transfers any firearm, ammunition or other arms--
FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 38 of 62
(i) without informing the district magistrate having jurisdiction or the officer in charge of the nearest police station, of the intended sale or transfer of that firearm, ammunition or other arms; or
(ii) before the expiration of the period of forty-five days from the date of giving such information to such district magistrate or the officer in charge of the police station, in contravention of the provisions of clause (a) or clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.] (4) Whoever fails to deliver-up a licence when so required by the licensing authority under sub-section (1) of section 17 for the purpose of varying the conditions specified in the licence or fails to surrender a licence to the appropriate authority under sub-section (10) of that section on its suspension or revocation shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
(5) Whoever, when required under section 19 to give his name and address, refuses to give such name and address or gives a name or address which subsequently transpires to be false shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.
[(6) If any member of an organised crime syndicate or any person on its behalf has at any time has in his possession or carries any arms or ammunition in contravention of any provision of Chapter II shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 39 of 62 (7) Whoever on behalf of a member of an organised crime syndicate or a person on its behalf, -
(i) manufactures, obtains, procures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(ii) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a fire arm or converts from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms in contravention of section 6; or
(iii) brings into, or takes out of India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-sections (6) and (7),--
(a) organised crime means any continuing unlawful activity by any person, singly or collectively, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any person;
(b) organised crime syndicate means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime.
(8) Whoever involves in or aids in the illicit trafficking of firearms and ammunition in contravention of sections 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 40 of 62 shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, illicit trafficking means the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement or transfer of firearms and ammunition into, from or within the territory of India, if the firearms and ammunition are not marked in accordance with the provisions of this Act or are being trafficked in contravention of the provisions of this Act including smuggled firearms of foreign make or prohibited arms and prohibited ammunition.
(9) Whoever uses firearm in a rash or negligent manner or in celebratory gunfire so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others shall be punishable with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh, or with both.
39. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for accused.
40. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi and PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta are the star witnesses of the prosecution as they are the victims in the present case and their testimonies coupled with the corroborating evidence led by the prosecution are to be scrutinized as per the principles pertaining to the testimonies of eyewitnesses.
41. As per the prosecution story, the accused persons left their FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 41 of 62 bag, Ex. P-1 at the spot of incident which contained several articles including one green rope, limca bottle, one empty bottle, Magic Moment Vodka quarter bottle, three screw driver, one plier, one odomos tube and one adidas black cap. The alleged incident took place on the intervening night of 02/03.11.2013 at about 01:50 am. The rukka in the present case was prepared by PW-8 SI Khajan Singh (the then ASI) at about 04:40 am on the basis of statement of PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi, Ex. PW-1/A. However, neither PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi in her statement Ex. PW-1/A nor PW-8 SI Khajan Singh in rukka, Ex. PW-8/C prepared by him have mentioned anything about the availability of such bag at the spot of incident. Moreover, in any of the photographs clicked by the Crime Team, which have been placed on record by the prosecution, no such bag is visible. Even if it is presumed that such bag containing the abovesaid articles was left by the accused persons at the spot of incident i.e. house/flat of PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi, no evidence showing that the said bag containing the said articles belonged to accused persons. It is pertinent to mention that the said bag contained plastic bottle as well as glass bottle and if any person touches the plastic bottle or the glass bottle, the fingerprints of the said person will definately appear on the said bottle. PW-7 SI Madan Lal, In-charge, Mobile Crime Team has specifically deposed that no fingerprints were found at the spot of incident. In these circumstances, the leaving of abovesaid bag, Ex. P-1 at the spot of incident by the accused persons has become doubtful and FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 42 of 62 prosecution has failed to connect the said bag with the accused persons.
42. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi deposed that at about 12:30 am, she made call to her son who informed her that he would come shortly and after about 30-45 minutes of making her call, four persons entered her house. Thus, as per version of PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi, the alleged incident took place at about 01:00-01:15 am. PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta deposed that accused persons entered their house at about 01:30 am. As per the charges framed against accused persons, the incident took place at about 01:50 am. PW-3 Sh. Prince Arora deposed that he heard the noise of running of persons from his roof at about 01:30/02:00 am. PW-4 Sh. Subhash Sahni deposed that he woke up at about 02:45 am after hearing some noise from house of his neighbourer. PW-5 Sh. Rahul Kumar Gupta deposed that he returned to his house at about 02:30-03:00 am and he heard noice of crying and he made call at 100 number. The first call regarding the alleged incident was received at Police Post Sangatrashan at about 03:15 am which was recorded vide DD No. 5PPST, Ex. PW-8/A while the second call regarding the incident was received vide DD No. 6PPST, Ex. PW-8/B at about 03:38 am. Thus, there are material differences in the testimonies of different witneses with respect to the timings of entering of accused persons in the house of PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi and running away from there. This raises doubt with respect to the timing of happening of alleged incident.
FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 43 of 62
43. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi deposed that four persons entered from the roof as main door of her house was bolted from inside. The prosecution has not proved the hole in the roof of the house of the PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi through which the accused persons had entered her house as PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi has specifically deposed that the door of her house was bolted from inside and accused persons entered from the roof. There are photographs of the spot of incident on record but IO or any other prosecution witness has not pointed out the spot/hole from where accused persons entered the house of PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi. Moreover, there is no photograph on record showing any hole in the roof of the house of PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi.
44. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi deposed that the four accused persons who entered their house were having knives in their hands and they had covered their faces with the handkerchieves lying in her laudary. She further deposed that they also tied duppatta around the neck of her husband but her husband inserted his finger in between the dupatta and his neck so that he could breath. PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, husband of PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi has not at all deposed that any of accused persons ever tied dupatta around his neck or he put his fingers between the dupatta and his neck. This raises serious doubts on the veracity of PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi and PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta.
45. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi deposed that one of FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 44 of 62 the accused put knife on her neck. She also deposed that thereafter accused persons made her to remove her gold ring, her gold nose pin and gold ear rings. PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta deposed that the accused persons asked his wife (i.e. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi) to sit on the bed by showing knife. PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta has not deposed that any of the accused had put knife on the neck of PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi as deposed by her. This raises serious doubts on the veracity of PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi and PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta.
46. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi deposed that three mobile phones i.e. one Samsung, one Reliance & the third one of whose make she did not remember were taken by the accused persons after removing the SIMs from mobile phones. PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta has also deposed that accused persons had also taken away 2-3 mobile phones but they had thrown the SIM of mobile phones there. IO has not seized any such SIM cards from the spot of incident which were thrown by the accused persons at the spot of incident nor PW-8 SI Khajan Singh nor PW-23 IO/Inspector Vimal Kumar have deposed anything about the availability of such SIM card at the spot of incident. Moreover, PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi or PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta have not provided the retail invoice of such mobile phones. This raises serious doubts on the prosecution story.
47. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi deposed that FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 45 of 62 accused persons had covered their faces with the handkerchief lying in her laundary. PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta has not deposed about the covering of the faces by the accused persons with the handkerchiefs lying in their laundary. In his cross- examination, PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta deposed that since he had not seen the handkerchiefs with which the faces of accused persons were covered, he cannot tell the colour of the same. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi deposed that during the incident, handkerchief on the face of one of the robbers fell down and she had seen him. IO has not seized any such handkerchief from the spot of incident. This raises serious doubts on the veracity of PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi as well as on the prosecution story.
48. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi deposed that all the accused persons had covered their faces with the handkerchiefs and during the incident, handkerchief from the face of one of the robbers fell down and she had seen him. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi has not deposed that the handkerchiefs of remaining three accused persons also fell down and she also saw their faces, however, PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi further deposed that on 08.11.2013, she had identified three accused persons who were in the custody of IO. However, in her cross-examination, PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi changed her version and deposed that she did not see the accused at any stage between the date of incident and on the date of recording of her examination- in-chief i.e. 30.08.2015 & 11.08.2015. In these circumstances, the FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 46 of 62 identification of accused persons by PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi at her house on 08.11.2013 has become doubtful. Since PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi had seen the face of only one accused out of four, the identification of three accused persons by her who were having muffled face has not been explained by PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi as well as the other prosecution witnesses. Moreover, PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi has not specifically deposed about the accused whose handkerchief had fallen down and she had identified him. The IO had not seized any such handkerchief from the spot of incident which raises serious doubts with respect to falling of any such handkerchief from the face of any of the accused. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi in her cross-examination has specifically deposed that light of the room in which she was sleeping was not switched on, however, light of another room was switched on. In her further cross-examination, PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi changed her version and deposed that the robbers had switched on the light of the room. Her version has not been corroborated by PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta. This raises serious doubts with respect to the fixing of identity of accused persons through PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi. Moreover, PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta has identified only accused Ranjeet and he has turned hostile on the identity of remaining two accused persons. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi has not explained the individual role of each accused person. After analyzing the testimonies of PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi and PW-2 Sh. Ashok FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 47 of 62 Kumar Gupta, this court is of considered opinion that the identity of accused persons fixed through PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi and PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta is highly doubtful and the accused persons cannot be convicted solely on the basis of such identification and the corroborative evidence led by the prosecution need to be analyzed in detail before reaching any conclusion.
49. PW-23 IO/Inspector Vimal Kumar deposed that on 06.11.2013, one of the mobile phone was found activated with SIM of Airtel company and the subscriber namely Tasleem was found by them. He further deposed that he along with staff reached at house of Tasleem Ansari who told that said mobile phone was given to him by Ranjeet for Rs. 400/-. He further deposed that he seized the mobile phone from Tasleem vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-9/A. Thus, as per version of PW-23 IO/Inspector Vimal Kumar, the said mobile phone was recovered from possession of one Tasleem Ansari and it was not recovered from possession of any of the accused. Tasleem Ansari did not produce any slip/invoice for purchasing the same from accused Ranjeet and no other connecting evidence to prove that the said mobile phone was sold to him by accused Ranjeet has been produced by the prosecution. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi did not hand over any invoice showing the ownership/possession of said mobile phone to the IO. Tasleem Ansari could not be examined as PW as he expired. In these circumstances, it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that the FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 48 of 62 said mobile phone was sold to Tasleem Ansari by accused Ranjeet.
50. PW-23 IO/Inspector Vimal Kumar deposed that accused Ranjeet was found in possession of one chapat and voter id card of PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta. He further deposed that accused Bhura @ Tohin was found in possession of one chapat. He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons, Ex. PW-9/K & Ex. PW-9/L. He further deposed that he seized the voter id card vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-9/F and he seized the chapats vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-9/D & Ex. PW-9/E. He further deposed that accused Ranjeet also got recovered one LED TV and one laptop from house of his brother which was seized by him vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-9/M. He further deposed that one chapat and one locket of sherawali mata were recovered from possession of accused Anual and same was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-11/A & Ex. PW-11/B. PW-23 IO/Inspector Vimal Kumar also deposed that he also recorded disclosure statement of Bhura @ Tohin on the basis of which, accused led the police party to his house and got recovered ear tops which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-12/B. The recovery of the case properties has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in compliance with the law laid down in this regard by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 and Section 26 of the said Act. Section 27 is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events.
FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 49 of 62 The principle under Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act is based on the principle that if any fact is discovered on the basis of disclosure statement of accused, the discovery of said fact is a guarantee that the information given by the accused in his disclosure statement is true. Such information may be confessional or non-inculpating in nature but if any new fact is discovered from such information it will be considered as a reliable information.
51. The fact discovered on the basis of disclosure of statement of accused must be relevant facts. Such information must be given by the person who is accused of an offence and the recovery of article or discovery of fact must be based upon the information given by such accused.
52. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Judgment titled as Mohammad Burhan Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, cited as 'MANU/DE/3131/2017' has held that:-
"joining of independent public witness is not mere a formality; it is a vital safeguard to avoid false implication of individual. In number of cases either no independent public witnesses are associated on the pretext that none of them is available; in some cases only passerbyes are requested to join the investigation. Non- examination of independent public witness in the FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 50 of 62 instant case is serious flaw and adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding them.
53. Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Ramanand@Nand Lal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh cited as 2022 SCC online SC 1396 has observed as under:-"52. Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads under '27 How much of information received from the accused may be proved-Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information, received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.
If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence along with his blood stained clothes then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 51 of 62 an appropriate statement as he may desire, in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of that independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two particular place anything like the weapon of offence of blood stained clothes or any other article is discovered then the part of the entire process expects the investigating officer then it is clear that the same FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 52 of 62 is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter."
54. Thus, as per the case of prosecution, the abovesaid case properties were recovered from possession of accused persons. It is pertinent to mention that PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi has specifically deposed that she had not told the detailed description of her gold jewellery. In the FIR, there is no mention of gold chain with locket of Sherawali Mata. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi did not provide any invoice of the purchase of recovered gold articles. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi has specifically deposed that the case property was not recovered in her presence. The IO had not joined any public person in the investigtion at the time of recovery of case property from the possession of accused persons. IO/PW-23 Inspector Vimal Kumar deposed that some public persons were present while he prepared seizure memo but no public person joined the investigation and no notice was served upon the public persons who refused to join the investigation. The IO was under a duty to serve a notice upon public person who refused to join the investigation and hence the explanation given by him in this regard is not plausible. Joining of independent public person in investigation is not mere a formality and rather it is necessary to put a check on the misuse of powers by Investigating Agency. Moreover, the recovered jewellery articles were not shown to PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi and PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta at the time of recording of their testimonies. This has weakened the case of the FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 53 of 62 prosecution. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammad Burhan (Supra) and Ramanand @ Nand Lal Bharti (Supra), this Court is of considered opinion that due to non-joining of independent public persons at the time of recoveries of properties, the alleged recoveries of case properties/chapats/knives from possession/at instance of accused persons have become doubtful and the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of said case properties beyond reasonable doubts.
55. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused persons were seen running in the CCTV footage collected by the IO. PW-23 IO/Inspector Vimal Kumar deposed that he checked the footage of CCTV camera installed at building no. 8690-91, in which four persons were seen running. He further deposed that the footage was taken by him in a CD which was seized by him vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-6/A. PW-6 Sh. Manoj Porwal deposed that on 03.11.2013, police officials of PS Paharganj came to his office and asked for the CCTV footage of intervening night of 02/03.11.2013. He further deposed that he had taken the copy of said CCTV footage from DVR and handed over to IO in pendrive/CD which was seized by IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-6/A. PW-6 Sh. Manoj Porwal in his cross-examination specifically deposed that he did not give any certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act with respect to retrieving of CCTV footage. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as 'Arjun Panditrao FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 54 of 62 Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, cited as AIR 2020 SC 4908', the CCTV footage produced by PW-6 Sh. Manoj Porwal cannot be read in evidence against accused persons in absence of production of certificate under Sec. 65B of The Evidence Act by PW-6 Sh. Manoj Porwal. Moreover, the faces of accused persons are not visible in the CCTV footage and the said CCTV footage was not sent to FSL for comparing the faces of accused persons with the faces of persons seen in the CCTV footage. In these circumstances, the CCTV footage produced by the prosecution does not have any evidentiary value in the present case.
56. As per prosecution story, one of the accused had sustained injury in his leg and his blood was found near the spot of incident. PW-1/complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi deposed that the fourth robber had sustained injury while fleeing and his blood was found on the boundary wall, ground floor and balcony of the H. No. 3496. She further deposed that the blood was taken from the abovesaid places by the IO in a transparent plastic container. PW-3 Sh. Prince Arora also deposed that out of those persons, someone's blood was there on the wall of his house and police lifted the said blood from the boundary wall of his house. PW-8 SI Khajan Singh deposed that some blood was found lying on the roof of adjoining house and the said blood was seized vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-8/D. The blood found on the roof of adjoining house could have connected one of the accused to the commission of offence in the present case but the same was not sent to the FSL for comparing the same with the blood of accused FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 55 of 62 persons. Moreover, at the time arrest of accused persons no accused was found in injured condition and the IO has not deposed anything in this regard. In these circumstances, the blood found on the roof of adjoining house does not have any evidentiary value in the present case.
57. PW-8 SI Khajan Singh deposed that the spot of incident was inspected by Crime Team and the Crime Team tried to lift the chance print. PW-7 SI Madan Singh, In-charge Mobile Crime Team has proved his report, Ex. PW-7/A. He specifically deposed that no fingerprints were found at the spot of incident. In absence of fingerprints/chance prints of accused persons at the spot of incident, the accused persons cannot be connected with the commission of offence in the present case.
58. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling quality.
59. In case titled as 'Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21', it is held that :
FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 56 of 62 "22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable.
The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 57 of 62 offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
60. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 58 of 62 case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
61. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
62. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the considered opinion that PW-1/complainant/Smt. Pushpa Devi and PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta are not witnesses of sterling quality as their versions are not natural and they have also failed to withstood the test of cross examination. This court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of PW-1/complainant/Smt. Pushpa Devi and PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta are not clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and same have not been corroborated by the other FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 59 of 62 prosecution witnesses and other corroborative evidence on record and the circumstances.
63. It is established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
64. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:-
"The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
65. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 60 of 62 adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
66. In the present case, due to material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1/complainant/Smt. Pushpa Devi and PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, doubtful identification of accused persons by PW-1/complainant/Smt. Pushpa Devi and PW-2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, non-joining of independent public witnesses at the time recovery of case properties despite availability, non-matching of the faces of accused persons with the faces of persons seen in the CCTV footage, non-matching of the blood found near the spot of incident with the blood of accused persons through FSL, non-availability of finger- prints/chance prints at the spot of incident, non-proving of the ownership/possession of recovered articles by PW-1/ FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 61 of 62 complainant/Smt. Pushpa Devi, serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution story and two views are possible in this case and hence the benefit of the same must go to the accused persons.
67. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 394/397/34 IPC, Sec. 457/34 IPC, Sec. 414 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act against accused Ranjeet beyond reasonable doubts. Prosecution has also failed to prove ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 394/397/34 IPC Sec. 457/34 IPC, Sec. 411 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act against accused persons namely Bhura @ Tohin and Anual, beyond reasonable doubts.
68. Accordingly, accused Ranjeet is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 394/397/34 IPC Sec. 457/34 IPC, Sec. 414 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act. Accused persons namely Bhura @ Tohin are also hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 394/397/34 IPC Sec. 457/34 IPC, Sec. 411 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA Announced in the open court KUMAR KHARTA Date: 2026.05.02 on 2nd day of May, 2026 15:36:43 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:02.05.2026 FIR No. 331/2013, PS: Paharganj State Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. Page No. 62 of 62