The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness statements and failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade undermine credibility.

JUDGMENT :

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.)

Since both these appeals emanate out of a common judgment of acquittal passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, the same were taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by way of a common judgment.

2. The story of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Puran Singh was doing the work of distributing the bakery items from Raja Ka Talab to Dhameta. On 27.03.2004, the complainant was taking meal in the hotel of one Ram Prasad at Fatehpur. Both the respondents were sitting on the bench. The complainant gave money to the owner of the hotel after taking meal, which was seen by the respondent. The complainant thereafter went to Dhameta on motorcycle and when he reached at Siyal Pul, at about 3:45 p.m., both the respondents came there on motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-35-5821 and stopped the motorcycle of the complainant. The respondent Manoj Kumar took out revolver and asked the complainant to hand over money. The complainant caught hold the revolver, but the respondent Manoj Kumar asked respondent Rajeev Kumar to take out knife. Respondent Rajeev Kumar gave beating to the complainant and caused injuries on his face. Both the respondents took away an amount of Rs. 5000/- from the complainant and fled away. However, while doing so, respondents left behind jacket at the spot. Report to this effect was made to the police on the basis of which an FIR under Sections 323, 341 and 392 read with Sections 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act came to be lodged.

3. The police investigated the matter and on completion of the investigation the challan was put in the Court and the respondents were tried for the aforesaid offences.

4. After conclusion of the trial and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court convicted the respondents for the commission of the offence as under:-

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, the respondents preferred appeals before the learned Sessions Judge, which were duly allowed and aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents, the State has filed the instant appeal.

6. We really wonder why the State has filed the instant appeals given the fact that there are so many contradictions and inconsistencies in prosecution case, which go to the substratum of the case, some of which are being discussed below.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses.

8. PW1 Puran Chand and PW3 Harnek Singh are the witnesses of the spot, but as observed above there are lot of contradictions in their statements.

9. As per the prosecution, the alleged incident was reported to the police by complainant Puran Singh (PW1) and his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded vide Ext. PW1/A on the basis of which FIR came to be registered.

10. PW1 while appearing in the witness box corroborated the facts stated in Ext. PW1/A before the Court and stated that the respondents had given knife blow and inflicted injury on his face, but there is no mention of this fact in the complaint Ext. PW1/A.

11. If that was not sufficient, even the knife which was alleged to have been used in the offence has not been taken into possession by the police. No sharp edge weapon injury has been found by the doctor as per the MLC Ext. PW8/A.

12. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Badri vs. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 442, that where a witness modulates his version to suit the prosecution case, his testimony becomes suspected. It was held in para 19 of the judgment which reads as under:-

“19. Further, there was difference of opinion between the two Medical Officers examined in the case. The trial