U.C. Dhyani, J. – PW3 Ghan-shyam wrote a complaint (Ex.Ka-1) against 6-7 unknown miscreants on 21.12.2000 at P.S. Korwali, Haridwar, which was registered as case crime No. 1066/2000 under section 396 IPC. The incident allegedly took place in the intervening night of 21/22.12.2000 and the FIR was lodged on the selfsame night at 4:15 AM. The distance between the place of incident and the police station was 3 km. Hence/there appears to be no delay in lodging FIR. 2. Investigation began on the basis of said first information report. After investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, namely, Jauly @ Gori, Ganga Rain @ Gangua and Raju @ Rajendra @ Rajiya for the offences punishable under sections 396 and 412 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, When the trial commenced and prosecution opened it's case, charges against accused persons, namely, Jauly @ Gori, Ganga Ram @ Gangua and Raju @ Rajendra @ Rajiya were framed for the offences punishable under sections 396 and 412 IPC. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. 3. PW1 Pawan Kumar, PW2 Triloki Nath Gupta, PW3 Ghanshyam, PW4 Adesh Kumar, PW5 Raj Kumar, PW6 Narendra Sahni, PW7 Dr. S. S. Laal, PW8 S.I. R. K. Chamoli, PW9 S.I. Mahipal Singh, PW10 Inspector Ajay Kumar, PW11 Head Constable Yogen-dra Singh and PW12 Kripal Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C, in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. 4. The case of remaining accused persons, namely, Gurbachan and Raju @ Rajendra @ Rajiya was separated. 5. After conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge/2nd F.T.C., Haridwar, vide judgment and order dated 29.5.2006, acquitted the accused-respondents (Jauly @ Gori and Ganga Ram @ Gangua) of the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved against the acquittal of respondents, present Government Appeal was preferred on behalf of the State. 6. PW1 and PVV2 were signatories to the inquest report. PW3 was the injured eye-witness, who, in his examina-tion-in-chief, identified two accused persons before the Trial Court. When he was cross-examined on the selfsame day, he refused to identify the accused persons, but he was not declared hostile.
6. PW1 and PVV2 were signatories to the inquest report. PW3 was the injured eye-witness, who, in his examina-tion-in-chief, identified two accused persons before the Trial Court. When he was cross-examined on the selfsame day, he refused to identify the accused persons, but he was not declared hostile. He also denied that he was present when the looted articles were recovered from the possession of accused persons. PW3 further stated that he was hospitalized on the date and time of recovery of looted property. He, however, admitted his signatures on the recovery memo, but did not know-as to which police officer obtained his signatures on such recovery memo. In other words, PW3 Was.hospitalized, when the recovery of footed articles from the possession of accused was made at Kankhal. The testimony rendered by PW3, therefore, (Joes not help the prosecution, inasmuch as, (i) he refused to identify the accused persons in his cross-examination, and (ii) he was in the hospital when recovery of looted articles was allegedly made from the possession of the accused persons. 7. PW4 wrote the F.I.R. on the dictation of PW1. PW4 was not an eyewitness of the incident. PW4 said, in his examination-in-chief, that he was bolted by the accused persons inside his room, therefore, he could not identify any of the miscreants. He was set free only after the incident took place. He took injured Swami Permanand and Ghanshyam to the Government Hospital at Haridwar. He denied recovery of incriminating articles from trie possession of accused persons in his presence. 8. PW5 was the witness before whom the sample ,of plain soil and bloodstained soil of the place of incident was taken by the police. He was also a witness to the inquest report of deceased Permanand. He was also the witness of recovery of one footwear and two sticks from the place of incident. He was, therefore, a formal witness, who did not see the incident. 9. PW(£did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, PW6 denied that his statement was recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. According to PW6, inquest was prepared at Police Station Haridwar instead of Government Hospital, Haridwar. PW7 conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased (Permanand) and proved the postmortem report (Ex.Ka-2).
PW(£did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, PW6 denied that his statement was recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. According to PW6, inquest was prepared at Police Station Haridwar instead of Government Hospital, Haridwar. PW7 conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased (Permanand) and proved the postmortem report (Ex.Ka-2). According to PW7, cause of death of the deceased was 'coma' as a result of ante-mortem head injury. PW8 stated that on 17.2.2001, on having received information through an informer, the police party raided a jewellery shop of Jauly @ Gori and arrested him along-with Ganga Ram @ Gangua and Raju @ Rajendra @ Rajiya. 99 Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/-were recovered from .accused Jauly @ Gori. Few dollars were found in possession of Raju @ Rajendra. Apart irom the currency notes, few dollars were also found from the possession of Jauly @ Gori. Likewise, 50 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500, as also few dollars were recovered from the possession of Ganga Ram @ Gangua. The testimony of PW8 was, however, not supported by the independent witnesses, namely, PW3 and PW4. PW3 and PW4 denied such recovery from the possession of accused persons. The testimony of police witness was, therefore, not supported by independent witnesses. 10. PW9 proved chick FIR and the entry of the same in the G.D. PW10, in his examination-in-chief, deposed the manner in which the accused persons were arrested and the currency notes/dollars were, recovered from them. As said earlier, his testimony was not supported by the independent witnesses, namely, PW3 and PW4. 11. PW4 also stated about the recovery of Indian currency notes and dollars from the possession of the accused persons. He was in the company of PW8 and PW10 when the alleged recovery was made. In other words, PW8, PW10 and PW11 were the members of the raiding party, who recovered currency notes and dollars from the possession of accused persons, but the independent witnesses (PW3 and PW4) did not support their testimony.
He was in the company of PW8 and PW10 when the alleged recovery was made. In other words, PW8, PW10 and PW11 were the members of the raiding party, who recovered currency notes and dollars from the possession of accused persons, but the independent witnesses (PW3 and PW4) did not support their testimony. No doubt, the testimony of police witness can be relied upon and: conviction can be recorded only on _the basis of the testimony of police witness, provided their testimony inspires confidence, but in the instant case, material contractions and anomalies were highlighted by the Trial Court in it's judgment and order dated 29.5.2006 and on the basis of those infirmities, it was difficult to accept the evidence of PW8, PW10 and PW11 sans corroboration from PW3 and PW4. PW12 was the Investigating Officer of the case. There was, therefore, no convincing evidence against the accused persons, so as to bring home the guilt to them. The assistance of Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) was not taken by the Investigating Officer. Neither the fingerprints were taken from the place of incident, nor any incriminating articles were sent to the F.S.L. for chemical examination. Thus, PW1 and PW2 were only witnesses of inquest report, PW3 did not identify the accused persons in the course of his examination, PW4 did not see the incident, PW5 was the witness before whom the bloodstained samples were collected, PW6 did not support' the prosecution story, PW7 conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, PW8, PW10 & PW11 although stated about the recovery of Indian currency notes and dollars from the possession of the accused persons, but their evidences were full of material contradictions and were not supported by the independent witnesses, namely, PW3 and PW4. PW9 was a formal witness and PW12 was the Investigating Officer of the case. The prosecution story was not proved on the basis of the testimony of these witnesses. 12. Learned Trial Court, therefore, committed no mistake in holding that the prosecution was unable to prove it's case against the accused-respondents to the hilt. Learned Trial Court also gave other cogent reasons for not believing the prosecution story. This Court also assessed the prosecution evidence independently to come to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove it's case against the accused-respondents beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.
Learned Trial Court also gave other cogent reasons for not believing the prosecution story. This Court also assessed the prosecution evidence independently to come to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove it's case against the accused-respondents beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. The respondents are liable to be given benefit of doubt. Moreover, it is well settled law that if two views are reasonably possible on the basis of the evidence on record, then the view taken in favour of the accused must be preferred. This Court is unable to take a different view from what was taken by the Court below. No interference is, thus, called for in the impugned judgment and order. 13. Criminal Government Appeal thus, fails and is, dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. _____________