The importance of clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence in criminal cases and the duty of the court to ensure that suspicion does not take the place of legal proof.

S.P. Garg, J.

1. Kishan Kumar (A-1), Pradeep (A-2) and Rajesh (A-3) challenge their conviction under Section 392 /34 IPC and order on sentence in Sessions Case No. 34/2001 arising out of FIR No. 228/2001 PS Rohini by which they were directed to undergo RI for three years with fine Rs. 500/- each. The police machinery was set into motion when Daily Diary (DD) No. 8A (Ex. PW-6/A) recorded at 06.45 A.M. on 28.03.2001 at PS Rohini regarding a quarrel and snatching of money near Vijay Nursing Home, Avantika. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording Santosh Kumar's statement (Ex. PW-2/A) in which he disclosed that when he was present in bus No. DL 1PA-7717 route no. 971, A-1 to A-3 driver, conductor and helper in the bus joined hands with their associates and actively assisted them to rob him of Rs. 9,000/- and wrist watch. During the course of investigation, A-1 to A-3 were apprehended and arrested. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts. The actual culprits who had robbed the complainant could not be arrested. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against A-1 to A-3 in the Court for committing offences under Section 392 /109 IPC read with Section 397 IPC. The prosecution examined six witnesses. In their 313 statements A-1 to A-3 pleaded false implication. It is not under challenge that A-1 to A-3 were driver, conductor and helper respectively in the bus on the date of occurrence. PW-3 (Kulbir Singh), owner of the bus proved their employment pursuant to notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicle Act (Ex. PW-3/A). Presence of the complainant in the said bus on route no. 971 is not disputed. The incident by which he was robbed of cash Rs. 9,000/- and wrist watch cannot be doubted as he had no ulterior motive to falsely fake it. Regarding complicity of the appellants in the incident, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that they were in league with the actual culprits and abetted robbery on the complainant. It has come on record that when the victim boarded the bus at Anand Vihar Bus Stand, the actual culprits were not in the bus. The appellants diverted the route and took the bus towards Subzi Mandi, Azadpur to reach Avantika. This course of action was resented by the complainant. It appears that a quarrel ensued on that score and the complainant was asked to keep quiet. Thereafter, when the bus stopped at the red light, three boys boarded the bus from Azadpur Mandi. The driver was under obligation to stop the bus at red light and it cannot be inferred that the appellants had deliberately and intentionally facilitated the actual assailants to board the bus to commit robbery or pick-pockets. After boarding, the assailants did not threaten or direct the complainant to handover cash and wrist watch. When the bus reached Avantika, its destination, instead of stopping it there, the driver took it ahead and halted at red light. It again resented the complainant. When he attempted to get down there, the conductor did not allow him and pushed him inside the bus. No adverse inference can be drawn from it as the conductor was not supposed to allow passengers to alight at red light. The complainant deposed that at that juncture, he was robbed of cash Rs. 9,000/- and wrist watch by the three culprits where conductor caught hold him. The actual culprits could never be arrested during investigation. No robbed article was recovered. There were twenty passengers in the bus and none else was threatened by the culprits. No pocket of any other passenger was picked. It is unbelievable that the appellants had deliberately allowed the pick-pockets/robbers to board the bus or in any manner assisted them to rob the complaint. The appellants did not abscond from last destination of the bus. Complainant's conduct is unreasonable as he did not lodge report with the police soon after alighting from the bus. He went to his home