Sanjiv Khanna, J.

These three appeals by Sidharath Bansal, Nitin Nagpal & Rambir Jhakhar arise out of a common judgment dated 4th October, 2012 and order of sentence dated 18th October, 2012. Nitin Nagpal and Rambir Jakhar have been convicted under Sections 393/120-B/302/307/186/353/332 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Sentences awarded to them are:

Name of the Sections Punishment awarded

accused invoked

Nitin Nagpal 393/120- 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment u/s

And Rambir B/302/307/186/353/332/34 393 read with Section 120-B IPC

Jhakhar IPC and Section 27 and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in

of the Arms Act. default Simple Imprisonment of

three months. Rigorous

Imprisonment for life and fine of

Rs.50,000/- u/s 302/34 IPC and in

default of payment of fine, Simple

Imprisonment for six months.

Rigorous Imprisonment for life

and fine of Rs.50,000/- u/s

307/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, Simple

Imprisonment for six months.

Rigorous Imprisonment for 10

years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under

Section 27 of the Arms Act and in

default of payment of fine, Simple

Imprisonment for two months.

Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 186/34 IPC.

Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year under Section 353/34 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years under Section 332/34 IPC.

2. Sidharath Bansal has been convicted under Section 120B read with Section 392 IPC and has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine undergo Simple Imprisonment of 6 months.

3. At the very outset, we deem it proper and appropriate to record that on behalf of the appellants Nitin Nagpal and Rambir Jhakhar prolix and rather long oral arguments and written submissions going into 69 typed pages have been filed but as observed below the prosecution case against them is water tight and open and shut. The contentions raised on their behalf are referring to minor deviations and are pointers on human frailties like failure to remember or recollect facts after lapse of time. We will deal with the said contentions, but appropriately so as to avoid an overly long judgment. Entries made or lapses in recording of the daily diary entries and insignificant and exiguous differences in the ocular statements with reference to the time etc. are reflective of the fact that either the entries were not made contemporaneously by the officers or the police officers could not recollect the exact time by the minutes while recounting and deposing in the court. On primary and material facts as noticed below there are no material contradiction in the ocular statements by witnesses or between the oral depositions and the records. (see paragraph 19 below)

Statement of Police witnesses present at the Crime Scene

4. The two appellants Rambir Jhakhar and Nitin Nagpal were detained and caught in the lane outside house No. E-175, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, Delhi on 23rd June, 2005 at about 1 P.M. Inspector Kharak Singh (PW1) was the first informant and has deposed that on 23rd June, 2005 at about 12.35 P.M. that he was on patrolling duty in Central Market, Ashok Vihar and had received information about dacoity and firing at E-174, Ashok Vihar.He rushed to the scene in his private Palio car. As he entered the street, he heard ASI Harish Chander (PW28) shouting that the boys running towards him were the culprits. He parked his car in an angular position to stop the appellants and apprehend them. He identified the two boys as the appellants Nitin Nagpal and Rambir Jhakhar.

5. Nitin Nagpal fired two bullets at ASI Harish Chander (PW28). He was hit on his face and he fell down. At that instant, Inspector Kharak Singh (PW1) flashed a message to the control room and PW1 positioned himself behind the car to stop them. He started pelting the appellants with stones. The appellants Nitin Nagpal and Rambir Jhakhar tried to board the car to run away but by then Inspector P.L. Khera (PW38), who was also SHO, P