Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reasonable doubts benefit the accused.

1. The present appeal purports to be under S.378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'CrPC.') seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 06.02.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No.523 of 2015 in case crime No.81 of 2015 (State v. Mubarak Ali and three others), S.T. No.577 of 2015 (State v. Wasil) in case crime No.81 of 2015, Police Station - Gangoh, District - Saharanpur whereby the accused - respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have been acquitted under charges 395/412 IPC and accused No.5 under S.395 of IPC.

2. Facts

The prosecution theory in brief is that P.W.1, Nathiram, the informant had lodged a first information report on 02.03.2015 in police station - Gangoh, Saharanpur alleging that on 01.03.2015 at 11:30 pm when he along with his brother, Dharmendra, P.W.2 were driving a four wheeler Bolero Maxx Truck Mahindra, Registration No. UP - 11 - AT - 0204 Chassis No.3826571 and Engine No.GLI - 4863624 model 2/2014 after delivering the milk in Mother Dairy, Jandawan Centre then when they came to village Kalsi through Sagathedha road near the tubewell of Tejpal son of Karam Singh, they found a poplar tree lying on the road. P.W.1, Nathiram who was driving the said vehicle had put the brakes and he was confronted with 3-4 miscreants who were armed with weapons, they hurled abuses and administered threat. Thereafter the said miscreants snatched the mobile phone (China make) from the brother of the PW1, i.e. P.W.2, Dharmendra and proceeded to confine them while locking the door in a house and thereafter took away the empty milk can, mobile phone and the four wheeler. Thereafter, according to the P.W.1, they were able to come out of the house while climbing the broken roof and tried to search the vehicle and the miscreants but the same remained untraceable. Pursuant whereto, an FIR stood lodged against the unnamed accused. The investigating officer stood appointed, he undertook the task of conducting investigation and chargesheet came to be submitted against the accused herein.

3. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses namely, Nathiram (informant P.W.1), P.W.2 - Dharmendra (fact witness), P.W.3 - Virendra, P.W.4 - S.S.I., Yashpal Singh Dhama, P.W.5 - Sub-Inspector Arvind Kumar, P.W.6 - Sub-Inspector Balram Singh, P.W.7 - S.I. Naresh Kumar, P.W.8 Inspector Bijendra Singh Yadav. After prosecution evidence was closed, the trial court recorded evidence of the accused under S.313 of the CrPC.

4. All the accused denied the allegations levelled against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the criminal case. The Trial Court acquitted the accused under S.395 and S.412 of the CrPC.

5. In order to establish its case, the prosecution has adduced documentary and oral evidence.

Documentary Evidence

(i) Charesheet (Ex Ka - 9)

(ii) Naksha najari copy (Ex Ka - 10)

(iii) Exhibits Extra copy (Ex ka - 11, ka - 12)

Testimony of the Prosecution Witnesses

6. P.W.1 - Nathiram, the first informant has been examined as P.W.1. According to him, the incident took place on 01.03.2015 when he along with his brother, P.W.2 - Dharmendra son of Baburam were returning from Mother Dairy after delivering the milk in a four wheeler containing empty cans. PW1 deposed that he was driving the four wheeler and his brother was sitting besides him and it was about 11:30 in the night on 01.03.2015 just one kilometre from village near the tubewell of Tejpal, he found a poplar tree was lying on the road. Since the vehicle could not have been moved further so he stationed the vehicle, the headlights of the vehicle were on and the miscreants came there, and they had put in the country - made pistol on the head of the P.W.1 and they started hurling abuses