Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Mohd. Adil on 25 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN, LD.
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE03, SE: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 34/10
Comp. ID : 02403R0345602008
State Vs 1. Mohd. Adil
S/o Mohd. Habib
R/o F74, Abul Fazal Enclave,
Jamia, Okhla, New Delhi
2. Deepak Singh
S/o Shri Bhairav Singh
R/o Villlage Gainda Khalli No. 3,
PS Tanakpur, District Champavat,
Uttarakhand
3. Trilok
S/o Shri Ramesh Singh
R/o Village Gainda Khalli No. 3,
PS Tanakpur, District Champavat,
Uttarakhand
4. Diwan Singh
S/o Shri Maan Bahadur
R/o Village Immli Padav,
PS Tanakpur, Near Gurudwara,
District Champavat, Uttarakhand
State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 1 Of 23
FIR No : 924/07
P.S. : Sarita Vihar
U/s. : 399/402 IPC & 25 Arms Act
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 22.09.2010
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 25.07.2012
DATE OF DECISION : 25.07.2012
JUDGMENT:
1. Prosecution story in brief is that on 13.12.2007 when SI Jeet Singh alongwith ASI Om Prakash, HC Wasik Ahmed, HC Abdul, Ct. A Rehman, Ct. Shailendera, Ct. Anil Kumar and Ct. Subhash were patrolling in government vehicle Tata 407 in the area of PS Sarita Vihar, met a secret informer at around 4.00 p.m. near Apollo Hospital, who informed that 56 young boys used to indulge in robbery activities will assemble at around 4.30 p.m. on a vacant plot near Tpoint, Kalindi Kunj for planning to commit dacoity at nearby petrol pump.
2. Thereafter, on the instructions of inspector Vijay, SI Jeet Singh alongwith staff prepared raiding party and reached the spot at around 4.10 p.m. with secret informer. SI Jeet Singh instructed driver Vinod Kumar to park the vehicle at some distance from the spot and further asked 45 public persons to join raid, but all State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 2 Of 23 refused. SI Jeet Singh deputed ASI Om Prakash as shadow witness to hear the conversation of boys and at around 4.40 p.m., two persons came on one motorcycle no. UP 14 J 3858, and after parking the said motorcycle went inside and sat in the bushes. Thereafter, three more boys came at around 4.50 p.m. and sat alongwith them. Then ASI Om Prakash was sent for hearing the conversation, who at around 5.05 p.m. signalled the raiding party after hearing conversation. Thereafter, accused Deepak Singh was apprehended by HC Wasik Ahmed and one buttondar knife was recovered from his possession. Accused Diwan Singh was apprehended by Ct. A Rehman and one buttondar knife was recovered from his possession. Accused Trilok Singh was apprehended by Ct. Shailendra and accused Mohd. Adil was apprehended by HC Abdul Hakim and one of the accused Dheer Singh managed to run away from the spot. It was apprised by ASI Om Prakash that these boys were planning to commit dacoity at nearby petrol pump and Trilok Singh who appeared to be the leader, directing the other accused how to commit robbery at said petrol pump. Pursuant to apprehension of accused persons and recovery of weapons, rukka was prepared and sent through Ct. Anil Kumar who took the same to police station for registration. Pursuant to registration of FIR, further investigation was handed State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 3 Of 23 over to SI Jeet Singh himself.
3. During investigation he prepared site plan and further arrested accused persons and prepared their personal search memos and also seized the motorcycle brought by accused. He further recorded disclosure statements of accused persons and accused Adil disclosed that they committed robbery at Model Town of Rs. 3,57,000/ and shared the same with other accused persons and similar disclosure statements of other accused also recorded.
4. During investigation, accused persons were taken to their rented accommodation at house no. 88, New Jasola Village on 14.12.2007 and at the instance of accused Trilok Singh Rs. 1 lac cash was recovered, at the instance of Deepak Singh Rs. 55,000/ cash was recovered, at the instance of accused Diwan Singh Rs. 50,000/, at instance of accused Adil Qureshi from house no F74, Abul Fazal Enclave Rs. 40,000/ were recovered. Accused Adil also got recovered one motorcycle standing outside his house as the same was told to used in reiki at Model Town village. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
5. On committal charges u/s. 309/402 IPC made out against all accused persons, further accused Deepak, Diwan Singh and Trilok Singh were charged u/s. 25 Arms Act. Prosecution for substantiating charge examined 11 prosecution witnesses.
State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 4 Of 23 Raiding party members SI Jeet Singh, ASI Om Prakash, Ct. Anil Kumar, HC Abdul Hakim, Ct. Shailendra Singh, HC Vinod, HC Wasik Ahmen and HC A Rehman were examined as PW11, PW5, PW7, PW8, PW10, PW3 and PW2. Summary details of their depositions as follows.
Depositions of Raiding Party Members
6. PW11 SI Jeet Singh deposed that 13.12.2007 when he was patrolling in the area vide DD no. 9 alongwith staff in government vehicle Tata 407 he received a secret information that 56 criminal persons will assemble at vacant plot near Kalindi Kunj for planning to commit dacoity at petrol pump, and if raid be conducted they can be apprehended alongwith illegal weapons. Thereafter, on directions of inspector Vijay Singh he prepared raiding party with staff and proceeded to spot with secret informer and parked the government vehicle near the spot, then asked 45 public persons to join the raiding party but none agreed and ASI Om Prakash was asked to become the shadow witness and around 4.40 p.m., two accused came on motorcycle and on parking the same entered the vacant plot and sat in heavy bushes. He further deposed that after sometime three more boys came and joined them. He further deposed that secret informer, pointed out them and left the spot. After hearing conversation State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 5 Of 23 ASI Om Prakash signalled raiding party and accused Deepak Singh, Diwan Singh, Trilok Singh were apprehended, from whom one buttondar knife was recovered and accused Mohd. Adil was also apprehended by HC Abdul Hakim and one of the body manged to run away from the spot. Thereafter, the rukka was prepared and sent through Ct. Anil for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR investigation was handed over to him and he arrested accused persons, conducted their personal search and also recorded their disclosure statements. He further deposed that on 14.12.2007 he alongwith accused went to rented accommodation and recovered Rs. 1 lac at instance of accused Trilok Singh, Rs. 55,000/ at instance of Deepak Singh and Rs. 50,000/ at instance of Diwan Singh and Rs. 40,000/ at instance of accused Mohd. Adil.
7. In cross examination deposed that he had not noticed the particulars of case on the motorcycle no. UP 14 J 3852 as might might be faded away in the malkhana. He further deposed that no key was recovered with motorcycle as locked was found broken, further no public was joined at the time of recovery of motorcycle and currency note and also do not know who took this motorcycle to Model Town police station and he do not inquire to whom this motorcycle belongs. He further deposed that he called State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 6 Of 23 inspector Vijay from public booth, However, he did not examine public booth person or took receipt from him. He further deposed that it is the duty of driver to maintain log book and had not filed any record of arrival entry after raid. He further deposed that position of motorcycle UP 14 J 3852 was not mentioned in the site plan and further not mentioned distance between the shadow witness and accused persons in site plan. He further deposed that they have not joined the public witness before or after the arrest of accused persons but accused persons were arrested at 10 p.m, though no time is mentioned on arrest memo. He further deposed that he did not collect any rent agreement or recorded the statement of landlord. He further deposed that he had not taken the statement of persons who was robbed by the accused at Model Town and deposited the said money in malkhana but money was not taken on superdari. He further deposed that when the accused persons were produced in court the recovered weapons were not produced alongwith accused persons and he further deposed that no public person was associated during the recovery of those currency notes.
8. PW5 ASI Om Prakash also deposed on the same lines in examination in chief and stated to have made the shadow witness and heard the conversation of accused persons and Trilok gang State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 7 Of 23 leader told Diwan that he would to with knife to rob cashier at petrol pump and directed Adil to keep motorcycle start and Trilok was directed in case somebody resist, who would attack him and Diwan Singh was told to assist the operation and after operation all were asked to meet near Hindan River in UP. Thereafter, on his signal accused persons were apprehended. In cross examination deposed that 45 persons were asked to join the investigation but none agreed. He further deposed that IO had made entries in the log book of vehicle while going for patrolling and IO did not make any public witness while raiding at spot. He further deposed that he did not have recorder or camera to tape their conversation and further cannot tell the measurements of knife recovered from accused persons. He further deposed that Anil Kumar left the spot with rukka in official vehicle and seal of the case property was handed over to Wasik Ahmed but he do not know whether he deposited the same in malkhana or not. He further deposed that accused persons were taken for medical examination in official vehicle but he cannot tell whether there is any entry made in this regard in log book or not.
9. PW2 Ct. A. Rehman also deposed on same lines in examination in chief. He also deposed that on 14.12.2007 he joined investigation with SI Jeet Singh and HC Wasik and accused State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 8 Of 23 persons took them to their house at Jasola Village and Trilok Singh pointed out towards room no. 14 and took out a key from a place situated on door and himself unlocked the room and took out Rs. 1 lac inside the pillow, accused Deepak took out Rs. 55,000/ from blue colour bag and accused Diwan Singh Rs. 50,000/ from jeans pant. Thereafter, accused Adil took them to F74, Abul Fazal Enclave and from 2nd floor room inside almira took out Rs. 40,000/, further SI Jeet Singh also seized motorcycle DL 3 S DE 5972 parked at the house of accused Adil.
10. In cross examination deposed that they had not joined any public persons after apprehension of accused persons, further it is correct that position of motorcycle is not mentioned in the site plan. He further deposed that landlord denied to give his statement to IO and IO had not taken documents from landlord showing accused Deepak, Diwan and Trilok Singh being tenants of premises. He further deposed that he do not remember whether IO had seized pillow, bag, jeans from where the currency notes were recovered recovered. He further denied suggestion that all the proceedings were conducted at police station. He further deposed that no public person was joined at the time of recovery of motorcycle.
11. PW3 HC Wasik Ahmed also deposed on the same lines. He State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 9 Of 23 further deposed that he made DD entry while leaving on patrolling duty and he do not know whether he signed DD entry or not. He further deposed that he do not know whether IO made any entry in the log book of official vehicle Tata 407. He further deposed that at Jasola Vihar IO inquired wife of landlord but she had not given by that lady. He further deposed that no documents were taken by IO for proof of their tenancy. He further deposed that whether IO seized takiya, bag, jeans pant from the tenant premises. He further deposed that it is correct that photographs Ex. PW3/Articles 3 to 11 do not bears the particulars of the present case. He further deposed that he do not remember the arrival entry in police station. He further deposed that when Rs. 40,000/ recovered from accused Mohd. Adil family members of accused were also present but they refused to give statement but he do not remember the name of those family members. He further deposed that no public person was joined at the time of recovery of motorcycle at the instance of accused Adil.
12. PW7 Ct. Anil Kumar also deposed on the same lines. In cross examination he deposed that IO made departure entry while leaving the office but he do not remember its number and also do not know whether any log entry was made by IO or not regarding State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 10 Of 23 the vehicle. He further deposed that IO asked 45 public persons to join the raiding party as well as proceeding and at the time of recovery of knife but all refused to join the same and he further deposed that he left for spot from police station on foot.
13. PW8 HC Abdul Hakim being member of raiding party also deposed on the same lines. In cross examination deposed that he do not know whether any log book entry made in the police station or in the office of AATS. He further deposed that all went to spot in plain clothes and vehicle remained at the spot during the entire period. He further deposed that no public witness was joined in raiding party after or prior to arrest of accused persons. He further deposed that he do not know about the DD entry of arrival.
14. PW9 HC Vinod being member of raiding party also deposed on the same lines and stated that he was driving the government vehicle Tata 407 and further stated that he hided himself at the time of raid in government vehicle and at around 11.00 p.m., the staff alongwith accused came with pulanda at AATS office. In cross examination deposed that DD entry at AATS office was made by SI Jeet Singh and he made the log book entry of the vehicle but had not given the record of the same to IO. He further deposed that no public witness was asked to join State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 11 Of 23 investigation in his presence.
15. PW10 Ct. Shailendra Singh being member of raiding party also deposed on the same lines. In cross examination deposed that he had not made any DD entry was leaving police station and same was made by IO. He further deposed that whether IO made any log book entry regarding taking of TATA 407 at spot. He further deposed that he do not know how motorcycle seized at spot from accused persons went to PS Model Town. He further deposed that accused persons reached the spot after reaching them at the spot however, they took position later on and accused Mohd. Adil and one more accused came on first motorcycle, thereafter three other accused also came from Kalindi Kunj side. Deposition of Other Police Officials.
16. PW1 HC Kailash Chand deposed that around 7.50 p.m. Ct. Anil Kumar brought the rukka then he registered the FIR. PW4 Ct. Yogender deposed that at around 2.40 p.m., SI Jeet Singh made DD entry no. 9 in AATS, Pushp Vihar, Saket on 13.12.2007. PW6 Inspector Vijay Singh deposed that on 13.12.2007, SI Jeet Singh at around 4.00 p.m., told him about secret information. Thereafter, he directed SI Jeet Singh to take action as per law and accused persons were brought to the office of AATS after police State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 12 Of 23 station and shown him in the office.
17. Accused persons in their statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the incriminating circumstances and submitted that they are falsely implicated in the present case and all the recoveries are planted over them and not opted to lead any defence evidence. Material Exhibits
18. Ex. 11/A is rukka prepared by SI Jeet Singh (PW11) pursuant to which FIR Ex. PW1/A was registered. Site plan is Ex. PW11/B. Ex. PW3/C, Ex. PW10/C, Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW8/A are arrest memos of accused Deepak Singh, Trilok Singh, Diwan Singh and Mohd. Adil respectively. Ex. PW3/D, Ex. PW10/D, Ex. PW8/B and Ex. PW2/E are personal search memos of Deepak Singh, Trilok Singh, Mohd. Adil and Diwan Singh respectively. Ex. PW10/B is seizure memo of buttondar knife recovered from accused Trilok Singh and Ex. PW10/A1 is sketch of said knife. Ex. PW3/B seizure memo of buttondar knife recovered from accused Deepak Singh and Ex. PW3/A is sketch of said knife. Ex. PW2/B seizure memo of buttondar knife recovered from accused Diwan Singh and Ex. PW2/A is sketch of said knife. Ex. PW3/A1 and Ex. PW3/A1 is seizure memo of motorcycle bearing no. UP 14 J 3852 and DL 3 S BE State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 13 Of 23 5972 respectively. Ex. PW 11/C is seizure memo of Rs. 1,00,000/ recovered at instance of accused Trilok Singh, Ex. PW11/D is seizure memo of Rs. 55,000/ recovered at instance of accused Deepak Singh and Ex. PW11/F is seizure memo of Rs. 40,000/ recovered at instance of accused Mohd. Adil, Ex. PW11/E is seizure memo of Rs. 50,000/ recovered at instance of accused Diwan Singh. Ex. PW2/F, Ex. PW2/G, Ex PW2/H and Ex. PW2/D are disclosure statements of accused Mohd. Adil, Trilok Singh, Diwan Singh and Deepak Singh respectively.
19. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that accused persons are falsely implicated in the present case. Ld counsel further submitted that all the recoveries are planted over the accused persons and no public witness was joined at any point of time. Ld counsel further submitted that prosecution could not produce any DD entry of arrival and departure neither they have produced the case property i.e, recovered knives and other articles before the concerned magistrate with accused persons, in violation of section 52 of the Cr.P.C. Ld counsel further submitted that no motorcycle and petrol pump was shown in the site plan. Ld counsel further submitted that prosecution could not produce any malkhana register nor even placed any material on record how State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 14 Of 23 the said case property was transferred from PS Sarita Vihar to PS Model Town. Ld counsel further submitted that entire proceedings were conducted by police at police station and not at spot. Ld counsel further submitted that even no time of arrest is mentioned in the arrest memo and prosecution miserably failed ot prove its case against the accused persons.
20. Ld. Addl. P.P. On the other hand submitted that testimonies of the members of raiding party are unimpeached and there are recovery of knives from the accused person. Further, on their disclosures looted currency notes and motorcycles were also recovered and prosecution able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
21. Arguments heard. Record perused.
22. As per prosecution story, IO PW 11 SI Jeet Singh was on patrolling duty on 13.12.2007 alongwith the staff in Tata 407 government vehicle, where he met a secret informer at around 4.00 p.m., who told him that 56 boys will gather at the vacant plot near Tpoint to commit dacoity at near by petrol pump. Thereafter, as per directions of Inspector Vijay Singh he prepared the raiding party and reached at that place round 4.10 p.m.
23. As per PW11 SI Jeet Singh (IO), he received secret information at around 4.00 p.m., however, there is no memo of secret information placed on record regarding what secret information State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 15 Of 23 was received. PW11 SI Jeet Singh and other witnesses of raiding party submitted that SI Jeet Singh informed inspector Vijay from a local telephone booth. It is inconceivable that in these days when everybody has mobile phone then that information will be communicated to inspector Vijay through local telephone booth. Further PW11 could not tell the particulars of local telephone booth neither could show receipt of bill for local call.
24. PW2 Ct. Rehman, PW3 Wasik Ahmed and PW5 ASI Om Prakash in their examination in chief stated that at around 4.10 p.m. they reached the spot and there IO asked 45 persons to join the investigation but none agreed. All these witnesses stated that IO asked public persons to join the raiding party at the spot whereas PW8 HC Abdul Hakim and PW10 Ct. Shailendra stated that IO asked the public persons to join at Apollo Hospital where he received the secret information. PW7 Anil Kumar and PW9 HC Vinod even not stated that IO asked public persons to join the raiding party. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the statements of raiding party members over joining of public persons before conducting raid.
25. All the members of raiding party stated that first two accused persons came on motorcycle and after 10 minutes three other accused persons came on foot but neither of the raiding party State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 16 Of 23 member could tell which accused persons came on foot and which came on motorcycle. PW2 Ct. Rehman, PW3 Ct. Wasim Ahmed in examination in chief deposed that IO asked ASI Om Prakash to hear the conversation by hiding himself and thereafter the accused persons came. PW5 ASI Om Prakash stated that he and entire raiding party took the position before arrival of accused persons. However, PW8 HC Abdul Hakim, PW HC Vinod and PW11 SI Jeet Singh stated that ASI took position after arrival of the accused persons. It is inconceivable that even without ascertainment of the place of gathering in the jungle, how shadow witness ASI Om Prakash take position prior to their coming and sitting.
26. As per site plan Ex. PW11/B, the raiding party were shown to be positioned at various point and position of vehicle Tata 407 also shown. However, none of the raiding party member could state their position in their testimony. The site plan shows the position of government vehicle, but could not show where the accused persons had parked their motorcycle nor had shown the position of the petrol pump, which is alleged to be adjoining that plot.
27. ASI Om Prakash (PW5) stated to have heard the conversation between the accused persons and as per prosecution one of the accused viz. Dheer Singh managed to abscond from the spot.
State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 17 Of 23 PW5 ASI Om Prakash deposed that he heard the conversation between the accused persons, where in accused Trilok told another boy Deepak that he will go with knife in the petrol pump and Sahil is directed to keep the motorcycle start and in case somebody resist, Trilok is directed to attack with knife and Diwan Singh was told to assist the operation. It is inconceivable that when accused persons were planning to commit dacoity just for saying these words will assemble inside the bushes and converse with each other and will not notice the presence of so much of police officials. As per police persons accused Dheer Singh manage to escape from spot. But in conversation heard by ASI Om Prakash no role was attributed to Dheer Singh, this itself shows that Dheer Singh was not present at the spot at that time, thus assembly of accused persons falls below five in number. Further, the accused persons were not taken to said petrol pump for pointing out whether they want to attack that petrol pump or some other petrol pump. The entire hearing of the conversation appears to be all improbable and artificial .
28. As per members of raiding party, they seized the motorcycle at the spot but as per seizure memo no key of said motorcycle was recovered. However, IO in cross examination stated that motorcycle was without key but the said fact was not mentioned State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 18 Of 23 in the seizure memo. It has not come on record, how that motorcycle came in possession of the accused. No photographs of the spot was taken. Neither anybody from adjoining petrol pump was called to witness the incident. As per IO the motorcycle was deposited in malkhana. But no malkhana register produced to show that the said motorcycle was deposited in malkhana.
29. According to prosecution the disclosure statements of accused persons were recorded at the spot, wherein accused persons have disclosed that they have committed robbery in Model Town area for Rs. 3,57,000/.
30. According to prosecution the statement statement of all accused persons recorded at the spot wherein they disclosed that they have committed the robbery of Rs. 3, 57, 000/ from Model Town shop on 09.12.2007. The said disclosures statement were recorded on 13.12.2007, however, the accused persons were not taken for recovery of the currency amount on the same day but on the next day and as per prosecution, from accused Trilok, Deepak Singh and Diwan Singh, Rs. 1 lac, Rs. 55,000/ and Rs. 50,000/ were recovered from their rented house at village Jasola Vihar on the next day, i.e, 14.12.2007, prosecution has not explained why they had not taken the accused persons for the recovery of said stolen State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 19 Of 23 notes on the same day. Further those accused were taken to their respective houses after 10.00 a.m in the morning, on the next day. It is not explained why accused persons were not taken to their houses immediately in the morning. Further accused persons submitted that they do not reside at the address at Village Jasola Vihar. Police had not tried to join any witness during the recovery of those currency notes nor seized any polythene or any other article alongwith notes at the time of recovery. No site plan of the place of recovery was made. From the testimony of some of the raiding party members, it is clear that they have not made any efforts to join public witnesses while recovery of the notes nor the owner of said room was examined.
31. Police further had recovered currency notes of Rs. 40,000/ from accused Adil Quereshi from his residence at Abul Fazal Enclave, however, there also they did not try to join any public witness nor try to make inquiries from the landlord. Prosecution do not place any documents on the record that accused persons were residing at the address as stated by them.
32. As per prosecution case after recovery of money at the instance of accused Adil, one motorcycle which was standing outside his house bearing no. DL 3S BE 5972 CBZ Extreme alongwith key was seized vide memo Ex. PW3/A2. The said motorcycle was State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 20 Of 23 also not seized in presence of any public person nor any site plan prepared or photographs were taken from where the motorcycle was seized. Police could not in any manner connect the accused with the said motorcycle.
33. According to PW11 IO/SI Jeet Singh accused persons were arrested at around 10.00 p.m., but there is no time mentioned on the arrest memo of accused persons. Further the accused Diwan Singh, Trilok and Deepak were shown to be resident of Champawat and information of their arrest was given to that place through SSP via WT message. However, no such WT message filed on record. Further for recovering the money, the police has shown their local address as Jasola Village but surprisingly no message was sent to their local room.
34. According to prosecution, two motorcycles and currency notes were seized in the present case and as per PW11 SI Jeet Singh this case property was deposited in malkhana of PS Sarita Vihar. However no malkhana register was produced neither any officials malkhana was examined by the prosecution. It has also not come on record, how this case property went from PS Sarita Vihar went to PS Model Town and all these discrepancies creats a doubt on the recovery of currency notes and the motorcycle in the manner as suggested by the prosecution.
State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 21 Of 23
35. The buttondar knives are shown to be recovered from accused persons but police has not tried to ascertain from where those buttondar knives were procured by accused persons.
36. On overall appreciation of prosecution case, the prosecution could not place before the court any memorandum of secret information, no public witness was joined during the entire proceedings. None of the raiding party members could disclose, which accused person came first and which came later on, on foot. The site plan even do not show, where accused persons parked motorcycle and even do not show the location of petrol pump which was adjoining the spot where the accused persons were planning to commit dacoity nor accused persons were taken to the the petrol pump for pointing out. Further the presence of accused Dheer Singh at the spot do not appear to be credible at all as his name is noticed during conversation by ASI Om Prakash which also created doubt on the factum of hearing of conversation between the accused persons or even the presence of accused persons at the spot. Further, the recoveries of notes and motorcycles do not found to be credible as already discussed. The versions of members of raiding party do not found any independent corroboration not only through the public witnesses but also could not corroborate their versions with the relevant State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 22 Of 23 documents like memo of secret information, DD entries of their arrival and departure, log book of the vehicle etc. The case property as deposited could not found corroboration through any malkhana register nor it has come on record how the said case property went from PS Sarita Vihar to PS Model Town. The entire police version is full of doubts and loopholes.
37. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in view of the above discussions prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons. Therefore, accused Mohd. Adil, Diwan Singh, Deepak Singh and Trilok Singh are given benefit of doubt and acquitted of all charges framed against them. Previous bail bonds of Mohd. Adil, Diwan Singh, Deepak Singh and Trilok Singh are converted into bail bonds u/s. 437A Cr.P.C. and shall remain valid till the expiry of six months. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in Open Court
On 25th July, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Jain)
ASJ03: SE: NEW DELHI
State vs. Mohd. Adil etc., SC No. 34/10 23 Of 23