The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a credible and consistent prosecution case to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

R K Gauba, J.

This appeal assails the judgment of court of sessions whereby the appellant was held guilty and convicted on charge of attempted armed robbery and possession of a knife and punishment awarded for such offence.

2. On 06.10.1997 Sub Inspector Ghanshyam Dass (PW-9), the investigating officer (IO) made an endorsement on the statement (Ex.PW-7/A) of Ramesh Chand Inani (PW-7) and got first information report (FIR) no. 523/1997 (Ex.PW-1/A) registered at about 10.10 p.m. in the police station Sarai Rohilla concerning an incident that statedly had occurred at the bus stand of Kishan Kunj on old Rohtak Road, which falls within the jurisdiction of the police station Sarai Rohilla. At the time of making the endorsement, he had statedly apprehended the appellant herein with assistance of Constable Mahesh Kumar (PW- 2) and Head Constable Anwar Ahmad (PW-3), he being formally arrested after personal search (Ex.PW-2/B) in the presence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-7.

3. It is stated that during interrogation of the appellant, he had made disclosure (Ex.PW-2/D), inter alia, showing complicity on the part of two others i.e. Bishan Kumar (A-2) and Azad Singh (A-3) in the offences allegedly committed under Sections 393/397 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It is also stated that at the time of commission of the said offences, the appellant (A-1) was also found having in his possession a knife (Ex.P1) which was seized vide memo (Ex.PW-2/C), its sketch (Ex.PW-2/A) having been prepared at the time of recovery at the same point of time.

4. The appellant, and the said two others (A-2 and A-3), were brought to trial (in sessions case no.75/1998) in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, charges having been framed against all the three for offence under Section 393 read with Section 34 IPC, the gravamen whereof was that at about 8.30 p.m. on 06.10.1997 at the afore-mentioned place, they in furtherance of their common intention had attempted to rob PW-7 by forcing him at the point of knife to hand over ten gold biscuits of the purported value of Rs.5,34,000/-. Additionally, separate charge was also framed against the appellant (A-1) for the offence under Section 393 read with Section 397 IPC on the accusations that he had used a knife at the time of commission of the offence of the attempted robbery. Separate charge under Section 25 Arms Act was also framed against the appellant.

5. The trial court, by its judgment dated 26.09.2002, found that the prosecution had failed to bring home the case against A-2 and A-3 and thus acquitted them, the said result having attained finality, there being no appeal against the acquittal. The trial Judge, however, held the appellant guilty and convicted him for offence under Section 393 read with Section 398 IPC and separately on charge under Section 25 of Arms Act. By order dated 27.09.2002, rigorous imprisonment for seven years was awarded as punishment on the first count in addition to rigorous imprisonment for one year on the second count, both substantive sentences directed to run concurrently, the benefit of set off under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), having been accorded.

6. This appeal challenging the judgment and order on sentence was filed in November, 2002. The appellant was released on bail, the sentence having been suspended by order dated 25.07.2005. The turn of the appeal for hearing has come up more than sixteen years after it was presented.

7. It appears that at the time of registration of the afore-mentioned FIR, on the statement of PW-7, the investigating officer had reasons also to suspect the complainant himself vis-a-vis the ten gold biscuits, which were found to be in his possession and in which respect he was unable to immediately give any satisfactory account. Thus, vide DD no. 17A of 6-7 of October, 1997 in police station Sarai Rohilla, a case was also registered under Section 103, Delhi Police Act, 1978, the gravamen whereof was the pos