Delhi District Court
State vs . Bhoora & Ors on 14 September, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI:ASJ:02:
CENTRAL: ROOM NO.216:TIS HAZARI COURTS :DELHI
ID NO:02401R0293522010
SC NO: 26/10
FIR NO: 73/10
PS : DBG ROAD
U/s 395/397/412/120B
STATE vs. BHOORA & ORS
JUDGMENT
1 Sl. No. of the Case SC NO: 26/10 2 Date of Committal to Sessions 23.8.2010 3 Date of Receiving by this Court 15.4.2011 3 Name of the complainant Sh.Vijay Kumar Gupta 4 Date of commission of offence 23.3.2010 5 Name of accused, parentage and address 1.Bhoora S/o Mubarak R/o Mohalla Bghichi Sarai Taren Sambhal, Muradabad, UP. Age : 32 yrs, 2.Mehboob S/o Yakub R/o Mohalla New Sarai ,Sambhal, Muradabad, UP. Age: 43 yrs 3.Imran S/o Sh. Yusuf R/o Mohalla Coat Gartoi, Sambhal, Muradabad, UP. Age: 30 yrs. 4.Arif S/o Sabir R/o Village Mandlai, PS Nakhasa, Tehsil Sambal, Muradabad, UP (Proclaimed Offender) (Separate proceedings U/s 299 Cr.P.C. are to be carried out by Ld.CMM, Delhi ) 6 Offence complained of U/s 395/397/412/120B & 25/27 of Arms Act 7 Offence charged of Accused Bhoora charged with Section 395 r/w 120B IPC, 412 IPC and 120B IPC. Accused Mehboob charged with Section 395 r/w 120B IPC, 397/412/120B IPC Accused Imran charged with Section 395 r/w 120B IPC, 397/412/120B IPC apart from 25 Arms Act. 8 Plea of guilty Pleaded not guilty 9 Final order ACQUITTED 10 Date on which order reserved 13.9.2012 11 Date on which order announced 14.9.2012
Page 1 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 2 BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Case of the prosecution is that on 23.3.2010 after receipt of DD No.15A ASI Sahdev and Ct. Anand reached house No.559/17, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh. They found the household articles scattered and met with Complainant Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta . Complainant made statement Ex.PW4/A to the effect that he resides at the first floor of the above address along with his wife and one year old daughter and a maid. He does business of Export of Handicraft on his ground floor office.
2. On 23.3.2010 at 2.30 pm while he was working on his laptop in his office, his wife was sitting with him along and his supplier Sanjay was packing the material in the store, when somebody knocked the door. Complainant's wife Arti Gupta opened the door where two boys were standing. They asked his wife about the complainant , while stating that they want to show some samples for business. Two boys entered in to his office and showed him a packet of beads. Upon this complainant refused that he does not deal in such items. Meanwhile two other boys also entered the office. One of the boys pushed him right towards store room. Two of the boys took out Desi Kattas and stated that in case alarm is raised, they will be shot. Complainant, his wife and Sanjay were taken to the store . Complainant's gold bracelet, his wife's two gold karas, her gold Mangalsutra , two gold rings were snatched. They asked about their bag of the cash. Complainant Page 2 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 3 replied under fear that it is on the first floor. Two of the boys went up stairs but could not find the bag. One of the boys came down and tied hands and legs of the complainant with a rope. They took complainant's wife up stair and asked her to trace the cash or she will be shot. Complainant's wife was constrained to handover the bag carrying Rs.1.5 lacs. Robbers locked complainant's wife, servant in the bathroom up stair and fled from there. The complainant and Sanjay somehow untangled their hands and dialed 100 for the police. Complainant also found his Samsung Corby mobile phone and white Nokia mobile phone, Acer Laptop, Sony camera, silver coins and brass statue of goddess missing.
3. On this statement ASI sent ruqqa Ex.PW6/A and got FIR Ex.PW7/A registered U/s 392/397/34 IPC, endorsement on ruqqa is Ex.PW7/B. Crime team was summoned which prepared report Ex.PW10/A. Further investigation was taken by SI Mahinder Singh. SI prepared site plan Ex.PW17/A. He also seized from the house plastic rope Ex.P3, handkerchief , pair of shoes Ex.P1 and Nokia mobile phone Ex.P2 left by the accused persons vide memo Ex.PW2/A. He seized the beads packet brought by the accused vide Ex.PW4/B. Spot was got photographed which are Ex.PW3/1, PW3/A, negatives are Ex.PW3/9 to 16. Finger prints were also taken.
4. On 5.4.2010 Mohd. Shakir @ Bhoora was arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/D and personal search Ex.PW4/E. He made a disclosure statement Page 3 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 4 Ex.PW12/A regarding his involvement in this case. vide recovery memo Ex.PW14/B, he got recovered looted cash Ex.PX11 and silver coins Ex.P4 to Ex.P7 from boxes in his residential house at Sarai Tehran, Distt. Muradabad, UP. He also got recorded supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW14/A.
5. On the basis of disclosure of Bhoora the accused Mehboob was also arrested as per arrest memo Ex.PW12/A dt.5.4.2010 and his personal search is Ex.PW12/B. He pointed out the spot vide memo Ex.PW12/D and gave disclosure Ex.PW12/C. He got recovered looted shoes Ex.P4, vide memo Ex.PW12/E which he was wearing at the time of arrest.
6. Accused Imran was arrested on 7.4.2010 vide memo Ex.PW14/C, his personal search Ex.PW14/D, he gave disclosure statements Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW17/D. He got recovered looted laptop Ex.P1 and golden Kara Ex.P2 vide memo Ex.PW14/E from a bag in the rented room at J111, Kabootar Market, Gol Masjid, Welcome, Delhi. He also got recovered Desi Katta .315 from underneath the bricks at Kabristan at Welcome vide memo Ex.PW9/B. Its sketch is Ex.PW9/A. Bill of complainant's Samsung phone is Ex.PW4/C. Inventory of looted articles Ex.PW17/DA, road certificates of FSL Ex.PW8/A, sanction U/s 39 of Arms Act is Ex.PW18/A. FSL report is Ex.PW17/C. Proceeding qua refusal to join TIP by all three accused is PX/A , B and C.
7. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 395/397/412/120B & Page 4 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 5 25/27 of Arms Act as filed. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, case was committed to Sessions. During the course of trial accused Bhoora was charged with commission of offence punishable U/s 395 r/w 120B IPC, 412 IPC and 120B IPC. Accused Mehboob was charged with commission of offence punishable U/s 395 r/w 120B IPC, 397/412/120B IPC and accused Imran was charged with commission of offence punishable U/s 395 r/w 120B IPC, 397/412/120B IPC apart from 25 Arms Act.
8. To prove its case prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all. It was followed by recording of Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements of accused separately vide which accused denied allegations against them. All the three Accused opted to lead evidence in their defence.
9. I have heard arguments of Ld. Addl. PP Sh. V.K.Negi for State and Ld. Counsel Sh. Zaffar Abbas Advocate for accused Bhoora, Ld. Counsel Ms. Chitramal Advocate for accused Mehboob and Ld. Counsel Ms. Sunita Gupta Advocate for accused Imran . I have also carefully perused the entire case file.
10.At the onset it would be appropriate to have glance at the gist of deposition made by PWs.
11.PW1 Yogesh Kumar witnessed the arrest of accused Imran at the instance of accused Bhura . He identified accused Bhura Singh and Imran.
12.PW2 Sanjay Verma, one of the victims narrated on the lines of the Page 5 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 6 prosecution case and identified his shoes, mobile and string as Ex.P1, P2 and P3. He identified accused Mehboob in the Court.
13.PW3 Ct. Dinesh Kumar took photographs from the house No. 17/559, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi .
14.PW4 Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta is complainant in this case and he proved his complaint apart from narrating on the lines of his complaint and identifying all three accused who looted him as well as case property i.e. silver coins as Ex.Px4 to ExPx7, paper bag as Ex.Px8, ornamental beads as Ex.Px9, country made pistol as Ex.Px10, photocopies of currency notes as Ex.Px11, Lakhani Sports shoes as Ex.Px12, golden sued sport shows as Ex.Px13, Nokia black mobile phone as Ex.Px14, hand towel as Ex.Px15 and plastic rope as Ex.Px16.
15.PW5 Ct. Anand Kumar joined investigation with IO and he narrated on the lines of prosecution case.
16.PW6 SI Sehdev visited spot on 23.3.2010 on receipt of DD No.15A and he recorded the statement of complainant and prepared ruqqa on the basis of the same .
17.PW7 HC Jai Prakash was Duty Officer and he proved the registration of case FIR.
18.PW8 Ct. Nitesh Singh proved the Road Certificate.
19.PW9 Ct. Satender joined the investigation on 9.4.2010 and deposed on the Page 6 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 7 lines of prosecution version .
20.PW10 HC Ajay Kumar took chance finger print from the spot on 23.3.2010 being Finger Print Proficient and proved his inspection report.
21.PW11 SI Dhan Singh was Incharge Crime Team on 23.3.2010 and he visited spot with Crime Team.
22.PW12 Ct. Vinod Kumar joined investigation in this case on 5.4.2010 and he detailed out the entire investigational steps witnessed by him.
23.PW13 Smt. Arti Gupta is eye witness to the incident and she supported the case of the prosecution apart from identifying all accused in the Court correctly as the person who looted her family at gun point .
24.PW14 HC Randhir Singh and PW15 Inspector Surender Singh joined investigation on 7.4.2010 and they narrated on the lines of the case of the prosecution .
25.PW16 Inspector Jeewan Lal joined investigation with SI Mahender Singh on 9.4.2010 and he deposed on the lines of the prosecution version .
26.PW17 SI Mohinder Singh is IO of this case and he detailed out investigational steps taken by him during investigation of this case.
27.PW18 Ms. Meenu Chaudhary, IPS, accorded sanction U/s 39 of Arms. Act for prosecution of accused Imran and proved sanctioned report.
28.While opening his submissions, it is argued by Ld. Addl. PP that all the three accused have been identified by the complainant and looted articles were Page 7 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 8 recovered from them and as such they deserve to be convicted for the charges framed.
29.AT the onset it would be appropriate to have a glance at the particulars of the main offences charged.
30. Section 395 IPC runs as under:
Section 395 IPC: Punishment for dacoity - Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
31.Section 397 IPC runs as under:
Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt - if, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
32.At the onset it is very interesting to observe that according to asal tehrir Ex.PW4/A the alleged incident involved only four boys and that too FIR was registered only U/s 392/397/34 IPC . In the entire case there is nothing on record to show that either the complainant or any of his family member went outside the house so as to see if any other additional fifth person was involved in this case . Also according to this initial statement made by complainant PW4 Vijay Kumar Gupta, which forms text of the FIR , neither of the four persons who entered his house had any muffle on their faces and also that he was not aware of identity of any of the four persons. The FIR Page 8 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 9 consequently does not contain name of any of the accused and as such it was a blind case on the day when FIR was registered i.e. on 23.3.2010.
33.What is utterly surprising is that suddenly on 5.4.2010, accused Bhoora @ Mohd. Shakir was arrested on the pointing out of complainant PW4 Vijay Kumar Gupta purportedly from Bus Stop at Karol Bagh. Neither in the chargesheet nor in the deposition of the complainant, IO or any other witness there is even a whisper as to how the complainant and the police zeroed in on Bhoora @ Mohd. Shakeel suddenly after around 1213 days of the incident. What makes the whole situation suspiciously grim is that after recording the first Case Diary (CD) No.1 on 23.3.2010 , no further investigational step was taken for the next 1213 days. There is nothing on record to show that if any secret input qua involvement of Bhoora and other coaccused was received by police. The CD No.2 was recorded only on 5.4.2010 upon arrest of Bhoora.
34.The complainant having once stated in the FIR that he did not know either of the four accused , it is impossible to believe him that on 5.4.2010 he suddenly pointed out the accused Bhoora at the Bus stop of Karol Bagh as the person involved in the alleged incident. What is startling to observe is that complainant knew of Bhoora even prior to the incident as admitted by him in his cross examination as PW1. He admitted that he knew Bhoora for last 810 years as he used to purchase articles from Bhoora. In order to Page 9 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 10 justify his failure to name Bhoora in the FIR lodged on 23.3.2010 or any time thereafter up to 5.4.2010, complainant took a plea that actually Bhoora was standing outside his house at the time of incident and had not entered therein. It is impossible for the complainant to make this statement once it has come on record that neither he nor any of his family members went outside the house. Even if the complainant is believed on this score for the argument sake, then there is absolutely no justification as to why he did not name Bhoora either in the FIR or anytime thereafter in the next 1213 days. This goof up in the investigation goes to the very root of the matter in so far as , it shakes the foundation of the whole case as it squarely indicates that this case has been shown cracked in a manner which is miles away from being satisfactory.
35.Another circumstance which too has the effect of shattering the entire prosecution case is that even though allegedly Nokia Mobile Phone was left by the four boys at the complainant's house but absolutely no investigation qua particulars of that phone was done and no attempt was made to collect its Call Detail Record (CDR) . This does not appear to be a casual investigational error or omission but rather indicates of some serious wrong doing happening in the investigation. Instead of relying on scientific tools of evidence , IO of this case purportedly projected this case to be cracked relying on contradictory and unbelievable plea of complainant PW4 Vijay Page 10 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 11 Kumar Gupta.
36.In case AIR 1974 SC 21 Hon'ble Supreme Court while observing on appreciation of evidence ruled that -
"although court should disengage truth from falsehood but if they are so inextricably mixed up down to the core that disengagement is impossible, court can reject evidence in toto."
37. Similarly, the further investigation made by the police suffers from serious improbabilities and lacuna in so far as arrest memo of Bhoora Ex.PW4/B shows that the place of arrest and time have been entered in a different pen and handwriting which shows that they have been added thereto at the later point of time. Even though he was shown arrested at a busy public place i.e. Bus Stop of Karol Bagh, no public person was joined.
38.Signature of complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta is shown to have been taken on arrest memo Ex.PW4/B but his signature does not appear on personal search memo Ex.PW4/D and on disclosure statement Ex.PW12/A purportedly prepared soon after the arrest of accused Bhoora. Also there is no explanation as to why complainant was not taken along during the claimed purported recovery of looted articles.
39.Bhoora is shown to have got recovered Rs.9000/ cash and three silver coins from his village Muradabad vide memo Ex.PW14/B but not only this memo contained over writing but even at that juncture neither public person from Page 11 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 12 this place was joined nor Local UP Police was informed or involved.
40.Similarly the supplementary disclosure statement purportedly made by Bhoora Ex.PW14/A too contained repeated corrections and over writing in the date mentioned at the bottom. Also site plan of the claimed site of the recovery was not prepared. Also no entry of departure to District Muradabad or consequent arrival entry was placed or made on record to show that police went to village of Bhoora to effect the recovery. This called for drawing adverse inference against the police U/s 114 (g) of Evidence Act.
41.Section 114 (g) of Evidence Act which runs as under:
114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act :The court may presume that evidence which could be and is not produce would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;
42.In case titled Ashok Kumar Uttam Chand Shah Vs. Patel Mohmad Asmal Chanchad, AIR 1999 Guj 108 it has been observed that "
"Genuineness and correctness of document have to be proved by a person who believes upon it to be cogent with direct evidence;"
43.As far as accused Mehboob is concerned, his name was purportedly disclosed by accused Bhoora upon his arrest on 5.4.2010 under shrouded circumstances as detailed supra. Accused Mehboob is shown arrested from Janta Colony at Welcome on 5.4.2010 at 10.30pm . It is shown that he got recovered pair of sports shoes purportedly lifted from complainant's house vide memo Ex.PW12/E. It is interesting to observe that the text of the Page 12 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 13 document is untidily cramped over the purported signatures of accused Mehboob indicating that text was added only after appending of signature. Also neither the size of the shoe has been mentioned nor they were got identified from either of the witnesses in a proper TIP. Hence, identification of the shoe for the first time in Court becomes meaningless .
44.As regards accused Imran , he is shown arrested on 7.4.2010 from Janta Colony, Welcome . His name was disclosed by accused Bhoora being a resident of Sabal, District Muradaba , UP. It is interesting to observe that as per DD No.23 of PP Sidhipura, which was supplied by State to the defence U/s 207 Cr.P.C., it is shown that Imran has been arrested from his native place. This fact is further corroborated by deposition of PW1 Yogesh Kumar, a Taxi Driver. As per this PW, police arrested accused Imran on 6.4.2010 from Sambal , District Muradabad, UP. This statement of the first prosecution witness belied the whole story of the prosecution that accused Imran was arrested on 7.4.2010. On account of these technicalities the claimed recovery of country made weapon from him has also come under serious cloud. The sketch of weapon Ex.PW9/A purportedly signed by 3 witnesses apart from IO was supplied to the defence without any signature. This shows that the sketch was not prepared in the presence of either of the claimed witness. It is observed that sketch Ex.PW9/A has not been got signed from Imran. This made the document unbelievable.
Page 13 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 14
45.Other than this , it is shown that accused Imran got recovered the purportedly looted Laptop Ex.P1 from some rented room at Welcome vide memo Ex.PW14/E. However, this recovery is rendered totally useless in so far as according to the prosecution case, the looted Laptop was of make "Acer" as mentioned in document Ex.PW17/E . While the Laptop shown seized on the pointing out of Imran, is of make "HP". This shows that the seized Laptop is not the case property.
46.Neither during the recovery of claimed Desi Katta nor during recovery of the said Laptop , any public witness was joined. Even qua the timing of claimed recovery of Katta, different PWs have given contradictory depositions. As per PW9 Katta was recovered at around 4.00pm. As per PW15 , it was recovered at about 1.00am in the night. Even the date of preparation of sketch has been over written and changed from 7.4.2010 to 10.4.2010. IO conceded in his deposition that no attempt was made to join public witnesses.
47.In case titled Massa Singh v. State of Punjab, (P&H) 2000(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 666 it has been observed that "the Investigating Officer inspite of the fact that he received a secret information did not associate any independent witness when he had the ample opportunity to do so. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that ASI Arjinder Singh received the secret information that a tractortrolley carrying illicit liquor was going to village Talwandi Nepalan via Maujgarh Page 14 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 15 and he further found the information as reliable.
In these circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to take the assistance of the independent witness from a nearby village. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the Investigating Officer had no time to associate any independent witness and he was in hurry to arrest the petitioner at the first instance still, the policeparty must have remained at the spot for the sufficient time keeping in view the nature and contents of the recovery. The recovery has been effected from a public place. The Investigating Officer could have taken the trouble to associate an independent witness to get the attestation of such independent witness regarding the authenticity of the investigation conducted by him. This aspect of the case has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. There is no quarrel with the proposition of the law that the statements of the police officials can be acted upon and it cannot be rejected outrightly simply because they possess the official status but before acting upon such statements the rule of prudence requires that the statement of such witness must inspire confidence in the mind of the Court."
48.In case titled Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Admn. 1988 (2)RCR 421 while impressing the need of joining independent public witness during recovery of weapon of offence from a public place, in a murder case, it was held that :
" Here is a case where no effort was made to join a public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of general public to associate themselves with the police raids or recovery but that apart atleast the IO should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witness. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the Page 15 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 16 recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
49. During their Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement accused Bhoora maintained that he had come to Delhi on the asking of complainant to settle his unpaid Bills as per which complainant was to pay him Rs.1.50 lacs but he was being offered only Rs.95,000/. It is stated that he came to Vijay's house on 5.4.2010 for the first time but he and his coworkers were got arrested by the complainant in this false case . Similar pleas were made by other two co accused . Even the defence witnesses maintained that Bhoora was supplier of goods to the complainant and had gone to complainant's place to receive his due Bills..
50.Accused Bhoora examined himself as DW4 U/s 315 Cr.P.C. wherein he exhibited on record certain counter copies of the Bills issued by him for goods sold to complainant's firm M/s Mongli Overseas .
51.The aforesaid discussion clearly shows that the case of the prosecution suffers from various deep rooted lacuna and unexplained improbabilities which uproot the entire prosecution case . The whole case is infested with such serious doubts that the whole prosecution case crumbles in their weight.
52.In case titled Sohan and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2001) 3 SCC 620 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
''An accused is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty. The burden of proof that he is guilty, is on the prosecution and that the prosecution has to Page 16 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 17 establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In other words , the innocence of an accused can be dispelled by the prosecution only on establishing his guilt beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of evidence. In this case, if only the Sessions Judge had reminded himself of the above mentioned basic or fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, direction of his approach and course of his appreciation of evidence would have been different and thereby perversity in appreciation of evidence could have been avoided.''
53.In case titled Sharad Birdhichand Sarda AIR 1984 SC 1622 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
Where on the evidence two possibilities were available, one which went in the favour of the prosecution and the other which benefited the accused, the accused was undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. The principle had special relevance where the guilt of the accused was sought to be established by evidence.
54.In case titled Manzoor Vs. State of U.P. (1982) 2 SCC 72 while dealing with the acquittal of accused in benefit of doubts it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"Prosecution failing to prove the guilt of accused satisfactorily beyond all reasonable doubtHence, the accused must be acquitted."
55.In case titled Raj Kumar Vs. State , 2011 (2) JCC 796 while giving benefit of doubt to the accused, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that:
" Benefit of doubt - whenever a reasonable doubt arises in a judicial mind - Benefit hereof must be to the account of the accused."
Page 17 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 18
56.In another case titled Rajneesh Vs. State , 2010 (2) JCC 1529 it has been observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:
"Witness - Material witnesses - Non examination of - effect of failure to examine the best witness who could have thrown the light on the issues involved - Benefit has to be the credit of the accused and not to his debit."
57. In view of the above discussion and case laws, I have no hesitation to conclude that prosecution failed miserably to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt. All three accused are given benefit of doubt and they accordingly stand acquitted of the charges framed. They be released from J/c forthwith if not required in any other case subject to furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/ each which shall be deemed canceled after the expiry of period of appeal U/s 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to RR. ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN OPEN COURT ON : 14.9.2012 (SURINDER S. RATHI) Addl. Sessions Judge02 Central : Delhi Page 18 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012 19 Page 19 / 18 of Judgment State Vs. Bhoora , Mahboob and Imran dt. 14.9.2012