JUDGMENT

1. Anand and Rahul challenge the impugned judgment dated 10th October 2017 convicting them for offences punishable under Section 392/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 12th October 2017 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each.

2. Assailing the sentence, Learned Counsel for Anand prays that Anand be released on the period already undergone.

3. Learned Counsel for Rahul contends that Ct. Hemraj (PW-2) in his cross-examination stated that they reached the spot at 5:30 P.M. whereas the complainant in his testimony stated that Rahul was arrested at 5:30 P.M. Ct. Hemraj also deposed that Rahul was arrested from a nearby metro station however the case of the prosecution is that it was a railway track. The Investigating Officer has also not recorded the statements of any eye-witnesses. He further submits that the recovered mobile phone was identified by the complainant but no bill has been produced that shows that it belonged to the complainant. He further prays that Rahul be released on the period already underg