JUDGMENT : Rekha Mittal, J. By way of this order, I shall dispose of CRA No.S-1101-SB of 2009 titled "Bashir v. State of Haryana", CRA No. S-1154-SB of 2009 titled "Akhtar v. State of Haryana" and CRA No. S-1753-SB of 2010 titled "Ashu @ Maggari v. State of Haryana" as these have emerged out of trial pertaining to FIR No. 382 dated 25.12.2006, registered in Police Station, Mujessar, District Faridabad for offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 307, 353, 412, 186 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeals are that on 25.12.2006, HC Partap Singh along with SI Maya Chand and other police officials was on patrol duty on Pali-Ballabgarh road. A nakabandi near the culvert of Sanjay Colony was held. Partap Singh HC noticed a dumper and Trula coming from the side of Pali and they were given signal to stop. The drivers of the said vehicles did not stop the vehicles and from a distance of 30-35 yards from the police party, 6/7 people came out of these vehicles and started running away. Out of the fleeing miscreants, one fired a shot on the police party hitting left palm of constable Jasvir. One of the accused was arrested and disclosed his name as Bashir. He made disclosure statement Ex. PD revealing the names of his associates. Dumper bearing registration No. HR-55 C 7437 and 10 tyred truck bearing registration No. RJ-14 GA 6155 were taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PE. 3. Formal FIR was registered on the basis of ruqa Ex. PG sent to the police Station. The remaining accused were arrested in the case on different dates. Akhtar, one of the accused was arrested and on his personal search a .315 bore country made pistol with one empty cartridge was recovered which was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PH after preparing sketch of the pistol Ex. PF/1. Akhtar suffered a disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof, he demarcated the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. PH. On 12.3.2009, accused Ashu was joined in the investigation and on interrogation he suffered disclosure statement Ex. PA about his involvement in the crime with Akhtar, Sahoon, Ishak, Bashir, Ussan etc. 4. PH after preparing sketch of the pistol Ex. PF/1. Akhtar suffered a disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof, he demarcated the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. PH. On 12.3.2009, accused Ashu was joined in the investigation and on interrogation he suffered disclosure statement Ex. PA about his involvement in the crime with Akhtar, Sahoon, Ishak, Bashir, Ussan etc. 4. Bashir and Akhtar, appellants were tried together in Sessions Case No.52 of 2008 which was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 11.2.2009 holding them guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 148, 186, 353, 307 IPC and Bashir was convicted for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short "the Act") also and sentenced accordingly, noticed hereinbelow:- Bashir Under Section 148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year U/s 186 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month U/s 353 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months U/s 307 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Akhtar Under Section 148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year U/s 186 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month U/s 353 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months U/s 307 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s 25 of the Act To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 5. Ashu, appellant was declared as a proclaimed offender and his trial was separately conducted in Sessions Case No. 21 dated 10.4.2010 which culminated in the judgment dated 6.5.2010 holding him guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 148, 186/149, 353/149, 307/149, 412 IPC and accordingly sentenced, quoted hereunder:- Under Section 148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year U/s 186 read with Section 149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month U/s 353 read with Section 149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months U/s 307 read with Section 149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. U/s 412 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 7,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven months. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgments passed by the trial court, Bashir, Akhtar and Ansu separately assailed their conviction and sentence. Counsels representing the appellants have fairly conceded that they do not challenge the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences except conviction of Ashu for offence punishable under Section 412 IPC. However, it is argued that keeping in view the period of pendency of criminal proceedings and incarceration suffered by each one of them, the sentence awarded to them for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone. Counsels have submitted that Bashir has already suffered custody for 02 years and 08 months, Akhtar for 02 years and about 03 months and Ashu for a period of about 02 years. It is further submitted that it could not be established on record as to who fired the shot resulting in injury on left palm of constable Jasvir. Further submitted that the injury sustained in the occurrence is on non-vital part of the body and there is no evidence on record that the accused were aware of one of them being armed with a firearm. 7. With regard to conviction of Ashu for offence punishable under Section 412 IPC, counsel has submitted that the learned trial court held him guilty for the said offence on the basis of surmises and conjectures and in clear violation of the principles of criminal jurisprudence that it is for the prosecution to establish guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and no adverse inference can be raised against the accused for his silence in regard to possession of the alleged stolen property. Further dilating, it is submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution that vehicle allegedly left by the accused at the spot belonged to a particular person and the owner thereof has lodged any report in regard to the said vehicle being snatched from him or looted by means of dacoity. Further dilating, it is submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution that vehicle allegedly left by the accused at the spot belonged to a particular person and the owner thereof has lodged any report in regard to the said vehicle being snatched from him or looted by means of dacoity. It is argued with vehemence that conviction and sentence of Ashu for offence under Section 412 IPC is liable to be set aside and he is entitled to be acquitted of the said offence. 8. Counsel for the State, on the contrary, has supported the judgments passed by the trial court by contending that the same are based upon detailed appreciation of evidence on record and there is no substantial ground to find fault with the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad deciding culpability of Bashir and Akhtar and the Sessions Judge, Faridabad deciding case of Ashu. It is further argued that there are two other cases registered and pending against Ashu and similarly two other criminal cases are pending against Akhtar and Bashir has been convicted in another case and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 10 years in FIR No. 1320/06 under Section 395/412 IPC, registered in Police Station DLF, Gurgaon and in another FIR No. 256/04, he was sentenced to imprisonment already undergone. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. Before adverting to the submissions made by learned counsels in regard to reduction in sentence for offence under Section 307 IPC proved against all the appellants, it is appropriate to advert to the submissions in regard to culpability of Ashu for offence under Section 412 IPC. It is an admitted position of the case that a similar role was attributed to Bashir and Akhtar in regard to recovery of the aforesaid two vehicles and they were also charged for committing offence punishable under Section 412 IPC but both of them were acquitted of the charge under Section 412 read with Section 149 IPC. This fact shows that the trial courts have recorded inconsistent judgments in regard to culpability of the accused under Section 412 IPC in similar set of allegations and same evidence being relied upon by the prosecution. 11. This fact shows that the trial courts have recorded inconsistent judgments in regard to culpability of the accused under Section 412 IPC in similar set of allegations and same evidence being relied upon by the prosecution. 11. Now the question arises if the trial court was right in its conclusion that Ashu is proved to have committed offence punishable under Section 412 IPC. There is no denial that the recovery of the alleged property subject matter of charge under Section 412 IPC was not effected in pursuance of any disclosure statement made by accused Ashu. On the contrary, the case of the prosecution is that the alleged stolen vehicles i.e. dumper No. HR-55 C 7437 and Trula bearing registration No. RJ-14 GA 6155 were found at the spot when accused fled away after firing a shot towards the police party. A relevant extract from the judgment dated 6.5.2010 holding Ashu guilty of offence under Section 412 IPC reads as follows:- "Knowing it fully well that dumper No. HR-55 C 7437 and one ten-tyred truck No. RJ-14 GA 6155 were not owned by any of the accused and further that these belonged to someone other than the accused who were possessing the same and that the same had been subject matter of dacoity, accused Anshu @ Muggari along with his co-accused was continuing to retain possession thereof and thus charge under Section 412 IPC is also established." 12. Counsel for the State is fair enough to concede that neither the owner of these vehicles was examined during trial nor any other evidence was adduced to prove that any complaint was lodged with the police that the aforesaid vehicles were missing/stolen as a result of dacoity in order to establish that these vehicles constituted property stolen in the commission of dacoity. The learned trial court held the accused guilty of offence under Section 412 IPC on the premise that these vehicles were not owned by any of the accused and further that these belong to some one else other than the accused who were possessing the same. In the absence of any evidence on record that these vehicles were the subject matter of dacoity, offence under Section 412 IPC cannot be held to be established against the accused. In the absence of any evidence on record that these vehicles were the subject matter of dacoity, offence under Section 412 IPC cannot be held to be established against the accused. The learned trial court committed a grave error in holding Ashu guilty for committing offence under Section 412 IPC, therefore, conviction and sentence of Ashu for the said offence is liable to be set aside and ordered accordingly. 13. This bring the court to the common submissions made by the appellants for reduction in sentence in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Perusal of the record leaves no manner of doubt that the prosecution has failed to establish that who out of the fleeing persons fired at the police party. There is also no evidence on record to infer that each one of the accused had knowledge of a firearm with one of the members of that party. No doubt, Akhtar has been charged for committing offence punishable under Section 25 of the Act for keeping in his possession a .315 bore pistol recovered on his personal search. No evidence has been led on record that the weapon recovered from Akhtar in January 2007 after a week of the occurrence, is the same weapon which was used in firing a shot which hit on the left palm of constable Jasvir. The appellants faced pangs of criminal proceedings for the past over seven years. Each one of them has suffered custody ranging from about 02 years to 02 years and 08 months. In view of cumulative effect of the facts and circumstance discussed hereinbefore, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants for offence punishable under Section 207 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. 14. The appeals stand disposed of with modification in the aforesaid terms. 15. The appellants, if in custody, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.