The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and uncontradicted witness testimony to establish guilt under the relevant sections of the IPC and Arms Act.

S.P. Garg, J.

1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 26.05.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.78/10 arising out of FIR No. 124/06 registered at Police Station Kotwali by which the appellants- Deepak Saini @ Mohd. Ali (A-1) and Shokeen (A-2) were held guilty for committing various offences punishable under Sections 392/397/307 IPC and 27 Arms Act, they have filed the instant appeals. By an order dated 04.06.2012, they were awarded various prison terms with fine. Substantive sentences were to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as stated in the charge-sheet was that on 23.03.2006 at 8.45 p.m. at shop No.539, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi, belonging to complainant Navdeep Gupta, the appellants along with their associates Ummardin @ Ummer (since acquitted) and Munna (since Proclaimed Offender) while armed with deadly weapons committed robbery and inflicted injuries to him. The police machinery came into motion on receipt of an information about the incident at 9.00 p.m. recorded by Daily Diary No.41 (Ex.PW12/A). The Investigation was assigned to SI Ishwar Singh who with Ct.Amar Pal went to the spot. The Investigating Officer after recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-8/A) lodged First Information Report. A-1 was apprehended at the spot whereas his associates managed to flee the spot. The victim was medically examined. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Robbed articles and the crime weapons lying at the spot were collected and seized. Initially, charge-sheet was filed against A-1 and Umardeen @ Ummer. Subsequently upon A-2’s arrest, supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 statement, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The Trial Court after considering the rival submissions of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, acquitted Umardeen @ Ummer of the charges. It is apt to note that the State did not challenge the acquittal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants have preferred the instant appeals.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. Material discrepancies and contradictions emerging in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were over-looked on trivial grounds. Material prosecution witnesses remained unexamined. FSL reports did not connect the appellants with the crime. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that no valid grounds exist to disbelieve the complainant.

4. So far A-1’s complicity in the crime is concerned, admittedly, he was apprehended at the spot and his ‘custody’ was handed over to the police. A-1 did not deny his presence at the spot. Suggestions were put to the complainant in the cross-examination that when A-1 had gone to the shop to purchase certain goods/articles, some ‘boys’ entered the shop to commit robbery. When one of the assailants took out a knife, it was snatched by A-1 and he broke it into two pieces as a result of which he sustained injuries in his hands. A-1 did not produce any evidence whatsoever in defence to prove as to what was the purpose of his visit to the shop or whether he had actually gone there to make purchases. The complainant in his statement (Ex.PW-8/A) given to the police at the first instance named A-1 to be one of the assailants and assigned specific and definite role to him in the crime. In his Court statement as PW-8 also, he implicated A-1 and deposed that he was armed with a knife and he sustained injuries due to fire by his associate at the spot. In his confessional statement (Ex.PW-1/E) recorded by PW-1, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, A-1 did not claim if he had visited the shop as a customer. Rather he implicated himself and his associates for t