The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, which was not met in this instance.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

Delay Condonation Application (01 of 2023)

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the delay condonation application.

2. We have perused the application moved by the appellant/State. There is delay of 75 days in filing the government appeal. The reasons shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application are sufficient to condone the delay. Hence, the delay in filing the government Appeal is hereby condoned.

Leave To Appeal No.54 of 2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties on Leave to Appeal application.

2. This Leave To Appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant against the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them under Sections 411, 413, 420, 468, 471 and 401 of IPC in Sessions Trial No.67 of 2014 State vs. Vikas Kumar and Another.

3. In a nutshell the prosecution story is that on 23.01.2013 the police party took respondents-accused Vikas Kumar and Yavar Abbas, arrested for the purpose of recovery from Police Station vide Rapat No.62 at 22:00 hours and reached to village Anneki, Police Station Ranipur. When they reached in the village, accused persons told the police party about the house where they were living on rent. Police party entered into the house and on their pointing out 07 motorcycle, 02 Hero Honda Passion Pro, 01 Hero Honda C.D. Delux, 04 Splender Plus were recovered; respondent-accused Vikas told the police that the red coloured Passion Pro which was standing in the verandah belonged to him but they have replaced the engine of it with the stolen motorcycle. The accused persons showed the RC of Vehicle No.UP12U 2188 on which Chasis No.MBLHA10ER9GK32762 and Engine No.HA10ED9GK34273 was written. When this RC was matched with the RC of vehicle which accused Vikas claimed his own vehicle, on that vehicle Chasis Number was different and similar was the position with other vehicles. According to the prosecution the respondents/accused fraudulently changed engine of the vehicles in preparing forged RCs. On the basis of the aforesaid memo of recovery, Case Crime No.400 of 2013 under Sections 411, 413, 420, 468, 471 and 401 of IPC was registered against both the respondents/accused.

4. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges by reason of the judgment and order dated 10.10.2022. Against the acquittal order present Leave to Government Appeal has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2/accused submitted his objection against Leave to Government Appeal.

6. Heard Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State and Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

7. Learned Deputy Advocate General Mr. J.S. Virk, in support of the Leave to Appeal drew this Court’s attention to the impugned judgment and tried to convince by reading the recovery memo dated 23.10.2013 that these 07 motorcycles and forged RCs were recovered on the pointing out of the accused. The learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge committed serious illegality by disbelieving the prosecution story and acquitting the respondents/accused.

8. Per contra the counsel for the respondents/accused submitted that the recovery on which the entire prosecution case rests does not inspire any confidence, mainly for the reason that no disclosure statement has been recorded by the Investigating Officer before effecting the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He further submitted that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery; the alleged recovered motorcycles were not placed before the Sessions Court during trial; no FIR of theft regarding the alleged motorcycles and engines were there and finally there is no material available with the prosecution to prove that the engines and Chasis Number of