Delhi District Court
The State vs 1. Vijay Kumar Pandit on 27 November, 2014
D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010
P.S Narela
u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL:
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE -5 (NORTH),
ROHINI , DELHI
SESSION CASE NO. : 157/2014
UID NO . : 02404R0146402010
FIR No : 98/2010
P. S : Narela
u/s 399/402 IPC and 25
Arms Act.
The State versus 1. Vijay Kumar Pandit
S/O Ram Shankar Pandit
R/O H.NO 903, Gali NO.5,
Alipur, Delhi.
2. Kanhaiya @ Pappu
S/O Paras Nath Prasad R/O
H.NO 38, Alipur, Delhi
3. Yogesh Kumar
S/O Ramji Lal
R/O H.NO 1609, Alipur,
Delhi.
4. Ravinder Maan @ Tinu
S/O Rohtas R/O H. NO
34, Alipur, Delhi.
5. Wasim Khan
S/O Sherdin
R/O 20 A Vill. Kureni,
Narela, Delhi.
SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 1 of 24 )
D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010
P.S Narela
u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act
6. Nasir S/O Hamid Ali
R/O H.NO-2, Kureni,
Narela , Delhi.
Date of committal to session court : 07.01.2012
Date of argument : 27.11.2014
Date of order : 27.11.2014
JUDGMENT
1 Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present case, as per the story of the prosecution are that on 16.03.2010, a secret information was received by S.I Narender(PW8) that six boys would come at Mansa Devi Park for robbery. At the instruction of SHO, S.I Narender formed a raiding party comprising of Ct. Vikas (PW2), Ct. Rajesh, Ct. Aji V.K., Ct. Manoj(PW3) , Ct. Shankar Lal , Ct. S.Dewla , Ct. Mohd. Yameen (PW6)and himself. They proceed towards Mata Mansa Devi Mandir and reached forest, near Mata Mansa Devi Mandir, at about 9:30PM. SI Narender(PW8) along with Ct. Mohd. Yameen(PW6) took the position on the west side and Ct. Vikas (PW2) and Rajesh were deputed on east direction and Ct. Dewla and Ct. Shankar had taken the position on the south side and Ct. Manoj(PW3) SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 2 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act and Ct. Aji V.K. were standing in the north direction. SI Narender(PW8) instructed all the members of the raiding party that if the information was found correct then he will fire from VLP. After seeing the 5-6 accused persons, he had fired from VLP. On the flashing light of VLP, six accused persons tried to run away in different directions. Accused Vijay Kumar Pandit , Yogesh, Kanhaiya and Ravinder were apprehended and from the possession of accused Vijay Kumar Pandit one button actuated knife was recovered. From accused Kanhaiya one dagger was recovered , one country made pistol is shown to have recovered from the possession of accused Yogesh . All aforesaid four accused persons were apprehended at the spot but two were succeeded to escape from the spot. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Wasim and Nasir were arrested later on .
2 It is the further case of prosecution that arm and ammunition recovered from the possession of the accused persons was sealed and seized and SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 3 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act subsequently were sent to FSL for examination and FSL examination results were obtained . Requisite sanction u/s 39 Arms Act was also obtained and on completion of investigation, all the accused persons were chargesheeted for the offences u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act alleging that accused persons made preparations to commit dacoity and they had assembled there for said purpose.
3 Vide order dated 25.06.2010, Ld MM took the cognizance of the offences and subsequently, since the offence u/s 399/402 IPC was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, therefore, vide order dated 07.1.2012, case was committed to the court of sessions .
4 Vide order dated 15.02.2012, ld predecessor of this court decided the charges and accordingly, charges for the offences u/s 399/402 IPC were framed against all the accused persons and accused Kanhiaya @ Pappu, Vijay Kumar Pandit and Yogesh were additionally charged for the offence SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 4 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act u/s 25 Arms Act. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5 In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses.
6 PW 1 HC Ram Karan, on 16.3.2010 was posted as duty officer at P.S Narela. He proved DD no.26 A ExPW1/A regarding receipt of secret information by SI Narender, DD no. 27 A ExPW1/B about departure of raiding team and FIR ExPW1/C . He also proved his endorsement ExPW1/D on FIR.
7 PW2 Ct. Vikas, PW3 Ct. Manoj , PW6 Ct.
Mohd Yameen ,PW7 Ct. Rajesh and PW8 S.I Narender were the members of the raiding party. Here it would be suffice to mention the testimony of S.I Narender (PW8) who was heading the raiding party, as all other witnesses have deposed more or less on the lines of PW8.
8 PW 8 S.I Narender deposed that on
SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 5 of 24 )
D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010
P.S Narela
u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act
16.03.2010, he received a secret information that five six boys would come at Mansa Devi Park for robbery. He informed the SHO regarding the secret information who asked him to organize a raiding party. He organized a raiding party with the help of Ct. Vikas (PW2), Ct. Rajesh, Ct. Aji V.K., Ct. Manoj(PW3) , Ct. Shankar Lal and Ct. S.Dewla and Ct. Mohd. Yameen (PW6) . They proceed towards Mata Mansa Devi Mandir and reached forest near Mata Mansa Devi Mandir, at about 9:30PM. He along with Ct. Mohd. Yameen(PW6) had taken the position on the west side and Ct. Vikas (PW2) and Rajesh were deputed on east direction and Ct. Dewla and Ct. Shankar had taken the position on the south side and Ct. Manoj(PW3) and Ct. Aji V.K. were standing in the north direction. He instructed all the members of the raiding party that if the information was found correct then he will fire from VLP. After seeing the 5-6 accused persons, he had fired from VLP. On the flashing light of VLP, six accused persons tried to run away in different directions. He along with ct. Mohd. Yameen(PW6) overpowered the accused Yogesh. On a formal search, one country made pistol was recovered from the right dub of his pant and two live cartridges were also recovered from the right pocket of the pant. He prepared the sketch of the SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 6 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act country made pistol and live cartridge vide Ex.PW6/A, Live cartridge and country made pistol was measured and was kept in a pulanda and it was sealed with the seal of NS and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/B .
9 PW8 S.I Narender further deposed that Ct.
Rajesh and Ct. Vikas(PW2) overpowered accused Vijay Pandit and on his formal search one buttondar knife was recovered. He prepared the sketch of the buttondar knife Ex.PW2/A. Buttondar Knife was measured and was sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B .Ct. Ajay V.K. and Ct. Manoj(PW3) overpowered accused Kanhaiya and on his formal search one knife (chhura) was recovered. He prepared the sketch of the chhura Ex.PW3/A. "Chura" was measured , it was sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B . Ct. S. Dewla and Ct. Shankar overpowered accused Ravinder and on his formal search one iron rod and one battrey was recovered. Iron rod was measured, sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B .
10 PW8 S.I Narender further deposed that after use seal was handed over to Ct. Yameen(PW6). He SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 7 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act prepared a rukka and got registered the FIR through Ct. Yameen. Meanwhile, SI Suresh came at the spot and he handed over seizure memos and case property to SI Suresh and he also handed over the custody of the accused persons to SI Suresh. At his instance, SI Suresh prepared the site plan. PW8 SI Narender was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
11 As stated herein above PW2 Ct. Vikas, PW3 Ct. Manoj , PW6 Ct. Mohd Yameen ,PW7 Ct. Rajesh have deposed exactly on the lines of PW8. PW2 , PW3, PW6 and PW7 were also cross examined by the ld counsel for the accused persons.
12 PW4 Dr. N.P Waghmare , Assistant Director (Ballistics), FSL Rohini proved the FSL report as ExPW4/A. 13 PW5 Sh Suvashish Chaudhrey, the then Addll DCP-1, Outer Distt proved the sanction accorded by him for prosecution of accused Yogesh u/s 25 Arms Act as ExPW5/A. SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 8 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act 14 PW9 S.I Suresh Chand , IO , deposed that on 16.03.2010, after registration of FIR , investigation of the present case was handed over to him. He along with Ct. Yameen reached at the spot where SI Narender met him along with the staff and accused Vijay Kumar Pandit, Kanhaiya, Ravinder and Yogesh. SI Narender handed over all the pulandas and seizure memos and custody of accused persons to him. He prepared the site plan ExPW9/A at the instance of SI Narender and made an enquiry from the accused persons. Accused Vijay Kumar Pandit, Ravinder, Yogesh and Kanhaiya were arrested vide memo Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW3/C respectively . The personal search of the accused persons were also conducted vide memos Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW3/D and their disclosure statement Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/F, Ex.PW2/C, and Ex.PW2/E respectively were recorded.
15 PW9 further deposed that he along with Ct.
Rajesh and Ct. Vikas and accused persons namely Vijay Pandit, Kanhaiya and Yogesh reached at Alipur, SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 9 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act Dudhiya colony in govt. gypsy. Accused Yogesh led them to his rented room and got recovered seven plastic katas of plastic "daana" which were the case property of case bearing FIR NO.47/10, PS Narela. Same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C . Accused Yogesh also got recovered Rs. Sixteen Thousand and Five Hundred from the iron box which was kept in room which were the case property of case bearing FIR NO.80/10, PS Narela. These currency notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/D. 16 PW9 further deposed that accused Kanhaiya led them to his house near the temple in his room and got recovered seven dyes and "pallad" which were the case property of case bearing FIR NO. 80/10, PS Narela. Same was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW7/E . Accused Vijay pandit got recovered Rs. Fifteen Thousand from the iron almirah which was kept in room which was the case property of case bearing FIR NO.80/10, PS Narela. These currency notes were taken into SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 10 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/F. Accused Vijay Pandit got recovered seven plastic katas of plastic "daana" which were the case property of bearing FIR NO.47/10, PS Narela. Same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/G .
17 PW9 further deposed that on 27.05.2010, he along with Ct. Raju reached at village Kuraini, Narela and they reached at the house of accused Wasim from where accused Wasim was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/D. His personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW9/E. On 20.09.10, he along with Ct. Raju reached at Kuraini, Narela and accused Nasir is shown to have been arrested from his house vide memo Ex.PW9/F. His Personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW9/G, Accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PW9/H, and led the police party to the spot and pointed out the place. Pointing out memo Ex.PW9/I of accused Nasir was prepared. PW9 was cross examined by Ld defence counsel.
18 Thereafter, vide order dated 27-11-2014
SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 11 of 24 )
D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010
P.S Narela
u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act
PE was closed. Statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded. Accused persons denied all the allegations made against them. They did not opt to lead any evidence in their defence.
19 I have heard the ld Adll PP for the state and the ld counsel for the accused persons. I have also perused the record very carefully.
20 Before adverting to appreciation of evidence of afore stated witnesses, it is necessary to state that under Section 399 IPC, preparation to commit dacoity is made punishable .
21 The entire prosecution case rests on the testimonies of PW2 Ct. Vikas, PW3 Ct. Manoj , PW6 Ct. Mohd Yameen ,PW7 Ct. Rajesh and PW8 S.I Narender, who were the members of the raiding party. According to the testimonies of these witnesses, six persons had assembled at the place of occurrence and were found in possession of certain arms and ammunition as indicated. That being so, this Court SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 12 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act has to determine as to whether the accused persons can be convicted for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and whether the ingredients of the said sections have been proved by the prosecution or not. Before this Court do so, it will be necessary to notice case law on the subject.
22 Chaturi Yadav vs State of Bihar 1979 SCC(Criminal) 502 is a celebrated judgment on the subject upon which various Hon'ble High Courts have placed reliance to determine the facts and circumstances of each case whether the offence under Sections 399 and 402 IPC are made out or not, wherein it was observed:-
"The Courts below have drawn the inference that the appellants were guilty under both the offences merely from the fact that they had assembled at a lonely place at 1.00 a.m. and could give no explanation for their presence at that odd hour of the night. Mr. Misra appearing for the appellant submitted that taking the prosecution case at its face value, there is no evidence to show that the appellants had assembled for the purpose of committing a dacoity or they had made any SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 13 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act preparation for committing the same."
23 In Baldev Singh vs State of Haryana 1988(1) RCR 629 relied upon the observations made in Chaturi Yadav's case (supra) and noticed as under:-
"8. Requirement of section 402 IPC is that five or more persons must have assembled for the purpose of committing a dacoity. Apart from the fact that the appellants are said to have been found armed present on the first story of an abandoned building there is no evidence that this assembly of five appellants was for the purpose of committing dacoity. The trial Court has merely drawn an inference that the said assembly was only for the purpose of committing dacoity."
24 Chaturi Yadav's case (supra) has also been relied upon by the Hon,ble Delhi High Court in Des Raj alias Dass v. The State 2000 Criminal Law Journal 2083 to hold that mere assembly of five or more persons at a deserted place armed with weapons is not sufficient to hold that the accused had committed any offence falling within the ambit of Sections 399 and 402 IPC until by direct or circumstantial evidence, purpose of the assembly is proved. Nothing is brought on the SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 14 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act record by the prosecution that the accused were making preparation or had gathered for the purpose of committing dacoity.
25 Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be seen if the present case comes within the ambit of section 399 and 402 IPC. As discussed herein above, prosecution has examined six members of the raiding party, who have deposed on the lines of the case of prosecution but none of the aforesaid witness has said even a single word that accused persons were making preparation to commit dacoity. Each of the witness is referring that after seeing 5-6 persons sitting near forest Mansa Devi Road, Narela, S.I Narender (PW8) fired from VLP and gave the signal. On the flashing light of VLP , six accused persons tried to ran away in different directions. Two out of them managed to run away but four were apprehended. Arms and amunition is shown to have been recovered from three accused persons. This is the only case of prosecution, which in my opinion is not sufficient to convict the accused person for the offences as indicated.
SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 15 of 24 )
D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010
P.S Narela
u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act
26 In order to bring home the offence u/s 399
IPC , prosecution was under obligation to establish that the assembling of the accused persons is for preparation of dacoity. In other words, the prosecution must show that there were persons who had conceived the design of committing the dacoity and they were preparing in prosecution of that design, which is failing in the present case. Only because the accused persons were found near a forest , it cannot be held that they had assembled there for preparation to commit dacoity.
27 It is true that so far as the offence u/s 402 IPC is concerned, it may be mentioned that this section applied to mere assembling without proof of other preparation. The offence u/s 402 IPC is complete as soon as five or more persons assembled together for the purpose of committing dacoity. In the present case it is not in dispute that at the spot only four persons are shown to have been apprehended. Two accused persons namely Wasim SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 16 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act Khan and Nasir have been arrested subsequently. According to the prosecution, aforesaid two persons managed to run away from the spot. This is unbelievable . The raiding party was having around 8-9 police officials and some of them were having arms. In these circumstances, how , two accused persons managed to run away . There is nothing on record which could show that efforts were made to chase them or to apprehend them.
28 During the cross examination, PW3 Ct.
Manoj replied that when he reached at the spot he saw three persons and did not see any person running away from the spot. PW3 was one of the member of the raiding party . According to the prosecution, all the accused persons tried to run away and two managed to escape. But PW3 has given a contrary version while deposing that he had not seen any person running away from the spot. He categorically admitted that he has not seen any person running away or accused Wasim and Nasir at the spot. This negates the stand of prosecution that SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 17 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act five or more persons had assembled at the spot for committing the robbery.
29 Further, during the cross examination of aforesaid members of raiding party, it has come on record that there was complete darkness. That being so, how the members of raiding party could locate the position of the accused persons, when admittedly members of raiding party were positioned in different directions from each other and there was complete darkness. This all has created a doubt about the presence of five or more persons at the spot which is mandatory to bring the case within the ambit of section 402 IPC, as admittedly on the spot four persons were apprehended. It has not been explained that how two persons namely Wasim and Nasir were connected with the present case when they ran away from the spot and there was a complete darkness. On what basis they were identified as the culprit , remained unexplained.
30 Further, S.I Narender(PW8) who was
SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 18 of 24 )
D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010
P.S Narela
u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act
heading the raiding party deposed that after seeing five -six persons he had fired from VLP and on seeing the flashing light of VLP, six accused persons tried to run away in different directions. He also deposed of having briefed all the members of the raiding party but PW3 Constable Manoj , who was one of the member of raiding party during his cross examination replied that other members of the raiding party were not visible to him as it was night. Even S.I Narender was not visible from the place where he was standing and S.I Narender has informed him by calling. He further replied that S.I Narender had not briefed the members of the raiding as to what transpired after the raid. This also goes against the prosecution.
31 Moreover, prosecution has failed to prove that there was any overt act on the part of any of the accused persons which may lead to the inference that they had any intention to commit dacoity or they were planning to commit dacoity over there. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that accused person resisted before police officials at the time SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 19 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act when they were apprehended . It is a matter of common knowledge that any person who is shown to have in possession of illegal arms and ammunition would definitely resist his or her apprehension by police officials under the fear of being booked in criminal case. In this background, the story as set up by the prosecution does not appeal reasoning and is liable to be rejected.
32 Moreover, record would indicate that presence of public witness could have been secured by IO of the case and S.I Narender (PW8) who was heading the raiding party. The incident is shown to have taken place at about 09:35 pm, near forest , Mansa Devi Mandir road, Narela. During cross examination of prosecution witnesses, particularly, who were members of the raiding party, it has come on record that said road is a public road and the road remain busy during the day and during the night also some traffic goes on the way. It has also come on the record that there were many shops of vegetables and no request was made by the IO to any public persons SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 20 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act on the way when they were approaching to the spot . This shows that with a little effort , public witnesses could have been made to join the investigation . Even if no public witness was present or available as claimed by S.I Narender(PW8), nothing stopped them at least to make Sanjay, driver of Tata 407 , which was used by the raiding party to reach at the spot , as a witness to the proceedings . All the prosecution witnesses have admitted the presence of said Sanjay at the spot. Not even a request is shown to have been made to said Sanjay to be a witness.
33 In the present case prosecution tried to bring home guilt of the accused persons by relying upon the versions of 5-6 police officials who were member of the raiding party. A bare perusal of their version clearly reflects the same to be of stereo type thus it will be highly unsafe to rely upon their version to pass the order of conviction against the accused persons . It has been held in 1975 CAR 309 (SC) that :
" Prosecution case resting solely on the testimony of Head Constable and three other police constables. No independent witness examined. Prosecution story appearing improbable SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 21 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act and unnatural held that the prosecution case cannot be said to be free from reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be acquitted".
34 In a case reported as Anoop Joshi vs State , 1992(2) CCC 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
" It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly , when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant . In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escape the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."
35 In the present case, prosecution tried to bring home the guilt of the accused persons by relying upon the testimonies of the police officials SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 22 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act who were members of the raiding party. Their testimonies is of stereo type as discussed herein above, which should have been supported by some independent witness, which is failing in the present case. The manner in which stereo type deposition has been given without any corroboration or support from any other independent witness is sufficient to disbelieve their version even in respect of alleged recovery of arms and ammunition from the possession of accused persons. The entire proceedings carried out by the raiding party are under the cloud and it would not be safe to place reliance upon the quality of the evidence as adduced by the prosecution, therefore, the recovery of arms and ammunition pursuant to the said proceedings or incident has also become doubtful. There is no independent corroboration to said recovery also.
36 In the light of my aforesaid discussion, it is held that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offences against the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt. Thus, I am left with no option but SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 23 of 24 ) D.O.D 27.11.2014 FIR no. 98/2010 P.S Narela u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act to acquit the accused persons. Accused Vijay Kumar Pandit, Kanhaiya @ Pappu, Yogesh Kumar, Ravinder Maan @ Tinu , Wasim Khan and Nasir ,therefore, stands acquitted from the charges u/s 399/402 IPC and accused Vijay Kumar Pandit, Kanhiaya @ Pappu and Yogesh Kumar are acquitted from the charges for the offence u/s 25 Arms Act.
37 Their sureties stands discharged.
Documents , if any be released after cancellation of endorsement.
38 In terms of section 437(A) CrPC, accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs 10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount.
39 File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (Rajesh Kumar Goel) Court today i.e 27.11.2014 ASJ-5, North Rohini Court SC No.157/14 State vs Vijay Kumar Pandit & others (Page 24 of 24 )