Delhi District Court
Aameen vs State Of Delhi on 5 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 630/2019
Aameen
S/o Amiruddin
R/o House No.1469, Gali No.3,
K-II, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi. ........ Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi ....... Respondent
Date of Institution : 19.12.2019
Date of Arguments : 19.05.2022
Date of Judgment : 05.08.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant namely Aameen has challenged judgment dated 23.11.2019 and order on sentence dated 26.11.2019 passed by Ld. Trial Court in FIR No.47/18, P.S. Defence Colony.
2. Appellant herein was one of the accused in above mentioned FIR. Other accused persons chargesheeted by police were namely Raja @ Babu, Aameen, Sudershan Singh and Sagar. Accused Sagar Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 1 of 20 was discharged vide order dated 11.01.2019 by Ld. Trial Court. Accused Raja @ Babu was declared absconder vide order dated 22.10.2019 by Ld. Trial Court. Accused Sudershan Singh was convicted by Ld. Trial Court for offence punishable u/s 411 IPC only vide impugned judgment and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment, for the period undergone by him. Accused Aameen was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for offences punishable u/s 356/379 IPC and both the said substantive sentences had to run concurrently. Therefore, accused Aameen herein, has filed present appeal. In my subsequent paragraphs, appellant shall be referred as accused, in order to avoid confusion.
3. Case of prosecution as per chargesheet was that on 19.04.2018 one PCR call was received at P.S. Defence Colony which was recorded vide DD no.32A. Consequently, SI Sushil Sawariya along with Ct. Lokesh went to the spot i.e. Andrews Ganj Bus Stand where they met complainant Pramod Kumar Chauhan, who gave them his written complaint, in which he alleged that two persons on bike had snatched away his mobile phone bearing IMEI No.353050096384894 with mobile number 9910000360, when he was standing at Andrews Ganj Bus Stand waiting for Uber Cab. Consequently, FIR in question was registered and investigation ensued.
Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 2 of 204. Investigation was handed over to ASI Fateh Chand. He recorded the statement of complainant u/s 161 Cr.P.C prepared site plan of spot of incident, checked CCTV cameras but could not find accused persons. On 12.06.2018, one information was received regarding disclosure being made by accused Raja @Babu and Aameen, in FIR no.256/18, u/s 356/379/34 IPC, P.S. Neb Sarai, pertaining to incident involved in present case. Consequently, said accused persons were arrested after being produced through production warrant in concerned court on 21.06.2018, after being interrogated. They were then sent to Tihar Jail and arrangements were made for conducting their TIP in Jail. On 25.06.2018, both accused Raja @ Babu and Aameen refused to join TIP proceedings. Consequently, with the permission of the court, PC remand of said two accused persons were obtained. During that time, complainant came to police station for inquiring investigation in this case. Complainant saw accused Raja @ Babu and Aameen in police station and told IO that they were the snatchers of his mobile phone. Supplementary statement of complainant u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded. Both accused Raja @ Babu and Aameen disclosed in their statements that they had sold the mobile phone snatched from complainant, for a sum of Rs.3000/- at Chirag Delhi Metro-station, but they did not know the name and address of said person who had purchased the said mobile phone. Thereafter, on 17.07.2018 bone- age tests of accused Raja @ Babu and Aameen were conducted, with the permission of the court. On 29.08.2018, AATS/SD vide DD Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 3 of 20 no.11B, P.S. Defence Colony received information vide DD no.8 dated 29.08.2018 u/s 41.1(D) AATS/SD regarding arrest of accused Sudershan Singh and Sagar. From the possession of said two accused persons, mobile phone of complainant was recovered. Accused Sagar disclosed that said mobile phone was received by him from Raja @ Babu and Aameen. Accused Raja and Ameen had told him (i.e. accused Sagar) that he should sell the said phone but he could not do so. Thereafter, accused Sagar had given the said phone to accused Sudershan Singh for selling it and at that time, he was apprehended by police. The mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Sudershan and it was seized vide seizure memo. Thereafter, based on said investigation chargesheet was filed u/s 356/379/34 IPC against accused Raja @ Babu and Aameen. Chargesheet was filed u/s 411/34 IPC against accused Sudershan Singh and Sagar.
5. After filing of chargesheet, Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of th offences and summoned accused persons. Proceedings u/s 207 Cr.P.C were concluded and after hearing arguments, charge was framed against accused Sudershan u/s 411 IPC whereas accused Raja @ Babu and Aameen were charged with offence punishable u/s 356/379/34 IPC. All the accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution examined nine (9) witnesses in total, viz. PW1 Sh.
Pramod Kumar Chauhan, PW2 SI Pradeep Kumar, PW3 Ct. Inderpal, PW4 ASI Fateh Chand, PW5 HC Ramesh, PW6 SI Sushil Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 4 of 20 Sanwaria, PW7 HC Chet Ram, PW8 HC Bali Ram and PW9 HC Jai Kumar.
7. PW1 Sh. Pramod Kumar Chauhan deposed that on 19.04.2018 at around 08.30pm, he was standing at the Andrews Ganj Bus stand, waiting for Uber Cab. Suddenly, two persons came on motorcycle from Lajpat Nagar side and snatched his mobile make I-Phone X, 256 GB, having IMEI No.xxxxx4894. He lodged his complaint Ex.PW1/A in PS Defence Colony. Police officials prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B at his instance. He further deposed that on 26.06.2018, she went to PS Defence Colony. There he met ASI Fateh Chand. Two persons were also present there. He identified them as the accused persons who had snatched his above said mobile phone on the date of incident. Their name revealed as Raja @ Babu and Ameen and at the time of incident, Raja @ Babu was driving the abovesaid motorcycle and Ameen was pillion rider. Later on, he was informed by police officials of P.S. Defence Colony regarding recovery of his above said mobile phone. He got released his mobile phone on indemnity bond Ex.PW1/C. He proved the invoice/bill of the said mobile phone as Ex.PW1/D, the Panchnama is Ex.PW1/E and the mobile phone as Ex.P1. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the court.
8. PW2 SI Pradeep Kumar deposed that on 10.06.2018 on the basis of complaint of complainant Mohd. Dildar FIR no.256/18, u/s 356379/34 IPC had registered in PS Neb Sarai. He deposed that he Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 5 of 20 was IO in the said case. During the course of investigation, he had arrested accused persons namely Ameen and Raja @ Babu vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B respectively. He had also seized motorcycle bearing No.DL-3SBL-3955 recovered from the possession of accused persons vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. He deposed that both accused persons disclosed their involvement in the present case i.e. FIR No.47/18, Defence Colony vide disclosure statements Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E respectively. He had informed the said fact to police officials of P.S. Defence Colony. On 12.06.2018, IO/ASI Fateh Chand had recorded his statement. He correctly identified both the accused persons present in the court.
9. PW3 Ct. Inderpal deposed that in the month of June 2018, he joined the investigation of the case FIR No.256/18 PS Neb Sarai u/s 356/379/34 IPC with the IO. In the course of investigation, IO arrested accused persons namely Raja and Aameen vide arrest memo vide memos Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B and both accused persons disclosed their involvement in various criminal offences including the present case of PS Defence Colony. IO recorded their disclosure statements vide memos Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E. He identified accused Aameen and Raja present in the court
10. PW4 ASI Fateh Chand deposed that on 19.04.2018, the investigation of the present case was marked to him. He inquired the facts of the present case from complainant Pramod Kumar Chauhan and he prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B at the instance of complainant.
Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 6 of 20He recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC of complainant. He deposed that on 12.06.2018, an information regarding arrest of accused Aameen and Raja Babu was received in PS Defence Colony from PS Neb Sarai. Police official of PS Neb Sarai informed that in case FIR No.256/18, PS Neb Sarai, u/s 379/356/34 IPC, both accused persons have been arrested and they disclosed their involvement in the present case FIR of PS Defence Colony. He further deposed that on 18.06.2018, he moved an application before the concerned court to issue production warrants of both accused persons and on 21.06.2018, both accused persons came at Saket District Courts. He formally interrogated both accused persons and arrested them vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B and had recorded disclosure statement of both accused persons Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D. Thereafter, he moved an application for the TIP proceedings of both accused persons. He further deposed that on 25.06.2018 both accused persons refused to join the TIP proceedings in Tihar Jail before Sh. Harun Pratap, Ld. MM, South East District and on 26.06.2018 during police custody of both accused persons, he prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW4/E at their instance. On 28.08.2018, an information from AATS, South District, received at PS Defence Colony regarding the arrest of accused Sudershan and Sagar and the recovery of case property i.e. mobile phone recovered from accused Sudershan and on 29.08.2018, he alongwith Ct. Vijender came at Saket courts where he formally interrogated accused Sudershan and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/F and recorded disclosure statement Ex.PW4/G of accused Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 7 of 20 Sudershan.
11. He further deposed that on 31.08.2018, he took the case property of the present case from PS Saket Courts to PS Defence Colony vide RC No.115/21/18 Ex.PW4/H. During the course of investigation, he had collected the relevant documents from the police officials of PS Neb Sarai and recorded their statement u/s 161 Cr.PC and also collected the relevant documents from the police officials of PS AATS South and recorded their statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. As per the order of the court, he released the case property vide panchnama Ex.PW1/E and prepared the charge sheet and filed before the court. He identified accused Aameen, Sudershan and Raja Babu present in the court. Witness correctly identified the case property i.e. mobile phone in the photographs Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.
12. PW5 HC Ramesh deposed that on 28.08.2018 pursuant to secret information, he alongwith HC Chet Ram and Ct. Sandeep went to NBCC Plaza Road behind Transit Camp. There at the instance of secret informer, they signaled to stop the motorcycle. No number plate was affixed in the said motorcycle. That the name of the driver was revealed as Sudershan @ Rahul. That HC Chet Ram conducted the personal search of accused Sudershan and recovered one mobile phone make Iphone bearing IMEI No.XXXXX4894. They came to know that the said recovered mobile phone was involved in case FIR No.47/18, PS Defence Colony. HC Chet Ram seized the above said mobile phone vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 8 of 20 HC Chet Ram also seized the above said motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B and HC Chet Ram arrested accused Sudershan vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/C and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW5/D. HC Chet ram recorded disclosure statement of accused Suderdhan Ex.PW5/E. Thereafter, HC Chet Ram filed Kalandara u/s 41.1 (d) Cr.PC against accused Sudershan and Sagar Ex.PW5/F, running into tow pages. He identified accused Sudershan @ Rahul present in the court. The witness correctly identified the case property i.e. mobile phone in the photographs Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.
13. PW6 SI Sushil Sanwaria deposed that on 19.04.2018 he was on emergency duty and received DD no.32A. Upon receipt of DD no.32A, he along with Ct. Lavkesh went to the spot i.e. Andrews Ganj bus Stand where complainant Pramod Kumar met them. That complainant gave his written complaint Ex.PW1/A and PW6 SI Sushil Sanwaria prepared rukka Ex.PW6/A on the same, handed over rukka to Ct. Lavkesh for registration of FIR. That Ct. Lavkesh went to PS and got the FIR registered and came back at the spot along with ASI Fateh Chand as the investigation was assigned to ASI Fateh Chand.
14. PW7 HC Chet Ram deposed that on 28.08.2018, he along-with HC Ramesh was present at AATS Office. That one secret informer came there and informed that one person namely Sudershan @ Rahul who is involved in several cases of mobile snatching and robbery and Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 9 of 20 he is coming to meet his friend and if raid is conducted, he could be apprehended along-with several stolen articles. PW7 HC Chet Ram constituted raiding party comprised of HC Ramesh, Ct. Sandeep and myself and the secret informer. They all went to NBCC Plaza Road behind Transit Camp and took their positions. At about 12:15 PM, they saw one boy coming from the side of khoka market on a motorcycle which was without number plate, that boy stopped and started waiting for someone. The secret informer pointed towards that boy that that boy was same person and left. Thereafter, he went there and told the said person they had information against him. They conducted personal search and during the search one Apple phone was recovered from his left side pant pocket. On inquiry the name of that boy was revealed as Sudershan @ Rahul. On inquiring about the said phone, accused Sudershan told them that his friends Aameen, Babu and Sagar had snatched this phone from someone from Defence Colony area and Sagar had given the said phone for selling the same. On checking IMEI number the said phone was found to have involved in case FIR No.47/2018, PS Defence Colony. Accused Sudershan was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/C and his personal search memo Ex.PW5/D. He seized the mobile phone and motorcycle vide seizure memos Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. Since accused disclosed about Sagar, accused took us to F-1-91, Madangiri, New Delhi where accused Sagar was present and he was apprehended at the instance of accused Sudershan. He conducted the search of accused Sagar and during his personal search, he recovered Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 10 of 20 one mobile phone Xiaomi from his left side pant pocket, which was involved in case FIR No.465/17 PS Fatehpur Beri. He seized the Xiami mobile phone vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. Both accused persons were taken to AATS office. The arrest memo of accused Sagar Ex.PW7/B and his personal search memo Ex.PW7/C and the information of arrest of accused persons were given to their relatives. Case property was deposited with malkhana, PS Saket and both accused persons got medically examined from Safdarjung Hospital. He identified accused Sudershan present in the court
15. PW8 HC Bali Ram brought the register No. 19 of year 2018, the copy of relevant page containing the entry No.1137 for deposition of case property i.e. Iphone of present case in Malkhana is exhibited as Ex.PW8/A.
16. PW9 HC Jai Kumar deposed that he was the investigating officer of case FIR No.256/18 u/s 356/379/411/34 IPC, PS Neb Sarai. The said FIR case was pending investigation. The disclosure statement of accused Aameen was seen and compared with Ex.PW2/D and returned to the witness. The disclosure statement of accused Raja Babu is seen and compared with Ex.PW2/E and returned to the witness. The arrest memo of accused Aameen was seen and compared with Ex.PW2/A and returned to the witness. The arrest memo of accused Raja Babu was seen and compared with Ex.PW2/B and returned to the witness. The seizure memo of motorcycle was seen and compared with Ex.PW2/C and returned to Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 11 of 20 the witness.
17. After examining said witness prosecution closed his evidence and matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused persons namely Aameen and Sudershan u/s 313 Cr.P.C. They took the plea that they were falsely implicated in this case. They did not prefer to lead defence evidence and therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments. After hearing final arguments, impugned judgment and order on sentence were passed.
18. Subsequently, present appeal was preferred by accused Aameen.
19. In the grounds of appeal, accused claimed that Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence brought on record by prosecution properly and legally. Therefore, he prayed for acquittal.
20. Ld. Addl. PP for the state opposed the appeal and argued that Ld. Trial Court passed correct judgment and order on sentence.
21. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
22. Before appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, I must mention here the law of appreciating evidence of the witnesses. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 12 of 20 approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 13 of 20 appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
23. In the wake of above law, the issue which needs adjudication is whether Ld. Trial Court properly appreciated the evidence brought on record by prosecution, keeping in mind the above law?
24. For deciding above question, I have to appreciate the case of prosecution and the evidence brought on record during trial, afresh.
25. PW1 was the complainant in this case. He was the person, with whom alleged incident of snatching of mobile phone had taken place on 19.04.2018. His testimony was the backbone of prosecution case. A detailed appreciation of evidence, is therefore, required. Same is done by me in my subsequent paragraphs.
26. Complainant admittedly was a lawyer by profession. He deposed that his mobile phone Ex.P-1 was snatched by one person i.e. accused Aameen, who was a pillion rider on a bike being driven by accused Raja. As per his testimony, it was around 08.30pm that said incident had taken place. Accused persons were not wearing helmet at that time. He did not explain in his testimony as to whether there was ample light, at the spot, in which he could have identified the faces of said snatchers. He made statement Ex.PW1/A, in which he stated from point A to A-1 that he could not note down the bike number but he can identify the persons involved in snatching. Details of faces and body type of said snatchers were not stated by him in the said statement. In his testimony, he nowhere explained the basis on which, he had allegedly identified accused Raja and Aameen in Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 14 of 20 police station. There remained doubt in my mind, regarding the basis of him identifying accused Raja and Aameen in police station and later on, in the court. The said doubt became all the more evident when I find that he had allegedly identified accused persons on 26.06.2018. That fact was relevant, for the reason that on 25.06.2018 accused Raja and Aameen refused to join TIP proceedings in Tihar Jail claiming that their faces were shown to complainant. I find it very strange that on the next day of refusal to join judicial TIP, complainant suddenly appeared in police station and identified said accused persons. It was all the more stranger, for the reason that complainant testified its testimony that from the date of incident i.e. 19.04.2018, till 25.6.2018, he never visited the concerned police station. So, his visit to the police station on 26.06.2018 and identifying accused Aameen and Raja, became doubtful. It was not a trustworthy chain of events which prosecution projected. Testimony of complainant became doubtful from the said perspective.
27. Moving further, complainant admitted in his cross-examination that there was overwriting in his statement Ex.PW1/A from point B to B1. The line from point A to A-1 in his said statement, appeared to me, to have been written later on. That line from A to A-1, from naked eyes, revealed that it was not written originally. Complainant failed to explain the said overwriting and discrepancy in his statement, making his testimony doubtful.
Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 15 of 2028. Further, complainant had claimed that he was waiting for Uber Cab for going to Rangpuri. The details of said Uber Cab booked by him, the purpose of going to Rangpuri, the time spent by him at the spot waiting for Uber Cab and likewise other aspects were not deposed by him, based on which, I could have believed that he was, infact waiting for Uber Cab on the relevant day and time of place of incident.
29. Complainant claimed that after snatching of his mobile phone, he had shouted "chor-chor". That fact was not deposed by him in his initial statement Ex.PW1/A. In fact, in his said statement Ex.PW1/A, he had requested that his mobile phone was put on surveillance. It was not prayed by him that culprits be apprehended. The said prayer therefore, was not believable.
30. Complainant admitted in his testimony that police officials did not recover his mobile phone in his presence. So, he was not the concerned witness, who could have testified the recovery of his mobile phone, in the manner, mentioned in chargesheet, as mentioned above.
31. Complainant did not remove above mentioned short-comings and doubts, in his testimony. Therefore, I do not believe his testimony to be trustworthy and reliable.
32. PW2 SI Pradeep Kumar was the IO, in FIR no.256/18, u/s 356/379/34 IPC P.S. Neb Sarai, in which he had arrested accused Aameen and Raja. He had also seized motorcycle bearing no.DL3SBL3955. He had recorded the disclosure statement of accused Aameen and Raja and had Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 16 of 20 informed concerned police officials of P.S. Defence Colony regarding involvement of said accused persons in present FIR in question. So, he was investigating the matter in FIR no.256/18, P.S. Neb Sarai which involved the issue of snatching. In his testimony, he categorically deposed that the mobile phone recovered by him from the possession of accused Raja and Aameen, was not involved in FIR no.256/18 P.S Neb Sarai, which means that said mobile phone pertained to present case only. If that is so, then it created confusion as this witness deposed in his testimony that the mobile phone recovered from the accused persons was of make Redmi. He had recorded disclosure statement of Aameen vide Ex.PW2/D and that of accused Raja vide Ex.PW2/E. Those disclosure statements had no legal value in the eyes of law and therefore, I discarded them. The witness deposed that ASI Fateh Chand who was IO in present matter did not tell him about the description of accused persons involved in present case. The disclosure statements of accused persons in para 6, noted that they had snatched one apple mobile phone about one and a half month back, at night from a person, near Andrews Ganj Bus Stop. That disclosure was vague in the absence of exact location of place of snatching, physical details of person from whom said mobile phone was snatched and the details of person, whom it was sold for Rs.3000/- near Chirag Delhi Metro-station. Therefore, there remained possibility of those disclosure statements being self serving statements noted by him. His testimony is therefore not believed by me trustworthy.
Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 17 of 2033. PW3 Ct. Inderpal had joined investigation with PW2 SI Pradeep Kumar in FIR no.256/18, P.S. Neb Sarai and in his presence accused Raja and Aameen were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. Further, in his presence said accused persons made disclosure statements Ex.PW2/D & Ex.PW2/E. He admitted that disclosure statement of accused persons did not mention there signature. Now, accused Raja and Aameen had signed charges framed against them on 11.01.2019, which means that they are not illiterates. If that is so, then non-mentioning of signatures of said accused persons on their respective disclosure statements, made the said statements doubtful. Testimony of this witness, therefore, did not stand the acid test of cross-examination. I discarded it accordingly.
34. PW4 ASI Fateh Chand was the investigating officer in this case. He failed to remove doubts regarding the aspects, as highlighted above. In his testimony, he did not explain the circumstances in which correction was made in statement Ex.PW1/A at point A to A-1 and from point B to B-1. He had prepared site plans Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW4/E but they were not scaled site plans rather were based on his estimation. I did not believe those site plans to be trustworthy. Further, he did not investigate the matter with regard to the public persons who were present at the spot, with regard to the physical appearance, details of accused Raja and Aameen after examining complainant, the details of bike used in alleged offence, the persons before whom accused persons had made disclosure statements apart from police officials, the fingerprints of accused persons on the stolen mobile, the reason, how he had linked the vague details of present case mentioned in Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 18 of 20 the disclosure statements of accused persons with present case and likewise. Therefore, his investigation was neither complete nor it was transparent and reasonable. Therefore, I discarded his testimony being untrustworthy in nature.
35. PW5 HC Ramesh deposed in his testimony that on 28.08.2018, based on secret information, he along with HC Chet Ram and Ct. Sandeep had apprehended one motorcycle which was without number plate, being driven by accused Sudershan. From the possession of said accused, he recovered mobile phone Ex.P-1 in question. Thereafter, said accused was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. This witness was not cross-examined by accused persons. This witness failed to explain the time when he had apprehended motorcycle being driven by accused Sudershan. He did not join public person in the investigation and did not give any reason, as to why he did not join public person in investigation. His investigation was done in surreptitious manner. I did not believe his testimony to be trustworthy.
36. PW6 SI Sushil Sawariya, PW8 HC Bali Ram and PW9 HC Jai Kumar were formal witnesses who had not deposed any incriminating facts against accused persons. Therefore, I discarded their testimonies.
37. PW7 HC Chet Ram deposed that on 28.08.2018 he along with HC Ramesh and Ct. Sandeep had apprehended accused Sudershan, based on secret information, around 12.15pm. From the possession of accused Sudershan, mobile phone in question was recovered. This witness did not Crl. Appeal No.630/2019 Aameen Vs. State Page 19 of 20 remember his duty hours on 28.08.2018. He did not make any efforts based on issuance of notice for joining public persons. He could have recorded electronically video regarding apprehension of accused Sudershan from any mobile phone. Besides his oral testimony and documents prepared by him, there was nothing on record which could have suggested that those documents were prepared in the manner he had deposed in his testimony. Therefore, I do not believe his testimony to be trustworthy.
38. The net result is that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt through prosecution witnesses. There were short-comings in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, which were never explained during trial. There remained possibility of accused persons being falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, was passed by Ld. Trial Court illegally. Accordingly, present appeal stands allowed. Accused stands acquitted for offence u/s 356/379 IPC. Impugned Judgment dated 23.11.2019 and order on sentence dated 26.11.2019 stands set aside.
Announced in open Court [Prashant Sharma]
On 05.08.2022 ASJ-02/South East District
Saket Courts/New Delhi
Crl. Appeal No.630/2019
Aameen Vs. State Page 20 of 20