Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya on 5 April, 2022
FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VISHAL GOGNE: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04 : SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI Registration No. 440371/2016 CNR No. DLSW01-000356-2016 State Vs. (1) Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya (2) Sandeep Singh @ Kaliya FIR No. : 465/2015 Police Station : Kapashera Under Sections : 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act Date of committal to Sessions Court : 04.02.2016 Date on which judgment was reserved: 01.04.2022 Date on which Judgment pronounced : 05.04.2022 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The present trial has inception in the FIR (Ex.PW5/B) dated 03.11.2015 which was registered upon the complaint (Ex.PW4/A) purportedly given by complainant Manoj Singh Tomar (PW-4) to SI Yakub Khan (IO/PW-14).State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 1 of 21
FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022
2. The allegations recorded in Ex.PW4/A may be detailed as under.
3. Complainant Manoj Singh Tomar purportedly asserted that he had been working as a Supervisor for about six months at the MCD Toll Tax at Palam Vihar operated by SMYR Consortium LLP and was on night duty from 6:00 pm to 6:00 am at the said toll tax booth on 02.11.2015. Three other employees of the said company namely Atul Singh Bhadauria, Divesh Kumar Yadav and Dashrath Singh (PW-8, PW-1 and PW-2 respectively) were also on night duty with him on the said date. All four of them were seated at a table and the complainant was seated at a corner of the table. Atul Singh was purportedly sitting next to the cash box at the table while Divesh and Dashrath Singh were seated opposite him.
4. The complainant further asserted that at around 11:30 pm, two males riding on one motorcycle of the make "Discover", bearing registration No. HR-36V-1924, reached the toll booth. They appeared to be about 25-30 years in age. Both men approached the complainant and his three colleagues. The pillion rider from the motorcycle now took out a pistol from his trousers while holding a knife in the other hand. The other accomplice, who had driven the motorcycle to the toll tax booth, also took out a pistol from his trousers. Both assailants pointed the pistols and the knife at the four employees and demanded for State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 2 of 21 FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022 the available cash to be handed over to them. When the complainant protested, the assailant carrying both a pistol and a knife inflicted an injury upon the hand of the complainant. The other assailant placed a pistol upon the head (temple) of Atul Singh Bhadauria and threatened to kill him if he did not hand over the cash.
5. The complainant described the contents of the cash box to be:
(i) Rs.1,20,000/- in cash, being the proceeds of the ticket collection
(ii) Six monthly passes of Rs. 3600/- each
(iii) 50 monthly passes of Rs.1950/- each
(iv) A ticket book having 100 tickets of Rs. 1120/- each
6. The complaint (Ex.PW4/A) lastly alleged that the assailant carrying only a pistol removed the entire cash amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- and the above described monthly passes/ tickets from the cash box. As the two robbers attempted to escape, the complainant and his colleagues gathered the courage to try and apprehend them. Though the victims grappled with the assailants, both of them were successful in escaping. Yet, they dropped the pistol and knife at the spot while the motorcycle on which they had arrived at the spot also got left at the place of incident during their escape.
State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 3 of 21FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022
7. The complaint described the pillion rider of the motorcycle as being of medium built and a round face whereas the driver of the motorcycle was tall and of medium built.
8. Upon receiving DD No. 43A regarding this incident, IO/SI Yakub Khan, along with Const. Sandeep (PW-10), reached the MCD Toll Tax, Bijwasan and learnt that complainant Manoj Kumar had been taken to DDU Hospital by the PCR Van. The motorcycle bearing No. HR-36V-1924 of the make "Bajaj Discover" (black and silver in colour) was found at the spot while a country made pistol and knife were found lying on the ground next to the motorcycle. No eye witness was found available at the place of incident.
9. SI Yakub Khan now reached DDU Hospital where he found complainant Manoj Kumar to be injured. After Manoj Kumar was discharged from the hospital, the IO recorded his statement. He also found Atul Bhadauria, Divesh Kumar and Dashrath to be present at the place of incident. The knife and pistol lying at the place of incident were seized along with the motorcycle in question.
10. The circumstances of the arrest of the present two accused persons namely Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya and Sandeep Singh @ Kaliya were explained in the charge sheet in the following manner.
State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 4 of 21FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022
11. The IO asserted in the charge sheet that after the motorcycle bearing No. HR-36V-1924 was found to be owned by one Mohan (PW-6), the said owner was questioned. Mohan informed the IO that he had given the motorcycle to his neighbour namely Dinesh on 02.11.2015 as he was required to visit his relative. Accused Dinesh was identified by Mohan when the police team reached the house of the former at Uttam Nagar- Delhi Road, Rewari, Haryana on 04.11.2015. The accused was arrested and purportedly disclosed that he had committed the incident in question along with his associate Sandeep Singh @ Kaliya, resident of Rajokri, New Delhi.
12. Accused Dinesh purportedly got recovered Rs.37,500/- and some MCD monthly passes from a cot (bed) at his house. The same were seized by the IO.
13. Subsequently, a police team, accompanied by Mohan, reached the house of co-accused Sandeep @ Kaliya at Rajokri, Delhi and apprehended him on the identification of Mohan. He too purportedly made a disclosure regarding his involvement in the incident of robbery at the MCD Toll Tax Booth, Palam Vihar Road, Bijwasan on 02.11.2015.
14. Accused Sandeep also purportedly got recovered many of the robbed articles/ valuables from his rented accommodation inter alia Rs. 15,000/- in cash, MCD monthly passes and a ticket book. A pistol without a magazine was also State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 5 of 21 FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022 recovered from him and seized by the IO.
15. The charge sheet forwarded both accused persons for trial under Sections 394/397/411/34 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act.
16. The various articles of charge framed against the two accused persons are as under:
(i) Charge was jointly framed against both accused persons under Sections 392/394/34 IPC in the following manner.
"That on 02.11.2015 at about 11:30 P.M., Palam Vihar Road, MCD Toll Tax, Bijwasan, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kapashera, you both in furtherance of your common intention robbed Manoj Kumar who was posted at above said toll tax on the point of country made pistol and knife, approximately Rs.1,20,000/-, Six monthly passes of Rs.3,600/- each, 50 monthly passes of Rs.1,950/- each and 100 tickets manual of Rs.1,120/- each and caused simple injury to Manoj Kumar at the time of robbery and thus, you both thereby committed offences punishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC and within the cognizance of this court. And I hereby direct that you both be tried by this Court for the aforesaid offence.
Sd/-
ASJ-3/ Dwarka Courts"
(ii) Since pistols and a knife had allegedly been used in the incident, a separate charge was also framed against each accused under Section 397 IPC.
(iii) On account of the purported recoveries of varying amounts of cash and other articles of robbery from the two State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 6 of 21 FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022 accused, a separate charge was framed against each accused under Section 411 IPC as under:
Charge under Section 411 IPC against accused Sandeep Singh @ Kaliya "That on 04.11.2015, you were found in possession of Rs. 15,000/- in denomination of Rs.500/- each, 30 monthly passes and one ticket book no.17 running from sr.no.A001601 to 001700 of Kapashera zone which were robbed on 02.11.2015 from Palam Vihar MCD Toll Tax, Bijwasan which you retain or knowing have reason to believe that stolen property and thus, you thereby committed offences punishable under Section 411 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court for the aforesaid offence.
Sd/-
ASJ-3/ Dwarka Courts"
Charge under Section 411 IPC against accused Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya "That on 04.11.2015, you were found in possession of Rs. 15,000/- in denomination of Rs.500/- each, 30 monthly passes and one ticket book no.17 running from sr.no.A001601 to 001700 of Kapashera zone which were robbed on 02.11.2015 from Palam Vihar MCD Toll Tax, Bijwasan which you retain or knowing have reason to believe that stolen property and thus, you thereby committed offences punishable under Section 411 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court for the aforesaid offence.
Sd/-
ASJ-3/ Dwarka Courts"State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 7 of 21
FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022
(iv) Lastly, a respective charge under Section 27 Arms Act was framed against both accused persons for alleged use of a country made pistol by accused Dinesh Kumar and a pistol as well as a knife by accused Sandeep Singh.
17. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of the various articles of charge whereas the two accused persons refuted the evidence projected to them during their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC.
18. It was submitted by Mr. Yogendra Adari, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that notwithstanding the adverse deposition of the eye witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW- 4 and PW-8, the offences in question had been convincingly proved by the various police witnesses relating to the recovery of the various stolen properties from the two accused persons and the recovery of the weapons of offence. Conviction was thus prayed for under all articles of charge.
19. The respective counsels for the accused persons rather agitated that none of the cited eye witnesses had identified the accused persons as the assailants in the incident dated 02.11.2015. It was argued that the uncorroborated testimony of the police witnesses was not an adequate basis for a finding of guilt against either accused.
20. The court has considered the evidence in the context State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 8 of 21 FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022 of the articles of charge and the submissions advanced by the respective counsels.
Charge under Sections 392/394/397 IPC
21. The principal offences qua which the accused have faced trial are Sections 392/394/34 IPC and Section 397 IPC.
22. The eye witnesses cited by the prosecution in support of the allegation of robbery by use of a deadly weapon were the complainant (PW-4) and his three colleagues namely Divesh Kumar, Dashrath and Atul (PW-1, PW-2 and PW-8 respectively).
23. The deposition of the owner of the motorcycle used by the two assailants in the incident dated 02.11.2015 inter alia PW-6 (Mohan) was cited as corroborative evidence of the use of the motorcycle by accused Dinesh on the date of incident.
24. The four eye witnesses (PW-4, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-8) were, however, completely inimical to the prosecution and remained hostile even upon sustained cross-examination by the Ld. Prosecutor.
25. The complainant (PW-4) did identify his signature on his purported complaint (Ex.PW4/A) during cross- examination by the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor but still denied the contents of the same. His examination-in-chief itself State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 9 of 21 FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022 was only a description of the manner of the incident and was bereft of the identification of the two accused as the assailants who had committed robbery of Rs. 1,20,000/- at the MCD Toll Tax Booth. Despite the two accused persons being pointed out to him by the Ld. Prosecutor, PW-4 was unable to identify them. He rather volunteered to state that it was completely dark at the time of occurrence.
26. PW-4 then denied all subsequent suggestions of the Ld. Prosecutor regarding accused Dinesh being the driver of the motorcycle and having caused injury to the hand of PW-4 by using a knife. He also denied that accused Sandeep had pointed the pistol to the head of his colleague namely Atul. PW-4 denied suggestions to the effect that the two accused persons had committed robbery of Rs.1,20,000/- and the monthly passes from the toll tax booth.
27. In this view, the admission of his signatures on the site plan, sketch of the pistol and seizure memos of the knife, motorcycle as well as the pistol (Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C, Ex.PW4/D, Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F) does not constitute either the identification of the accused or their incrimination in the incident.
28. The court would further notice that the cross- examination of PW-4 by the counsel for the accused persons, limited to one question, did still deliver another blow to the State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 10 of 21 FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022 version of the prosecution. PW-4 admitted during the said cross- examination that the monthly passes and tickets had in fact been taken by the police from the toll tax (booth) on the day after the incident. This admission implied that the purportedly robbed monthly passes and tickets could in fact have been taken later from the place of incident by the police itself and then reflected as having been recovered from the accused persons.
29. While the above solitary assertion does not establish false implication, it does confirm the doubts upon the prosecution version when seen in conjunction with the complete failure of the principal witness (PW-4) to identify either accused as the assailant in the incident dated 02.11.2015.
30. The same scenario unfolded during the deposition of the other eye witnesses.
31. PW-1 (Divesh Kumar) deposed that since it was dark at the time of the incident, he could not identify any of the assailants who had committed the robbery. He could not identify the accused persons as the assailants and upon being cross examined by the Ld. Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that the two accused persons had reached the place of incident and the motorcycle with deadly weapons in their hand. Much like PW-4, PW-1 also denied the specific suggestions from the State regarding the role of either of the accused persons in committing the theft of the cash and various monthly passes/ tickets.
State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 11 of 21FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022
32. The next eye witness cited by the prosecution was Dashrath (PW-2) who also cited the dark visibility conditions to explain his inability to have noticed the features of the assailants. In fact, this witness even failed to recollect the exact robbed amount during his examination-in-chief. He denied his ability to identify the assailants and was unable to identify the two accused persons as the said assailants. PW-2 denied all suggestions related to the role of the accused persons and the description of the property which was the subject of the robbery.
33. The last eye witness for the State was Atul Singh who deposed as PW-8. While he described the incident in detail, including the arrival of two persons on a motorcycle and their being armed with a pistol each as well as a knife, he did not identify the accused persons as the said assailants. Although PW-8 further described the robbery of Rs. 1 lac, monthly passes/ ticket manuals by the two assailants and their leaving behind a pistol, knife and motorcycle while running away, he specified that he would not be able to identify the said assailants on account of the long passage of time.
34. PW-8 also denied all suggestions from the Ld. Prosecutor regarding his purported previous statements (Ex.PW8/PX1 and Ex.PW8/PX2) under Section 161 Cr.PC to the IO which had purportedly identified the accused persons as the alleged robbers.
State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 12 of 21FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022
35. Seen in conjunction as well as separately, the deposition of neither of the cited eye witnesses is incriminatory of either accused in the incident dated 02.11.2015 at the MCD Toll Tax Booth, Bijwasan. The best placed witnesses to the incident remained entirely unsupportive of the charge under Section 392/397 IPC framed against the two accused persons.
36. The ancillary/ circumstantial witness cited by the prosecution, namely Mohan was examined as PW-6 and was the subject of a strong pitch from the prosecution during the course of final arguments. The Prosecutor contended that since this witness had deposed regarding accused Dinesh having taken his motorcycle on 02.11.2015, the recovery of the motorcycle from the place of incident implicated Dinesh and none else as the person who could have been involved in the robbery. It was submitted by the prosecution that PW-6 had correctly identified accused Dinesh and that this key circumstance established his role in the robbery.
37. The court does find some force in the submissions of the Prosecutor regarding the incriminatory value of the deposition of PW-6 qua accused Dinesh. It may be a possibility that having borrowed the motorcycle from PW-6, accused Dinesh used the same in the robbery and abandoned the motorcycle at the place of incident upon being confronted by the complainant. To this extent, the deposition of PW-6 does create one State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 13 of 21 FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022 interpretation regarding the circumstances of recovery of the motorcycle.
38. Yet, the benefit of competing interpretations must always accrue to an accused in a criminal trial. The deposition of the eye witnesses, who are all hostile to the prosecution, does create such a competing interpretation. Since the witnesses best placed to identify the presence of the two accused persons, including accused Dinesh, at the place of incident, failed to do so, a strong possibility emerges favouring their not being the assailants. In the face of a failed identification by the eye witnesses, it would be quite far fetched for the court to accept the deposition of PW-6 as proof beyond doubt regarding the presence of accused Dinesh at the place of incident.
39. Besides, mere control over the motorcycle in question on 02.11.2015 does not translate into an assumption that accused Dinesh was in control of the motorcycle from the time of borrowing it till the time of it being abandoned at the place of incident. The only witnesses who could have completed the chain of possession in the hands of accused Dinesh remained inimical to the prosecution.
40. Hence the supporting account of PW-6 fails to negate the adverse impact of the deposition of PW-4, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-8 who have failed to identify the two accused as the armed assailants who committed the robbery on 02.11.2015.
State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 14 of 21FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022
41. The proof of injuries upon the person of PW-4, proved by Dr. Amit Tomar (PW-3) through MLC (Ex.PW3/A), is by itself not incriminatory of either accused on account of lack of identification as the assailants.
42. All accused are liable to be acquitted of the various articles of charge relating to robbery. To elaborate, both accused are liable to be acquitted under Sections 392/394/34 IPC while both accused are liable to be acquitted of the separate articles of charge framed against them under Section 397 IPC.
Charge under Section 411 IPC
43. The next article of charge, framed separately against each accused, was under Section 411 IPC.
44. It is the version of the prosecution that the recovery from accused Sandeep Singh was as follows:
(a) Rs.15,000/- in denomination of Rs. 500/- each
(b) 30 monthly passes
(c) one ticket book no.17 running from sr.no.A001601 to 001700 of Kapashera zone
45. The purported recovery from accused Dinesh was as under.
(a) Rs.37,500/- comprising 48 notes in denomination of Rs.500/-, 110 notes in denomination of Rs.100/-, 248 notes in State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 15 of 21 FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022 denomination of Rs.10/- and one note in denomination of Rs.20/-
(b) 18 pieces of monthly passes
46. The witnesses examined by the prosecution in proof of the above recoveries from the two accused were PW-11 (ASI Chander Bhan), PW-13 (HC Krishan) and PW-14 (IO/SI Yakub Khan).
47. The gist of the deposition of these three witnesses was that witness Mohan (PW-6) had led them to the residence of accused Dinesh where, upon his disclosure statement, the cash amount of Rs.37,500/- as well as the toll tax tickets were seized through seizure memo Ex.PW11/2. Further, that Mohan then accompanied them to the house of accused Sandeep, who also made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of Rs.15,000/- in cash along with passes and tickets which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/6.
48. The court finds it difficult to lend any credence to the deposition of the police witnesses. The reasons are many. The entire cast of eye witnesses has turned hostile and failed to identify either accused as being among the robbers in the incident in question. The recovery of the stolen articles, sought to be ascribed to the same accused, must necessarily be doubted too.
49. More pertinently, the one available public witness (namely Mohan) to the purported recoveries from the two accused was not made a witness to the recovery through the State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 16 of 21 FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022 seizure memos (Ex.PW11/2 and Ex.PW11/6). The circumstance of the available public witness not being joined to recovery proceedings remained entirely unexplained and is indeed inexplicable. When PW-6 had himself purportedly accompanied the police team, he ought to have been joined for lending independent verification to the purported recoveries. It creates much doubt regarding the charge under Section 411 IPC for reason of such omission.
50. The deposition of PW-6 himself further denied the possibility of the court believing the version of the police witnesses. PW-6 did not allude to any such recovery in his presence during his examination-in-chief. Upon being cross examined by the State, he did admit his signatures on the purported disclosure statements of the two accused (Ex.PW6/B1 and Ex.PW6/B2) and also upon their arrest memos (Ex.PW6/B3 and Ex.PW6/B4). However, even qua these documents, he volunteered to state that the police had obtained his signatures on blank papers. In fact, the purported seizure memos or the claim of any recovery in his presence were not even projected to him as a suggestion during cross-examination.
51. The deposition of the police witnesses i.e. PW-11, PW-13 and PW-14 in the context of the purported recoveries did not receive support from the purported eye witnesses either. PW-1 (Divesh Kumar) failed to identify the case property when it State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 17 of 21 FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022 was shown to him during his cross-examination by the Ld. Prosecutor. When the monthly passes, ticket book and currency notes were shown to PW-1, he was unable to identify the same as the subject of the robbery in question. Though he did say that the articles were similar to monthly passes, he was not sure. Similarly, he could not identify the currency notes as being the subject of robbery.
52. As noted earlier in this judgment, the complainant (PW-4) himself stated during cross-examination that the monthly passes and tickets were taken by the police from the Toll Tax Booth on the day after incident. Hence, not only does the case property remain unidentified as the robbed articles, even its status as seized case property is under suspicion considering the statement of PW-4.
53. In sum, the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of the various amounts of cash, monthly passes and tickets from the two accused persons.
54. Both accused are entitled to acquittal under Section 411 IPC.
Charge under Section 27 Arms Act
55. The remaining article of charge was Section 27 Arms Act which was separately framed against both accused persons.
State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 18 of 21FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022
56. Much like the evidence cited qua the charge under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution had examined three witnesses i.e. PW-11, PW-13 and PW-14 to establish the recovery of a pistol from accused Sandeep. These witnesses asserted that the same was recovered from the house of accused Sandeep in the presence of witness Manoj (PW-6) and seized through seizure memo Ex.PW11/5.
57. The court would avoid repetition of the reasons for which PW-11, PW-13 and PW-14 have been disbelieved qua the recovery of the purportedly robbed articles from the two accused. It suffices as an observation that the recovery of the pistol from accused Sandeep by these very witnesses must be held as not proved for reason of non joining of the available public witness i.e. PW-6. As the recovery of the pistol remains not proved and the eye witnesses have not cited accused Sandeep as the assailant on the date of incident, the use of the pistol in question or any pistol by him remains not proved.
58. The charge under Section 27 Arms Act against accused Dinesh was on an even weaker footing.
59. The prosecution had examined PW-10 (Const. Sandeep) who accompanied the IO i.e. PW-14 (SI Yakub Khan) to prove the recovery of the knife and pistol from the place of incident and the seizure of these articles through seizure memos Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/F. Although these seizure memos were State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 19 of 21 FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022 first tendered in evidence during the cross-examination of PW-4 i.e. complainant Manoj Singh Tomar, the said witness maintained that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. Since none of the eye witnesses have confirmed the presence of either accused at the place of incident or any role played by them in the robbery, the recovery of an abandoned knife and pistol from the place of incident does not prove the use of the same by accused Dinesh or Sandeep Singh.
60. The charge under Section 27 Arms Act fails against both accused for want of proof of any link between the pistols/ knife in question and the two accused. Neither the possession of the accused over the said weapons nor the use of the same by the accused persons has been established beyond doubt by the prosecution.
61. The other witnesses cited by the prosecution were of a formal nature and do not influence any finding qua the various articles of charge. These witnesses included the Duty Officer (PW-5) who recorded the FIR, witnesses related to the place of residence of the employees of the toll tax booth (PW-7 and PW-
9) and the MHC(M) (PW-12) who had deposited the various case properties in the malkhana (store room)/ proved the entries in the relevant register.
62. The prosecution has not succeeded in proving the allegations constituting the various articles of charge on the State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 20 of 21 FIR No. 465/2015 P.S. Kapashera U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act DOD: 05.04.2022 standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
63. Accused Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya and Sandeep Singh @ Kaliya are acquitted of the charge under Sections 392/394/34 IPC as well as the respective separate charge under Sections 397 and 411 IPC. Both accused are acquitted of the charge under Section 27 Arms Act.
64. All bonds except the bonds under Section 437A Cr.PC are discharged.
65. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL GOGNE
GOGNE Date:
2022.04.05
Announced in open Court today 16:21:48 +0530
On 05.04.2022 (Vishal Gogne)
Additional Sessions Judge-04
Dwarka Courts, South-West
New Delhi
State V/s Dinesh Kumar @ Kaliya & Anr. Page 21 of 21