Delhi District Court
Fir No. 253/11; State vs . Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 1 Of 21 on 28 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 01/12
FIR No. 253/11
P.S. Rani Bagh
U/S: 392/397/411/34 IPC &
27/25/54/59 Arms Act
STATE
Versus
(1) Rakesh @ Lota
s/o Sh. Prem Chand
r/o P4/54, Mangolpuri
Delhi
(2) Mohd. Alam @ Munna
s/o Sh. Shabir Ahmad
r/o B163, Gali no. 9,
Prem NagarIII, Budh Bazar Road,
Kirari, Delhi
(3) Satish @ Satte @ Vishal
s/o Sh. Kirpa Ram
r/o C701, Mangolpuri, Delhi
(4) Vinod
s/o Sh. Tulsi Ram
r/o E350, Agar Nagar,
Prem Nagar, Kirari, Delhi
FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 1 of 21
(5) Sachin @ Vicky
s/o Sh. Shyam Lal
r/o B601, Mangolpuri, Delhi
(6) Amin @ Yameen
s/o Sh. Bayruddin
r/o L11811182,
Mangolpuri, Delhi
Date of Institution: 30112011
Date of arguments: 27082014
Date of judgement: 28082014
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that on 02092011 on receipt of DD no. 39A, SI Pawan Kumar along with HC Rajpal reached at the place of information at CBlock red light, Outer Ring Road, Saraswati Vihar, towards Madhuban Chowk, Delhi where complainant Ravi Kumar along with Anuj Saraswat, Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma and Sanchit Kumar met them. A crowd was also gathered at the spot. The complainant along with other persons produced two persons namely Rakesh and Mohd. Alam. Complainant Ravi Kumar gave his statement that he was residing with Anuj Saraswat at Shakti Nagar, Delhi and he was doing B (Arch.) from Babu Banarsi Dass National Institute of Technology and FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 2 of 21 Management College, Lucknow. His associates namely Anuj Saraswat, Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma and Sanchit Sharma were also doing B (Arch) along with him and they were doing training from S. K. Integrated Consultants, 280, Deepali Enclave, Pitampura from the last 1½ months from 10 am to 6 pm. As usual, he along with Anuj Saraswat, Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma and Sanchit Sharma left the office at 6 pm and they boarded bus route no. 883 from Deepali Chowk for going to Pitampura Metro Station. They were standing near the rear gate. When the bus moved some distance, four boys came around them and started pushing them. He saw that one of the boys of heavy built was taking out laptop from the bag of Deepak and he immediately raised voice. One of those boys took out a knife and put on the stomach of complainant and said "jaan pyari hai to chup ho ja". In the meanwhile, the bus stopped near C Block red light and when some passenger got down from the bus those boys tried to get down from the boys and complainant along with his associates tried to catch them. The same person who was having knife waved the knife towards them and threatened them while saying do not dare to raise noise or chase them, they will stab them. Two boys ran towards Deepali Chowk after getting down from the bus and the boy with knife was also in them and they were also FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 3 of 21 having black colour bags. Two boys ran towards Madhuban Chowk and one of them was of heavy built and having laptop of Deepak. Complainant along with his associates chased those boys who ran towards Madhuban Chowk and apprehended them after a chase of about 2530 paces. The boy with heavy built was having the laptop of Deepak in his right hand. Later on, his name was revealed as Rakesh and name of his associate was revealed as Mohd. Alam. In the meanwhile, complainant dialled at 100 number.
2. It is also the case of the prosecution that thereafter, they checked their bags and laptop of complainant make HP DV6 and laptop of Anuj Saraswat make HP DV6 were also found missing. Both the boys disclosed that aforesaid two laptops were with their associates who ran towards Deepali Chowk side. The crowd gathered at the spot gave beatings to those boys. Police came at the spot and laptop of Deepak along with accused Rakesh and Mohd. Alam were handed over to police. In the meanwhile HC Mohan and Ct. Mehar Singh came at the spot while patrolling. The laptop produced by the complainant make Lenovo was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of PK and taken into police possession. FIR u/s 392/397/34/411 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act was got registered through Ct. Mehar Singh and further investigation FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 4 of 21 was carried out by SI Pawan Kumar. Accused Rakesh and Mohd. Alam were arrested in this case. The accused disclosed the names of accused who fled from the spot as Satish @ Satte @ Vishal and Sachin @ Vicky and on 06092011, they were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded wherein they disclosed that they sold one laptop to one Yamin for a sum of Rs. 5,000/ and another laptop to Vinod for a sum of Rs. 4,000/. Accused Satish @ Satte @ Vishal got recovered three stolen laptops from his house and pointed out towards accused Vinod and he was also arrested in this case from whose possession the robbed laptop make HP DV6 was recovered. On 06112011, accused Yamin @ Amin was also arrested and he got recovered the robbed laptop make HP DV6. Accused Amin @ Yamin further got recovered three more laptops from his house and disclosed that he purchased those stolen laptops from roaming persons in Mangolpuri Market. Accused Sachin @ Vicky disclosed that he threw the knife while fleeing at Deepali chowk in a truck and the knife could not be recovered. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Rakesh @ Lota, Mohd. Alam @ Munna, Satish @ Satte @ Vishal, Sachin @ Vicky, Vinod and Amin @ Yamin u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act.
FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 5 of 21
3. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 392/397/34 IPC was framed against accused persons namely Rakesh @ Lota, Mohd. Alam @ Munna, Satish @ Satte @ Vishal and Sachin @ Vicky and accused Rakesh @ Lota, Amin @ Yamin and Vinod were also charged u/s 411 IPC to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. PW1 Ravi, in his testimony exhibited his statement as Ex.PW1/A, seizure memo of laptop as Ex. PW1/B, arrest memo of accused Rakesh as Ex.PW1/C, arrest memo of accused Mohd. Alam as Ex.PW1/D and their personal search memos as Ex.PW1/E & Ex.PW1/F respectively. PW2 Sanchit Sharma, in his testimony identified the laptop as Ex. PW3/P1 which was robbed by the accused persons on 02.09.2011 from the bag of his friend Deepak. PW2 also exhibited the travelling tickets of DTC bus (four in number) as Ex.PW2/A1 (colly.). PW3 Deepak Vishvakarma, in his testimony exhibited his statement as Ex.PW3/A. PW3 identified the laptop make Lenovo as Ex. PW3/P1 and exhibited the receipt as Ex.PW3/B qua purchase of laptop. PW3 also exhibited the photographs of the laptop as Ex.PW3/P2 to Ex.PW3/P5. PW5 ASI FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 6 of 21 Virender Singh, in his testimony exhibited the copy of DD no. 39A as Ex.PW5/A, copy of the FIR as Ex.PW5/B, the endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW5/C. PW6 Ct. Jaivir, in his testimony, exhibited the disclosure statements of accused Alam and Rakesh as Ex.PW6/A & Ex.PW6/B respectively. PW7 Anuj Saraswat, in his testimony exhibited the laptop through photograph collectively as Ex.PW7/P1 and his statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC as Ex. PW7/PA. PW9 HC Rajpal Hooda, in his testimony exhibited the disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Alam as Ex.PW9/A and disclosure statement of accused Rakesh as Ex.PW9/B, arrest memos of accused Satish @ Satte and Sachin @ Vicky as Ex.PW9/C & Ex.PW9/D and their personal search memos as Ex.PW9/E & Ex.PW9/F, disclosure statement of accused Satish @ Satte as Ex.PW9/G, disclosure statement of accused Sachin @ Vicky as Ex.PW9/H. PW9 in his testimony further exhibited the seizure memo of all three recovered laptops as Ex.PW9/J; arrest memo of accused Vinod as Ex.PW9/K and his personal search memo as ExPW9/L, disclosure statement of accused Vinod as Ex.PW9/M, seizure memo of laptop make HP DV6 as Ex. PW9/N. PW9 identified the Laptop make HP DV6 which was got recovered by accused Vinod as Ex.PW9/P1.
FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 7 of 21
5. PW10 Ct. Kawal Singh, in his testimony, exhibited the arrest memo of accused Yamin as Ex.PW10/A and his personal search memo and disclosure statement as Ex.PW10/B and Ex.PW10/C respectively. PW10 in his testimony further exhibited the seizure memo of laptop make HP as Ex. PW10/D, seizure memo of all three laptops as Ex.PW10/E. PW10 identified the laptop make HP DV6 which was got recovered by accused Ameen @ Yamin from his house which he had purchased from coaccused Satish @ Satte as Ex.PW10/A1. PW11 HC Vinod Kumar, MHCM in his testimony exhibited the relevant entries running into six pages of register No. 19 as Ex.PW11/A (colly.). PW12 Sh. Dheeraj Mor, Ld. MM, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in his testimony, exhibited the TIP proceedings of accused Satish @ Satte as Ex.PW12/A and his certificate in this regard as Ex.PW12/B, the TIP proceedings of accused Sachin @ Vicky as Ex.PW12/C and his certificate in this regard as Ex.PW12/D. PW12 also exhibited his endorsement on the application of IO as Ex.PW12/E. PW14 SI Pawan Kumar, in his testimony exhibited rukka prepared by him as Ex.PW14/A, superdarinama in favour of Sh. Deepak Kumar Vishvakarma as Ex.PW14/X, site plan as Ex.PW14/B, the carbon copy of application as Ex.PW14/C moved by him for grant of PC remand of accused Mohd. Alam and Rakesh, his FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 8 of 21 application for grant of one day PC remand of accused Satish @ Satte as Ex.PW14/D; application Ex. PW14/E moved by him for TIP of accused Satish @ Satte and Sachin @ Vicky and ownership proof of laptop of Ravi Kumar as Ex. PW14/G.
6. Statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. therein they denied all the allegations made against them. The accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
7. I have heard Ld. counsel for the accused persons and the Ld. Addl. PP for State and have perused the entire record.
8. The Ld. counsel for accused persons argued that there is no recovery from accused Yamin. No independent witness was joined during search of house of accused. No notice was given to the public persons who refused to join investigation. No site plan was prepared. No information to any relative of accused Yamin was given. The recovered laptops do not belong to this case and they are planted on the accused. The arrest of accused Yamin is dated 06112011 whereas personal search is dated 05112011. Ravi is the star/ main witness upon his complaint, the FIR was registered. The driver of DTC bus is mentioned in the FIR but driver was neither made witness nor he was examined. PW1 did not identify any accused. There is a contradiction between the prosecution story FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 9 of 21 and the statement of PW1 regarding the boys whether they were 4 boys or 5 boys. Two persons were cited as apprehended at the spot which is thickly populated area but no witness from the bus or the spot were joined. Case property was not recovered from any of the two persons at the spot. No information was given to any relative of the persons arrested at the spot. There is no public witness to the site plan, disclosure statements of Mohd. Alam, Rakesh @ Lota, Satish @ Satte, Vinod, Amin @ Yamin, pointing out memo and seizure memo of laptop. Deepak Vishwakarma, Sanchit Sharma and Anuj Saraswat did not identify any of the accused persons. No laptop of this case was recovered from accused Satish @ Satte. The laptops were not put for TIP. Knife was not recovered. SI Pawan Kumar admitted that no notice was given to Satish @ Satte and he was arrested on the basis of coaccused which cannot be relied. PW1 did not identify Satish @ Satte and even no other witness identified Satish @ Satte. All the accused persons are on the same footing. The IO has not conducted the fair investigation and the accused have been falsely implicated in this case.
9. The Ld. APP for State argued that the accused persons robbed the laptops from the complainant and his associates at the point of knife in a bus. Two accused were apprehended near the FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 10 of 21 spot after some chase and their other associates were also apprehended later on. The recovery of laptops were effected from the accused persons. There are minor contradictions in the testimonies of PWs which do not go to the root of the case. The accused persons cannot take benefit of minor contradictions or faulty investigation, if any. Public persons generally do not come forward to become part of criminal cases. The accused persons have not led any defence evidence to prove their innocence. The prosecution has been able to prove its case by way of ocular and documentary evidence.
10. In view of the above arguments of the Ld. counsel for the accused persons and Ld. APP for State, let us examine the evidence led in this case as to whether the accused persons had committed the offence as charged or whether they have been falsely implicated. PW1 Ravi, in his examination in chief stated that he can identify those persons on seeing them who boarded the bus on the way and took out his laptop as well as his two friends but after seeing towards the accused persons (present in the court), PW1 stated that he could not identify any of them who took their laptops due to lapse of time. Even, during crossexamination by Ld. APP for State, PW1 stated that they boarded the DTC bus from Deepali Chowk but he could not FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 11 of 21 tell the route no. of said bus. PW1 further could not tell whether 4 or 6 boys surrounded them. PW1 did not tell whether one of the boys took out a knife. PW1 also did not tell whether bus stopped at C Block red light, Outer Ring Road, Saraswati Vihar. PW1 further stated that he had not stated to the police that out of 46 boys, two boys ran towards Deepali Chowk including the boy having knife. PW1 denied that he stated to the police that two boys out of which one was of heavy built and carrying laptop of Deepak ran towards Madhuban Chowk and apprehended by him and his friends. PW1 further denied that the boys who ran towards Deepali Chowk were having black colour bags with them and chased by them upto Madhuban Chowk and they were apprehended by them after covering distance of about 2530 steps. PW1 further denied that he had stated to the police that name of the boy of heavy built who was carrying laptop of Deepak was known to them later on as Rakesh. On specifically pointed out by Ld. APP for State towards accused Rakesh and Mohd. Alam, PW1 stated that he could not identify accused Rakesh and Mohd. Alam as the incident pertains to year 2011. PW1 denied that he had stated to the police that name of the boy who was apprehended by them was Mohd. Alam. PW1 further denied that he had stated to the police in his statement that when FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 12 of 21 police reached at the spot, he along with his friends handed over the boys namely Rakesh and Mohd. Alam along with laptop to police. PW1 further denied that he had stated to the police that boy Mohd. Alam and Rakesh and their associates showed them knife and robbed them of their laptops. On specifically pointed out towards accused Satish @ Satte and Sachin @ Vicky, PW1 stated that he cannot tell whether they were involved or not due to lapse of time. PW1 further denied that he had stated to the police in his statement dated 02092011 that police seized the laptop of his friend Deepak which was handed over by him to the police in a sealed pullanda. After seeing the seizure memo of laptop Ex. PW1/B, PW1 identified his signature at point A but he was unable to tell its contents. PW1 further denied that police recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A at his instance. PW1 also denied that one laptop of his friend Deepak was recovered from accused Mohd. Alam or that he handed over the same to police. PW1 further denied that accused Rakesh was the boy who waved knife and put knife on his stomach and threatened him not to raise alarm. During crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel, PW1 admitted that nothing had been recovered from any of the accused or at their instance in his presence.
11. PW3 Deepak Vishvakarma, in his examination in chief FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 13 of 21 was not clear as to how many persons were there and what was the exact place of apprehending the two persons. During cross examination by Ld. APP for State, PW1 denied that he had stated to the police that his friend Ravi raised alarm and he saw that a boy of heavy built was taking out his laptop from his bag. PW3 further denied that he had stated to the police that one of the boys took out knife and put the same on the stomach of Ravi and asked him to keep quite by saying "jaan pyari hai to". PW3 denied that he had stated to the police when the four boys came down from the bus, they also deboarded the bus and started chasing them, one of the boys started brandishing the knife towards them by saying not to raise alarm or chase them, otherwise they would kill them. On specifically pointed out by Ld. APP for State towards accused Mohd. Alam, PW3 stated that he could not say whether he was the same boy who was apprehended by them. PW3 even could not tell regarding the other boys who were present in the court whether they were involved in the incident or not. During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW3 admitted that no memo was prepared by the police in his presence regarding the recovery of laptop Ex. PW3/P1. Even, the arrest of accused Rakesh and Mohd. Alam was not made in his presence. PW3 had not got prepared any sketch of FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 14 of 21 the remaining accused nor he was called regarding identification of remaining accused persons. PW3 also admitted in his cross examination that no seizure memo was made by the IO regarding the seizure of receipt Ex. PW3/B. PW3 also admitted that he was not knowing the contents of the documents on which he had put his signatures at the instance of IO.
12. PW7 Anuj Saraswat, in his examination in chief stated that with the help of police, two culprits were apprehended but PW7 could not identify those two persons. During crossexamination by Ld. APP for State, PW7 denied that five accused persons except Mohd. Yamin were the persons who had surrounded him and his three friends and on the point of knife, taken away their laptops. PW7 further denied that accused Rakesh and Mohd. Alam were the persons who were apprehended by them with the help of police. PW7 also denied that from accused Rakesh the laptop of his friend Deepak was recovered. PW7 further denied that due to fear, he did not identify accused persons in the court specifically accused Rakesh and Mohd. Alam who were apprehended on the spot and laptop of accused Deepak was recovered from accused Rakesh on the spot itself.
13. PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW7 are the main/star witnesses. FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 15 of 21 However, PW2 identified accused Mohd. Alam and Rakesh but it is evident from the testimonies of PW1, PW3 and PW7 that they have not identified the accused persons who robbed laptops or shown knife by one of the accused. PW1 denied the contents of the seizure memo of laptop Ex.PW1/E and even PW1 also denied that police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A at his instance. PW1 also admitted that nothing was recovered from any of the accused or at their instance in his presence. PW3 also admitted that no memo was prepared by the police in his presence regarding recording of laptop Ex.P3/P1 and even arrest of accused Rakesh and Mohd. Alam was also not made in his presence. PW3 also admitted that no seizure memo of receipt Ex.PW3/B was made by the IO and even PW3 was not named the contents of the documents on which he had put his signatures at the instance of IO. PW7 also denied that the laptop of his friend Deepak was recovered from the accused Rakesh from the spot.
14. PW6 Ct. Jaivir in his examination in chief admitted that due to inadvertence, he had identified accused Vinod as accused Alam. During crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel, PW6 admitted that nothing was recovered in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused persons. PW8 Ct. Shri Bhagwan in his FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 16 of 21 crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel stated that they were in the official vehicle but he did not tell the number of said official vehicle and the name of the driver. Even, PW8 could not tell the DD no. by which they left the PS with the accused persons and the same was his reply regarding their arrival in PS with the accused persons after investigation. PW8 stated that he signed his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. after going through it and when the said statement was shown to the witness, PW8 admitted that same did not bear his signature. PW8 also could not tell the story of the houses bearing no. B601 and C701 Mangolpuri where accused Mohd. Alam and Rakesh led the police party. PW10 Ct. Kawal Singh, stated in his examination in chief that accused Yamin was arrested and his personal search was conducted on 06112011 whereas, in his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused, the attention of PW10 was drawn towards personal search memo of accused Yamin where the date was mentioned as 05112011. PW13 HC Mohan, in his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons, could not tell the DD no. and the time by which he and Ct. Mehar Singh left the PS on 02092011 and the same was his reply regarding his arrival in the PS on the same day. PW13 further stated in his crossexamination that the accused persons Rakesh FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 17 of 21 and Mohd. Alam were taken to PS in three wheeler. PW13 again said, they were taken in two three wheelers. PW13 could not tell how much fare was paid by the IO. PW13 also could not tell which vehicle was used by Ct. Mehar Singh when he left the spot with rukka. PW13 also stated that in his presence, Ct. Mehar Singh had not signed any document and in his presence, the relatives of the accused persons were not called by the IO nor any information was delivered to any relative of the accused persons.
15. PW14 SI Pawan Kumar, in his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, stated that the TIP of recovered laptops was not got conducted by him. PW14 also admitted that he had not prepared any site plan regarding the location of the house of accused Satish @ Satte as well as Mohd. Yamin in this case. No notice was given to any public person, however, public persons were present there. PW14 in his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons could not tell the DD no. by which he made his arrival after investigation of the case and even he could not tell the name of the driver. PW14 also admitted that he had not mentioned arrival of the complainant and his associates in the PS in report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. as well as in Rojnamcha. PW14 also could not tell the DD no. by which he made FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 18 of 21 his arrival after recovery of laptops and the vehicle no. in the PS. PW14 also could not tell DD no. and vehicle no. when accused Sachin was taken to police custody by him and the same was his reply regarding his arrival in the PS along with the case property. It has been held in Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 that "wherein it has been observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the Courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
16. PW14 admitted that place of occurrence was a thickly populated area but no independent person was served with the notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. to become witness of investigation and recovery. PW14 also admitted that he had not obtained signatures of the friends of complainant on the seizure memo. PW14 also admitted that no independent witness was joined by him at the time of recovery of laptops at the instance of accused Satish @ Satte and Mohd. Yamin. It has come in the evidence that no public witness FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 19 of 21 was joined at the time of preparation of site plan, arrest memos of accused Satish @ Satte, Sachin @ Vicky, Vinod, Amin @ Yamin, personal search memos of Vinod, Satish @ Satte, Sachin @ Vicky, Amin @ Yamin, disclosure statements of the accused persons and seizure memo of laptop. In my considered opinion, statutory desirability in the matter of search and seizure is that there should be support from unbiased and neutral corner. The search before an independent witness imparts much more authenticity and credit worthiness to the search and seizure proceedings. Such safeguard is intended to avoid criticism of arbitrary and highhanded action against police officers. This is to lend credibility to the procedure relating to search and seizure. In Staila Sayyed Vs. State 2008 (4) JCC 2840, it was held that there was nonjoining of public witness at the time of arrest of accused and recoveries. All the witnesses to the recoveries were police officials. Such recoveries do not inspire confidence. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Singh 2001 (II) AD (SC) 125, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the failure of the prosecution to examine independent witnesses though available is fatal for their case.
17. In Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) CC Cases (SC) 35, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 20 of 21 that where two views of a story appeared to be probable, the one that was contended by the accused should be accepted. In Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) Crimes 55, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that 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 improbably or lacks 'credibility', benefits of doubt necessarily has to go to accused.
18. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. I, therefore, give benefit of doubt to the accused persons. All accused persons are accordingly acquitted. Accused Rakesh be released, if not wanted in any other criminal case. The bail bonds of accused persons are extended for a period of six months u/s 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Record Room.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW03:ROHINI:DELHI.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 28.08.2014 FIR No. 253/11; State Vs. Rakesh @ Lota Etc. Page 21 of 21