Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Anil Kumar @ Baba on 24 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 (East):
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: SHAHDARA: DELHI.
S.C. No: 91/2014
(ID No.: 02402R0608632006)
State Versus 1. Anil Kumar @ Baba
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar
R/o Sangam Park, Khoda Colony,
Ghaziabad, UP.
2. Sheruddin @ Sheku
S/o Sh. Bhure Khan
R/o RC-27, Mandir wala Pushta
Aadhar Public School,
Khoda Colony, Ghaziabad, UP.
3. Sudhir Kumar @ Johny
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar
R/o Adrash Nagar, Pehla Pushta
Khoda Colony, Ghaziabad, UP.
FIR No. 442/2006
PS. Pandav Nagar
U/s. 392/394/395/397/411/34 IPC
Chargesheet Filed On : 31.01.2006
Chargesheet Allocated On : 05.11.2007
Received In This Court On : 04.02.2014
Judgment Reserved On : 24.04.2015
Judgment Announced On : 24.04.2015
JUDGMENT:
1. Complainant Saumya Shankar Paul on 26.08.2006 had been working in his office at Noida and had finished his shift upto 1.30 am. At about 2.30 am, he left his office for going back to his house and a little later he stopped at a cigarette/paan shop. He noticed four persons who were there on two motorcycles. They followed the complainant and at about 3.10 am they surrounded him near Delhi Police Society. They took out his purse, his ring, wrist SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 1 of 17 watch and mobile phone. When they demanded his motorcycle, complainant raised alarm on which one of them hit butt of gun on his head and knife on his right hand and all of them fled away. On these allegations and upon statement of the said Saumya Shankar Paul, FIR of this case was registered being FIR No. 442/06 u/s 394/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") at PS Pandav Nagar.
2. During investigation of the case, on 06.09.2006, on tip off, accused persons namely Anil Kumar @ Baba and Sheruddin @ Sheru were apprehended and they disclosed their involvement in the present case. The robbed mobile phone of this case was also recovered from the possession of accused Anil which was seized. Both these accused persons were arrested in the present case. Accused Anil was identified in judicial TIP as well. Accused Sheruddin refused to join the TIP. Chargesheet was filed against these two accused to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 394/397/411/34 IPC. Remaining accused persons could not be arrested by that time.
3. After compliance of provision of Sec. 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("CrPC"), case was committed to Court of Sessions in respect of accused persons Anil Kumar and Sherruddin, as the case was triable by it.
4. Vide order dated 06.06.2008, charges under Sec. 392/395 read with Sec. 397/34 IPC was framed against accused Anil Kumar and Sherrudin. A separate charge under Sec. 411 IPC was also framed against Anil Kumar. To the said charges, both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution had examined three witnesses i.e. PW-1 Dr. A. K. SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 2 of 17 Verma, PW-2 Saumya Shankar Paul (Complainant) and PW-3 Ct. Babu Ram.
6. Thereafter co-accused Sudhir and one Manoj were also arrested in the present matter. Sudhir had also refused to join the judicial TIP whereas TIP of Manoj failed as complainant could not identify him. Manoj was discharged from the case. Supplementary chargesheet was filed against Sudhir. His case was also committed to the court of Sessions.
7. On 01.09.2011 charge under Sec. 392/394/34 read with Sec. 397/34 PC was also framed against accused Sudhir Kumar to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Prosecution re-called PW-2 and examined further witnesses. In total, nine witnesses have been examined in this case in order to prove the charges against the accused persons. These witnesses are:
PW-1 Dr. A. K. Verma who proved the MLC of Saumya Shankar as Ex. PW 1/A prepared by Dr. Harpreet Singh.
PW-2 Saumya Shankar Paul who is the complainant of this case.
He deposed about the incident.
PW-3 Const. Babu Ram had joined the investigation of this case with SI Noor Mohd. and got the case registered.
PW-6 is SI Pyare Lal (inadvertently PW-4 and PW-5 could not be assigned to any witness). He proved the FIR of this case as Ex. PW 6/A. PW-7 Const. Sukhwinder Singh had joined the investigation of this case on 06.09.2006 and accused persons Anil Kumar and Sherruddin were SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 3 of 17 arrested in his presence. This witness proved the memos Ex. PW 7/A to 7/O prepared in his presence regarding this case.
PW-8 HC Jai Prakash is also a witness to the same effect. Besides the above, on 29.11.2006 accused Sudhir was also arrested in this case and this witness proved the memos Ex.PW 8/A to C in respect of accused Sudhir. PW 10- HC Samarjeet Singh is also a witness to the arrest of accused Sudhir.
PW-9 HC Jugnu Tyagi is a witness to the arrest of Manoj Yadav (who has already been discharged).
PW-11 SI Noor Mohd. is the IO of the case. This witness reached the hospital, collected the MLC of injured, recorded his statement and got the case registered. This witness also prepared site plan Ex.PW11/B. He also arrested accused persons Anil Kumar and Sherruddin on 06.09.2006 and proved memos in this respect. This witness moved an application Ex.PW11/C for TIP of these accused persons on which accused Anil was identified by complainant while accused Sheruddin refused to participate the said proceedings. He also proved application Ex.PW11/F seeking police remand of accused persons on which two day's police remand was granted. Accused Sudhir was also arrested by this witness and this witness also proved the memos in this respect. This witness also moved an application Ex.PW 11/I on 30.11.2006 but accused refused to join the TIP proceedings. This witness also proved the memos in respect of accused Manoj, who has already been discharged.
9. TIP proceedings were admitted without formal proof upon statement of learned counsels and were marked Ex. X-1, X-2 and X-3. SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 4 of 17
10. When incriminating circumstances were put to accused persons, they denied the case of prosecution in toto.
11. Accused Anil Kumar stated that he was injured while he was lifted from his house and that nothing was recovered from him or at his instance.
12. Accused Sherruddin also stated that he was implicated in this case after lifting him from his house and was forced to sign some papers.
13. Accused Sudhir also stated that he was implicated in this case after lifting him from his house.
14. Accused Sheruddin did not opt to lead DE while remaining accused persons sought opportunity to lead evidence in their defence. However, evidence of accused Sudhir was closed. Accused Anil examined witness in his defence who is DW-1 Sant Kumar. DW-1 tried to show that accused Anil was picked up from his house.
15. I have heard Ms. Neelam Narang, learned Addl. PP for the State, Sh. Ravinder Kumar, learned counsel for accused Anil and Sudhir and Sh. A. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for accused Sheruudin from DLSA and have carefully perused the records.
16. Learned Addl. PP for the State contended that PW-2/complainant has fully supported the prosecution case. She submitted that PW-2 is a reliable witness and he had no motive to falsely implicate any of the accused persons. She pointed out that the robbed mobile phone of the complainant was also SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 5 of 17 recovered from one of the accused.
17. On the other hand, learned counsels for the accused persons contended that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge. They contended that identity of the accused persons has not been established beyond reasonable doubts. They submitted that TIP of accused Anil is of no value as PW-2/Complainant admitted that he had seen accused Anil at police station prior to holding of the TIP. Regarding recovery of the mobile phone, they submitted that it has been planted by the investigating agency.
18. I have considered the submissions.
19. PW-2 is complainant who has deposed on the lines of his allegations. He narrated the incident in detail. He deposed about receiving injuries which were caused by the accused persons. He proved his statement as Ex.PW2/A on the basis of which FIR was registered. He also deposed about preparation of site plan Ex.PW2/B at his instance. He further deposed about identifying accused Anil in judicial TIP. He identified him in the court also. He further identified the other two accused persons i.e. Sheruddin and Sudhir. He also identified his robbed mobile phone make Panasonic which was Ex. P-1.
20. It has come in cross-examination that he did not point out the paan shop to the IO from where he had purchased cigarette. He stated that from the spot he had gone to his house and his wife informed the police at 100 number. He elaborated that he was taken to hospital from there. He stated that IO had informed him about apprehension of accused Anil and he had gone to the PS SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 6 of 17 thereafter. At the PS, he had seen glimpse of accused Anil. He further stated that he had seen accused Anil at the PS on 06.09.2006. He denied the suggestion that there was no street light at the spot of incident. He also stated that perhaps he had seen his mobile phone also at the PS.
21. PW-7, PW-8 and PW-11 have deposed about apprehension of accused persons and recovery of the mobile phone. PW-11/IO deposed that on 06.09.2006, he was patrolling the area and met PW-7 and PW-8. All of them reached Pocket-B near wine shop and met SI Vinay Yadav of Special Staff. SI Vinay Yadav informed them that he was having some information that 2-3 boys involved in the loot would come there. The police officials took positions. At about 6.30 pm, two persons came there on motorcycle no. DL-1AP-3421. On seeing the police party, they tried to flee away. However they were apprehended. They could not produce ownership papers of the motorcycle. Those two boys were accused Anil and Sheruddin. They told them that the number plate was fake and the motorcycle was had been robbed from the area of PS Krishna Nagar/Jagat Puri. PW-11 further deposed that on formal search of accused Anil one mobile phone make Panasonic was recovered from right side pocket of his shirt. The phone was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/H. Disclosure statements were also recorded. Both the accused disclosed involvement of one Sudhir Kumar @ Johny and Manoj Kumar @ Guddu. Both the said persons were arrested and kept in muffled face. They were produced before the court in muffled faces. PW-11 also moved an application for TIP of those two accused persons which was fixed for 12.09.2006. He deposed about identification of accused Anil by SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 7 of 17 complainant during TIP proceedings on 12.09.2006. Accused Sheruddin had refused to join the TIP.
22. He deposed about arrest of accused Sudhir on 29.11.2006. Accused Sudhir had also refused to join the TIP. He deposed about arrest of accused Manoj Yadav later on 06.08.2007. PW-11 moved an application for his judicial TIP as well. However complainant failed to identify the said Manoj Yadav.
23. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that accused were not kept in muffled faces. He denied the suggestion that accused Anil was shown to the complainant at the PS by him. He admitted that complainant in his complaint/statement Ex.PW2/A had not mentioned IMEI number of his robbed mobile phone. He also stated that he had not obtained CDR of mobile number 9818744646.
24. What value should be given to evidence of an injured witness has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohar & Anr. v. State of UP, (2002) 7 SCC 606. It observed as under:
"The testimony of an injured witness has its own efficacy and relevancy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries on his body would show that he was present at the place of occurrence and had seen the occurrence by himself. Convincing evidence would require to discredit an injured witness."
25. Further reference may be made to State of UP v. Naresh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 324. It was held therein as follows:
" 27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 8 of 17 be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. [Vide: Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; and Abdul Sayed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259]."
26. As per MLC Ex. PW1/A, complainant had received CLW mid frontal region measuring 1 cm X 0.5 cm and CLW on base of right index finger measring 3 cm X 0.5 cm. Therefore it has to be seen whether there are major contradictions in evidence of PW-2 which will discredit him.
27. Learned Addl. PP laid much emphasis on identification of accused persons by PW-2 in the court.
28. The learned defence counsels countered these submissions by pointing out that judicial TIP had lost significance as PW-2 himself admitted that he had seen accused Anil before judicial TIP.
29. Learned counsel for the defence also pointed out that information about the incident was given by wife of PW-2 as is reflected from DD No. 3A dt. 26.08.2006 (Ex.PW11/B1). They also submitted that in the said DD, it has been recorded that offenders had come in a GAADI which must be a four wheeled vehicle and contradicts prosecution story that accused had come on two SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 9 of 17 motorcycles. To this learned Addl. PP replied that the information recorded in the abovesaid DD was a very basic and raw information which could not be said to be basis of the prosecution case.
30. The value of identification for the first time in the court and importance of holding TIP was highlighted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dana Yadav alias Dahu and Others v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 3325. In para 6 to 8, the Supreme Court held as under:
"6. It is also well settled that failure to hold test identification parade, which should be held with reasonable dispatch, does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible, rather the same is very much admissible in law. Question is, what is its probative value? Ordinarily, identification of an accused for the first time in court by a witness should not be relied upon, the same being from its very nature, inherently of a weak character, unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. The purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapitulate what a witness has seen earlier, strength or trustworthiness of the evidence of identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in court. If a witness identifies the accused in court for the first time, the probative value of such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal so much so that it becomes, as a rule of prudence and not law, unsafe to rely on such a piece of evidence. We are fortified in our view by a catena of decisions of this Court in the cases of Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Admn. AIR 1958 SC 350.
7. Apart from the ordinary rule laid down in the aforesaid decisions, certain exceptions to the same have been carved out where identification of an accused for the first time in court without there being any corroboration whatsoever can form the sole basis for his conviction. In the case of Budhsen [(1970) 2 SCC 128 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 343] it was observed:
"There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when for example, the court is impressed by a particular SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 10 of 17 witness, on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration."
8.In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh [(1992) 3 SCC 700 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 705] it was laid down that if a witness had any particular reason to remember about the identity of an accused, in that event, the case can be brought under the exception and upon solitary evidence of identification of an accused in court for the first time, conviction can be based. In the case of Ronny [(1998) 3 SCC 625 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 859] it has been laid down that where the witness had a chance to interact with the accused or that in a case where the witness had an opportunity to notice the distinctive features of the accused which lends assurance to his testimony in court, the evidence of identification in court for the first time by such a witness cannot be thrown away merely because no test identification parade was held. In that case, the accused concerned had a talk with the identifying witnesses for about 7/8 minutes. In these circumstances, the conviction of the accused, on the basis of sworn testimony of witnesses identifying for the first time in court without the same being corroborated either by previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence, was upheld by this Court. In the case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha [(1999) 8 SCC 428 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1452] it was laid down that the absence of test identification parade may not be fatal if the accused is sufficiently described in the complaint leaving no doubt in the mind of the court regarding his involvement or is arrested on the spot immediately after the occurrence and in either eventuality, the evidence of witnesses identifying the accused for the first time in court can form the basis for conviction without the same being corroborated by any other evidence and, accordingly, conviction of the accused was upheld by this Court. In the case of State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj [(2000) 1 SCC 247 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 147] it was observed that:
".....test identification is considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them. There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely without such or other corroboration".
In that case, laying down the aforesaid law, acquittal of one of SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 11 of 17 the accused by the High Court was converted into conviction by this Court on the basis of identification by a witness for the first time in court without the same being corroborated by any other evidence. In the case of Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel [(2000) 1 SCC 358 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 113] it was observed:
"It, therefore, cannot be held, as tried to be submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, that in the absence of a test identification parade, the evidence of an eyewitness identifying the accused would become inadmissible or totally useless; whether the evidence deserves any credence or not would always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."
The Court further observed:
"....the fact remains that these eyewitnesses were seriously injured and they could have easily seen the faces of the persons assaulting them and their appearance and identity would well remain imprinted in their minds especially when they were assaulted in broad daylight".
In these circumstances, conviction of the accused was upheld on the basis of solitary evidence of identification by a witness for the first time in court."
31. It has come in cross-examination of PW-2/complainant that he had seen accused Anil at the Police Station before TIP was conducted. This fact has demolished the value of the TIP proceedings in which accused Anil was identified. It is settled law that identification in TIP is not substantive evidence but is only a corroborative piece of evidence. As such prosecution cannot take any benefit out of the said TIP proceedings. It has to rely only upon identification done before the court.
32. Identification for the first time in the court is a very weak piece of evidence. The complainant/PW-2 had identified accused Anil, Sheruddin as well SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 12 of 17 as Sudhir before the court. The incident allegedly happened at 3.15 am in the night. The incident had lasted for about 2-2 ½ minutes. PW-2 says there was street light but no such street light is shown in the site plan Ex.PW2/B. PW-2 has stated in cross-examination that on 30.08.2007, he had stated to the IO that he was unable to identify one Manoj. This person Manoj was also arrested as an accused but his TIP had failed as complainant could not identify him and he was discharged. Regarding his failure to identify Manoj, complainant had given statement to the IO copy of which has been taken on record. Perusal of the said statement shows that the reason for inability of complainant to identify Manoj was that the fact that incident had happened at night and it was late time. Though this statement was made in relation to inability of the complainant to identify Manoj, however, the reason stated by the complainant has to be considered with respect to other accused as well. If complainant could not identify Manoj as incident had happened late in the night, then identification of other accused persons by complainant also carries no weight. Inability to identify one will apply to other accused as well. This statement of complainant dt. 30.08.2007 has demolished value of identification made by him before the court. The sanctity of testimony of PW-2 regarding identification has been destroyed. It is also important to note that PW-2 has not stated the exact role played by each of the accused in the incident. He had stated that one person got down from the motorcycle parked behind his motorcycle and that person took his helmet and thereafter he was made to come down. PW-2 further stated that thereafter those persons took out his purse containing RC, DL and ATM Cards and cash. SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 13 of 17 PW-2 went on to depose that they had also removed his mobile phone, his wrist watch and gold ring forcibly. He further stated that those persons tried to take keys of his motorcycle and on his protest stabbed him on his hand and they also hit him with butt of katta on his head. While identifying Anil in the court he stated that Anil was the person who had blocked his way by putting his motorcycle ahead of him and had also given beating to him alongwith his associates. Regarding other accused persons, PW-2 stated that they had caught hold of him during the incident. Thus the role described in the narration of the incident has not been specifically assigned while identifying the accused persons. This is a major lacuna in the case of the prosecution. The identification of the accused persons is rendered weak and unsafe to base conviction thereon. This is particularly so if the cross-examination of PW-2 is kept in mind. I am of the considered view that it will be unsafe to convict the accused persons solely on the basis of identification by PW-2.
33. Accused Sheruddin had refused to join the TIP proceeding. He had stated that he had been shown to the witness at the police station. TIP of Sheruddin was applied for vide the same application on the same date. When PW-2 has admitted seeing accused Anil before TIP, then possibility of him seeing accused Sheruddin also cannot be ruled out. Though PW-2 has denied suggestion of the defence to this effect but such denial has to be viewed with suspicion. Thus refusal on part of Sheruddin to join TIP was justified and no adverse inference can be drawn against him. As such his identification for the first time in the court is also a weak piece of evidence. SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 14 of 17
34. Accused Sudhir had also refused to join the TIP on the ground that his photographs had been taken in the PS and that he had been shown to the witness. Though PW-2 identified him in the court, but PW-2 has not spelt out role played by accused Sudhir. When PW-2 was recalled after framing of charge against Sudhir, he merely identified him as being present at the spot and did not specify any particular role. Atleast, this much was required from PW-2. Merely on the basis of general identification of Sudhir, prosecution cannot prove the charge against him.
35. Prosecution sought support from fact of recovery of mobile phone. Mobile phone and other articles of PW-2 were robbed on 26.08.2006. Mobile phone is shown to have been allegedly recovered on 06.09.2006. Mobile phone is Ex. P-1 make Panasonic. This mobile phone was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/H. Complainant had not given any IMEI number of the said mobile phone in his complaint. However IMEI number has been mentioned in the seizure memo after checking it from the phone and it was 356403003319312. Whether this mobile phone of this particular IMEI number belonged to complainant or not is not clear. There is no document or any other evidence to show that complainant ever possessed this mobile phone. Complainant also did not state this number in his evidence. There is one statement u/s 161 CrPC dt. 02.09.2006 in which PW-2 had stated the IMEI number which is the same as mentioned in the seizure memo. However, in the said statement, complainant had undertaken to produce the bill regarding the said mobile phone later on but has not produced the same till date. From where and how complainant got to SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 15 of 17 know the IMEI number is not known. The IO also did not make any effort to show that the said mobile phone with that IMEI number was being used by the complainant. IO did not obtain any record from the mobile service provider which could have thrown light on this issue.
36. No judicial TIP was held in respect of the mobile phone. The complainant/PW-2 had not mentioned IMEI Number in his first statement. There is doubt regarding identification of mobile phone. Complainant did not produce any bill or other document showing that he ever possessed the said mobile phone. This also weakens the case of the prosecution.
37. PW-7 Ct. Sukhvinder Singh who was with the IO (PW-11) during investigation stated that mobile phone was recovered from accused Sheru/Sheruddin which was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/H. Contrary to it, PW-8 HC Jai Prakash and PW-11 IO/SI Noor Mohd. stated that the mobile phone was recovered from accused Anil. This contradiction is fatal to the case of prosecution. Seizure memo Ex.PW7/H interestingly contains signatures of both accused Sheruddin and Anil Kumar. Alleged recovery was made on 06.09.2006. There is no information collected by the IO whether the said mobile phone was being used on any number at that point of time i.e. at the time of recovery. If there was such a number, no call detail record has been obtained by the IO. This recovery of mobile phone has to be doubted.
38. PW-2 had also stated that he had probably seen the mobile phone in the police station. This has further put a dent in the prosecution case. The SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 16 of 17 mobile phone was bearing seal of NMK at the time of its production in the court and prosecution tried to show that the seal was intact and the phone was never opened earlier. However statement of PW-2 that he had seen the mobile phone at the police station negates the prosecution version. As per admitted case of prosecution, complainant was not present at the time of recovery of the mobile phone. It is also prosecution case that the mobile phone was sealed at the spot of recovery itself. There could be only two situations under which complainant could see the mobile phone at the police station. Either the phone was not sealed at the spot or the seal was broken and put again on the pullanda. In either situation, prosecution case gets jeopardized. The recovery of the mobile phone has to be doubted. Thus prosecution cannot take any benefit from the recovery of mobile phone.
39. In view of the above discussion, it is held that case of the prosecution is doubtful and benefit of the same has to be granted to the accused persons. Consequently, all the three accused persons are hereby acquitted of all the charges.
40. Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bonds with one surety in sum of Rs.20,000/- as required under Sec. 437-A CrPC.
41. Case property is confiscated to the state and be disposed of as per rules. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 24th day of April, 2015 (Sanjay Bansal) ASJ-03 (East):
KKD Courts: Delhi.SC No. 91/14 State Vs. Anil Kumar etc. Page 17 of 17