Delhi District Court
State ...........Prosecution vs . on 12 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE09 SOUTHWEST
DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 86/2012
Police Station Jafarpur Kalan
Under Section(s) 379/411/34 IPC
Cr. Case no. 421458/2016
CNR no. DLSW020000082012
IN THE MATTER OF:
State ...........Prosecution
Vs.
1. Afzal
S/o Mohd. Haneer
R/o Mohalla Khatriyan Kolwali City,
District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh
2. Nasim
S/o Babu Kurasi
R/o Mohalla Rahim Tula Colony, Kolwali Sadar,
District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh
3. Wasim
S/o Furkan
R/o Mohalla Banduk Chein Kasba
PS Dhampur Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh ...Accused persons
1. Name of complainant : Santosh Kumar Sharma
2. Name of accused persons : 1. Afzal
2. Nasim
3. Wasim
State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.1/18
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG
GARG Date:
2023.04.12
15:40:53 +0530
3. Offences complained of : Under Section 379/411/34 of
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
4. Plea of accused persons : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 06/07.08.2012
6. Date of institution of case : 28.10.2012
7. Date of reserving judgment : 13.03.2023
8. Date of pronouncement : 12.04.2023
9. Final judgment : Accused no.1 is absconder
vide order dated
02.03.2022.
Accused no.2 and 3
acquitted.
JUDGMENT: (Accused no.1 was declared as absconder vide order dated 02.03.2022. He could not be traced till date and hence, the proceedings were continued only as against accused no. 2 and 3 and the judgment is being passed qua only accused no.2 and 3.)
1. The present case pertains to prosecution of accused persons in respect of offences punishable under Sections 379/411/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for brevity).
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of prosecution is that in the intervening night of 06/07.08.2012 between 10:30 pm to 06:30 am, at vacant plot near House no.7475, Gopal Nagar Extension, Najafgarh Delhi, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed theft of one vehicle, i.e. Swift car bearing registration no.DL2CAF0270 (henceforth, 'case property') belonging to complainant Santosh Kumar Sharma. Complaint was lodged by complainant and FIR was registered. Thereafter, on 08.08.2012, at about 10:15 pm at Bashirpur Nehar State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.2/18 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG Date: GARG 2023.04.12 15:41:06 Bypass, Nazibabad District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, during the raid in FIR no. NIL/2012 PS Nazibabad u/S 41/102 CrPC & 411/414 IPC, the case property was found in possession of all accused persons. IO prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. After the culmination of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused persons.
3. Cognizance was taken of offences under Sections 379/411/34 of IPC and accused persons were summoned to face trial for the said offences. Upon their appearance, the copy of chargesheet was supplied to them in compliance with Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth 'Cr.P.C').
4. Based on the material filed along with chargesheet, charge was framed against accused persons for offences u/S 379/411/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In the pursuit to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. PW1 Santosh Kumar Sharma (complainant) deposed that he had parked his vehicle make Maruti Swift bearing registration no.DL2CAF0270 on 05.08.2012 in a vacant plot near his house but could not find it on 06/7.08.2012. He searched for his vehicle and made police complaint Ex.PW1/A. The police later informed him that his vehicle had been recovered after which he got it released vide superdarinama Ex.PW1/B. He tendered the stolen case property as Ex.P1 and its photographs as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. In his cross State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.3/18 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2023.04.12 examination, he stated that he got to know that his vehicle had been stolen on 7th at 06:00 am. He further stated that he was informed about the recovery of his vehicle after about one and half months of theft.
6. PW2 Ct. Vipin deposed that on 08.08.2012, he along with SI Surender, Ct. Ram Kumar, Ct. Radhey Shyam and Ct. Mohd. Saleem were on patrolling duty. When they reached at Adarsh Nagar Police Post, a secret informer met SI Surender and informed him that few miscreants would come in one Maruti Swift car. Thereafter, they reached at the bridge near Kotwali Dehat Road where Ct. Devender and Home Guard Raj Kumar, who were on picket duty, also joined them. They started checking the vehicles at about 10:00 pm. They then saw one Swift car having number 0270. They signalled the vehicle to stop but after stopping the vehicle, the three occupants, whose names were later revealed as Waseem, Afzal and Naseem, started firing upon them. They saved themselves and the accused persons then started running. They chased the accused persons and apprehended them at about 50 yards away from the spot towards Jalalabad. Two country made pistols and one knife were recovered from the accused persons. They disclosed that the said vehicle was stolen by them from Delhi. He stated that the accused persons present in court might be the same persons involved in the incident but he was not certain as three years had lapsed. In his cross examination, PW2 was confronted with statement Ex.PW2/DX1 where the details of the incident were not mentioned. He could not recall the DD number by which they had departed or made State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.4/18 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG Date:
GARG 2023.04.12
15:41:32
their arrival.
7. PW3 Ct. Radhe Shyam deposed on the lines of PW2 Ct. Vipin. In the crossexamination, he stated that the information was received at about 12/12.30 pm. They remained at the spot about half an hour and there was day light at the time of incident. He further stated that public persons were asked to join the raiding party but they refused, however, no notice was served upon them.
8. PW4 SI Ashok Kumar Sharma deposed that he prepared investigation report alongwith CD as Ex.PW4/A and prepared site plan Ex.PW4/B, which was handed over by him to the IO SI Surender Singh Rana. In his crossexamination, he stated that he had mentioned the name of owners of field in the site plan at the instance of hearsay witness. He could not tell their names and also did not make them witnesses to the site plan.
9. PW5 Retired SI Uday Singh (IO) deposed that upon receiving DD no.12A Ex.PW5/A in respect of theft of a vehicle, he alongwith Ct. Mintu reached the spot. As the complainant was not found, he came back to the police station. In the afternoon, complainant came to police station and he recorded his statement. He prepared tehrir Ex.PW5/B and got the FIR registered. He prepared site plan Ex.PW5/C at the instance of the complainant. On 09.08.2012, he received DD no.30A Ex.PW5/D qua recovery of stolen case property and went to PS Nazibabad on 12.08.2012. He met SI Ashok, who handed over to him the relevant State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.5/18 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG Date:
GARG 2023.04.12 documents. The vehicle was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/E. The accused persons were formally arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW5//F, Ex.PW5/G and Ex.PW5/H. Their disclosure statements were recorded vide Ex.PW5/I, Ex.PW5/J and Ex.PW5/K and pointing out memos of the spot were prepared at their instance vide Ex.PW5/L, Ex.PW5/M and Ex.PW5/N. In his crossexamination, he stated that he had gone to PS Nazibabad 34 times but did not remember if he had made departure or arrival entry in that regard. He admitted that the vehicle was in the same condition in which it was stolen.
10. PW6 Ct. Surender had accompanied the IO SI Uday Singh during investigation and deposed on similar lines as him. In his crossexamination, he stated that complainant was present when the pointing out memos were prepared but could not tell if his signatures were taken on those memos. PW7 ASI Krishan Kumar tendered the FIR as Ex.PW7/A. PW8 SI Ved Prakash deposed regarding writing DD no.30A qua information received from PS Nazibabad, U. P. PW9 HC Sompal, MHC (M), proved entry no.1050/12 of register no.19 as Ex.PW9/A (OSR) vide which IO had deposited the case property in Malkhana. PW11 HC Kapil Muni proved the record vide which the stolen case property was brought from PS Nazibabad to PS J.P Kalan registered at GD No.36 dated 17.08.2012 as Ex.PW11/A. The case number at that time was NIL/12 u/S 41/102 Cr.P.C. r/w 411/414 IPC and photocopy of the register is Ex.PW11/B (OSR).
11. PW10 Retd. Inspector Surender Singh Rana deposed State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.6/18 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2023.04.12 on similar lines as PW2 Ct. Vipin. He seized the case property recovered from the accused persons including stolen case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. In his crossexamination, he was confronted with his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC Ex.PW10/D1 wherein the date of the recovery of the case property from the possession of accused persons, was mentioned as 08.06.2012. He stated that he had not mentioned the area of patrolling in GD no.50. They were on foot at the time of incident. He remained at the spot of incident for about 2 2 ½ hours. They had returned to PS vide GD entry no. 25 Ex.PW10/D2. He did not take photographs of seized vehicle.
12. PW12 HC Ram Kumar also deposed on the lines of PW2 Ct. Vipin. He identified accused Naseem and Waseem as Afzal and Waseem. In his crossexamination, PW12 stated that they were patrolling by government jeep. No record was made of the vehicles which were checked by them. The wooden khokha where they hid themselves was situated on the road going to Jalalabad. The secret informer met them at about 9:45 pm. They left the spot after about 2 hours of apprehending the accused persons. PW Ct. Mintu was dropped vide order dated 05.01.2013 upon the submission of Ld. APP that he was merely a formal witness.
13. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and statements of accused no.2 and 3 were recorded under Section 281 read with 313 Cr. P. C. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused persons in evidence were put to State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.7/18 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG Date: GARG 2023.04.12 15:42:09 them. They controverted all the allegations levelled against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated. The accused persons opted to lead evidence in their defence.
14. In defence evidence, DW1 Waseem stepped into the witness box and stated that he was called to the PS Nazibabad by Ct. Vipin (SOG) on the pretext that the concerned SHO had called him on 07.08.2012. Thereafter, he was put to lock up and the present case, and another case at Nazibabad, was lodged against him and coaccused persons falsely. He along with coaccused persons were acquitted in the latter case vide judgment dated 02.03.2013 Ex.DW1/A (OSR). He did not know the coaccused persons prior to the alleged incident. In his crossexamination, DW1 stated that he did not file any complaint against the erring police officials for lodging false case against him.
15. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and the matter was taken up for final arguments. It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the prosecution has been able to establish the case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses have remained unshaken. It is further corroborated by the documentary evidence on record. Therefore, it is prayed that the accused persons be convicted of alleged offences.
16. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for accused persons has strenuously urged for acquittal of accused persons on various grounds. It is argued that the documentary evidences on record are incoherent with the case of prosecution. It is urged that there State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.8/18 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2023.04.12 are inherent inconsistencies in the testimonies of material witnesses and hence, the case is not proved against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts.
17. Arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
18. It is a paramount tenet of criminal law that every accused is presumed to be innocent and cannot be convicted unless the prosecution is able to discharge the initial onus rested upon it beyond all reasonable doubts. The failure to do so would necessarily result in acquittal of accused. It has been held by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1997) 3 RCR (Cri) 421: "5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
19. Before delving into merits, it is pertinent to give a brief outline of the offences alleged against the accused persons. For the offence of theft under Section 379 IPC, it has to be proved that the accused persons moved the vehicle with intention to dishonestly take it out of the possession of complainant, whereas for Section 411 IPC, it needs to be proved that the accused persons dishonestly received or retained the stolen case property knowing or having reason to believe that it was stolen.
As regards the offence under Section 379 IPC: State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.9/18 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2023.04.12
20. At the outset, the fact that vehicle of complainant was moved out of his possession on 06/07.08.2012 is duly proved on record. PW1 Santosh Kumar Sharma categorically stated that he had parked his vehicle in the vacant plot near his house on 05.08.2012 but could not find it in the morning of 07.08.2012. His statement is substantially corroborated by his complaint Ex.PW1/A. No material inconsistency could be elicited in his crossexamination in that respect.
21. Be that as it may, there is not an iota of evidence to show that the vehicle was stolen, as such, by the accused persons. It is imperative to note that the accused persons have been implicated only on the premise that the stolen case property was recovered from their possession after one or two days when it was moved out of the possession of complainant. No other material has been brought on record by prosecution to indicate that these accused persons had committed theft. Neither there is any eye witness nor any CCTV footage to prove this fact.
22. The disclosure statements of accused persons are not admissible in evidence due to the interdict of Section 26 of The Indian Evidence Act because there is no fact stated to have been discovered in consequence of those disclosure statements. Mere recovery of stolen case property after lapse of about two days from the date of commission of theft is not sufficient to fasten guilt qua the said offence. In other words, there being no other circumstantial evidence, which in cumulation with the evidence of recovery could establish that accused persons had stolen the case State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.10/18 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2023.04.12 property from the plot where it was parked on the relevant date, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus of proving the offence u/S 379 IPC against accused no.2 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubts.
As regards the offence under Section 411 IPC:
23. To begin with, Section 411 of IPC stipulates as follows: "411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.--Whoever 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."
24. In view thereof, the prosecution is required to prove the following three points to bring home the guilt of accused persons in the instant case under the aforesaid provision: (a) that the accused persons dishonestly received or retained the case property, i.e. vehicle belonging to complainant, (b) that the case property was 'stolen property', and (c) that the accused persons had knowledge or reason to believe it to be a stolen property.
25. To prove these elements, the prosecution seeks to rely on the primary fact that the stolen case property was seized from the possession of accused persons on 08.08.2012 at Bashirpur Nehar Bypass, Nazibabad District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, during the raid in FIR no. NIL/2012 PS Nazibabad u/S 41/102 CrPC & 411/414 IPC. Having said that, it is to be seen if the factum of recovery has been proved by the prosecution against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.11/18
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG
GARG Date:
2023.04.12
26. First and foremost, all the witnesses, primary and formal, examined by prosecution in the present case to prove the recovery proceedings are police officials. The court is cognizant of the wellsettled legal proposition that the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis that all the witnesses are police officials and that the testimony of police witnesses can be relied upon to convict the accused, however, their evidence needs to be weighed in light of the varied facts and circumstances of each case. Reliance in that regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tahir Vs. State (Delhi) (1996) 3 SCC 338, wherein it has been observed as hereinunder:
"6. Mr. D. D. Thakur, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that PW4 to PW7 on whose evidence the conviction has been recorded were all police officials and in the absence of any independent witness to corroborate them, it was not safe to rely upon their testimony to sustain the conviction of the appellant. We cannot agree. In our opinion no. infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no. rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of the evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can from basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case."
27. Now, the testimonies of PW2 Ct. Vipin, PW3 Ct. Radhe Shyam, PW10 Surender Singh Rana and PW12 HC Ram Kumar ought to be scrutinized closely in order to adjudicate upon the indictment made against the accused persons as the recovery State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.12/18 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2023.04.12 proceedings allegedly took place in their presence. Nonetheless, minute reading of their depositions reveals stark variations on material points, as shall be discussed hereinafter, which impels the court to look for other corroborative evidence before holding the accused persons guilty.
28. PW2 stated that he was on patrolling duty along with SI Surender, Ct. Ram Kumar, Ct. Radhe Shyam and Ct. Mohd. Saleem. However, PW3, PW10 and PW12 did not name Ct. Mohd. Saleem as one of the officials being on patrolling duty along with them. PW1 further added that after receiving information from the secret informer, Ct. Devender and Home Guard Raj Kumar were joined in the raiding party. On the other hand, neither the remaining prosecution witnesses deposed as to the said fact nor Ct. Devender and Home Guard Raj Kumar were examined by the IO in the present case.
29. Moreover, there is material improvement in the facts narrated by PW2, PW10 and PW12 in their respective court testimonies visàvis their previous statements u/S 161 Cr.P.C. These witnesses stated before court that after the vehicle was stopped, the accused persons started firing upon them after which they apprehended the accused persons and seized the weapons along with case property. However, these facts are conspicuous by their absence in their previous statements. Also, as opposed to the version of prosecution that this incident occurred in the night at about 10:15 pm, PW3 stated in his crossexamination that there was day light at the time of incident.
State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.13/18
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG
Date:
GARG 2023.04.12
15:43:11
30. Furthermore, PW12 contradicted PW10 in as much as he stated that they were patrolling in government jeep, while PW10 stated that they were on foot. Another inconsistency is manifested in the series of events constituting the incident. PW10 stated that the accused persons came in the vehicle and started running away after leaving the vehicle behind while shooting at them when they saw the police officials. Whereas, PW2 and PW12 stated that they had signalled the vehicle to stop after which the accused persons started firing upon them and then started to flee away.
31. Moving further, PW3 stated that public persons were asked to join the raid but they refused, which is incongruous with the testimony of PW10 as he stated there was no public person as it was night time. As per PW3, they remained at the spot for about half an hour, which is again discordant with the version of PW10 that they stayed at the spot for more than two hours. Further, PW3 stated that the secret informer had met them at about 12:30 pm, which is in deviation with the record Ex.PW10/A that the secret information was given to them at about 09:15 pm on 08.08.2012.
32. The part of statement of PW12 that there was a wooden khokha, behind which they hid to save themselves from the attack of accused persons, also runs afoul the site plan Ex.PW4/B wherein no such khokha is depicted. It is further inconceivable that despite the travelling in a vehicle, the accused persons would leave the said vehicle behind and dare to flee on foot. It is not the case of prosecution that any barricading was done at the spot, or State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.14/18 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2023.04.12 15:43:22 +0530 that the vehicle was rendered dysfunctional during the incident, which would have constrained the accused persons to drive the vehicle away from the spot. No such barricading is evident even from the said site plan.
33. It is clear from the depositions of these witnesses that the accused persons had shot at them before they were apprehended. However, it has not come anywhere on record that these police officials had sustained any kind of injury during the incident, which in the stated facts and circumstances, appears to be highly unlikely. At this juncture, it is significant to note that FIR nos. 451454/12 PS Nazibabad District Bijnor, U.P. were registered against the accused persons in regard to the recovery of weapons from them and attempt to commit murder of these police officials and vide judgment dated 02.03.2013 Ex.DW1/A (OSR), the accused persons were acquitted in all these cases. These material incongruities render the presence of police witnesses at the time of recovery and in consequence, the credibility of primary witnesses, altogether dubious.
34. In addition to this, it is apparent that while it is mechanically stated that the public persons refused to associate themselves with the investigation when they were requested to join the same, neither any notice was served upon them nor the aid of Section 100(8) Cr.P.C, which makes such public persons who refuse to provide assistance in that regard liable to criminal action, was invoked. Under Section 100 (4) of Cr. P. C, a duty is cast upon the police official conducting search from any person to State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.15/18 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG Date:
GARG 2023.04.12
15:43:34
call upon independent witnesses to join the investigation. It has come on record through the testimony of PW10 that they remained at the spot for more than two hours, which afforded them sufficient time and opportunity to search for public persons. Nevertheless, the IO did not bother to call any person from the nearby villages. No convincing explanation is forthcoming for not complying with the mandate of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C, thereby diluting the genuineness of the investigation undertaken by the IO.
35. Moreover, the failure of IO to initiate legal action against the passersby who did not abide by his direction, makes it evident that serious efforts were, in fact, not made by him to procure corroboration through independent witnesses. At this juncture, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC) wherein it was held as herein under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party} the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the 1PC."
36. Further, the present case totally rests upon the alleged recovery of the case property from the possession of the accused State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.16/18 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2023.04.12 persons at the relevant time. When the public persons were not joined in the investigation, then in such case the arrival and departure entries of the police officials is a vital piece of evidence. No such document has been adduced in evidence which would reflect that PW2, PW3, PW10 and PW12 were on patrolling duty at the spot where recovery happened. Pertinently, Rule 49, Chapter 22 of The Punjab Police Rules, 1934 makes it mandatory to record the departure and arrival of the police officials. Not having done so, casts a cloud of suspicion over their reliability.
37. Moreover, DD no.30A pertains to telephonic information given by concerned SHO of PS Nazibabad at the police station about the alleged recovery of stolen case property of present case, without naming the persons from whom it was so recovered, which attenuates the evidentiary value of said entry. It is also pertinent to mention here that the prosecution did not tender the seizure memo in evidence vide which the case property and weapons were seized from accused persons on the date of alleged incident. These lacunas in cumulation with inconsistencies creeping into the ocular evidence of material witnesses, as highlighted in the foregoing paragraphs, gives rise to the possibility of the alleged case property having been falsely planted on the accused persons. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of Section 411 IPC against accused no.2 and 3 beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts.
Conclusion:
State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.17/18
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG
GARG Date:
2023.04.12
15:44:02 +0530
38. As an upshot of the abovesaid discussion, the police witnesses have failed to impress the court with their credibility and there is no other corroborative evidence to lend credence to the story of prosecution. The documentary evidence adduced by prosecution also suffers from serious infirmities and adds up to the pile of contradictions emerging in the prosecution case, thereby leading to the irresistible conclusion that the accused no.2 and 3 are entitled to benefit of doubt. Resultantly, since the prosecution has failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused no.2 and 3, the accused 1. Nasim S/o Babu Kurasi R/o Mohalla Rahim Tula Colony, Kolwali Sadar, District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh and 2. Wasim S/o Furkan R/o Mohalla Banduk Chein Kasba PS Dhampur Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh are held not guilty and hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 379/411/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Pronounced in open court in the presence of accused no.3 and Ld. Counsel for accused persons on 12.04.2023. BHARTI by Digitally signed BHARTI GARG GARG Date: 2023.04.12 15:44:10 +0530 (Bharti Garg) MM09/South West District Dwarka Court/New Delhi/12.04.2023 It is certified that this judgment contains eighteen pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signedBHARTI by BHARTI GARG GARG Date: 2023.04.12 15:44:17 +0530 (Bharti Garg) MM09/South West District Dwarka Court/New Delhi/12.04.2023 State Vs. Afzal and ors. CNR no. DLSW020000082012 Page no.18/18