Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 380 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Rambabu

2019-02-13

DINESH KUMAR SINGH I, RAMESH SINHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, J. 1. All the aforesaid three appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.7.2014 of the trial court passed in Sessions Trial No.592 of 2007 arising out of case crime no.158 of 2006, P.S. Kotwali, Mathura under Section 395, 212, 216A, 412, 489-C IPC by which the trial court had tried the appellants Ram Babu S/o Risal Singh, Smt. Sunita @ Anita w/o Gyan Chandra @ Khan Chandra, Sunil @ Bunty, S/o Chahua Ram and Gulab Singh S/o Panna Lal under Sections 395, 212, 216-A, 109, 412, 489-C IPC and acquitted them under all the aforesaid offence except the appellant Smt. Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty who have been convicted and sentenced by the trial court for the offence u/s 412 IPC only against which both the appellants have preferred aforesaid two criminal appeals against their conviction whereas other two accused Ram Babu and Gulab Singh who have been acquitted for all the aforesaid charges, the State has preferred the aforesaid Government Appeal and also challenged the acquittal of Smt. Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty under Sections 395, 212, 216-A, 412, 395/109 and 489-C IPC., hence all the aforesaid three appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Heard Ms. Archana Singh, learned AGA for the State, Sri Prabhat Kumar Srivastava, Kailash Prasad Pandey, Mohd. Kalim and Shams-Us-Zaman, learned counsel for the accused-respondents and perused the record. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Mahesh Chand Bansal has given a written report stating that he is having a shop by the name of R.B. Jewellers at Agra road near Apsara Cinema Hall in district Mathura. He along with his employee Rajiv Chaturvedi was sitting in his shop and at about 1.15 p.m. in afternoon, five boys between 25 – 35 years were seen entering in his shop for the purpose of purchasing and they asked to show Bracelet etc. When he was talking to them, then out of them, two miscreants took out a revolver and pointed out to him for threatening him to kill and drag his employee to the strong room which was inside the shop and rest of the three miscreants took out the entire gold and silver ornaments from the counter of the shop etc. When he was talking to them, then out of them, two miscreants took out a revolver and pointed out to him for threatening him to kill and drag his employee to the strong room which was inside the shop and rest of the three miscreants took out the entire gold and silver ornaments from the counter of the shop etc. and kept it in a black airbag which they had brought along with them and further they entered the strong room and also started keeping gold and silver ornaments in the airbag. At that moment one businessman Awadhesh Bansal whose shop is next to the informant and the said shop is of his younger brother, the employee namely Ashok suddenly came in the shop on which the miscreants had dragged him also to the strong room and all the three persons were locked in the strong room by bolting from outside and all the jewellery were looted by the miscreants and when they locked the strong room, his younger brother Awadhesh Bansal whose shop was next to the shop of the informant came from his shop and he opened the strong room. The informant stated that he could recognize the miscreants and can identify them. He further stated that he was so much horrified that he was not able to give the value of the ornaments which have been looted and would give the same afterwards and his ornaments which were looted were of several lakhs. The said information was given by him to the concerned police station for necessary action. On the basis of the written report, Ext.Ka-1 on 6.4.2006 at about 13.15 p.m., an FIR was registered at police station Kotwali, district Mathura as case crime no.158 of 2006 u/s 395 IPC. The Investigating Officer Dilip Singh who was the Station Officer was entrusted with the investigation of the case and he had interrogated and taken statement of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C and further visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site-plan. After completing the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellants Ram Babu, Smt. Sunita @ Anita, Sunil @ Bunty and Gulab Singh on 13.10.2006. 4. After completing the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellants Ram Babu, Smt. Sunita @ Anita, Sunil @ Bunty and Gulab Singh on 13.10.2006. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the trial court on 24.5.2008 framed charges against the accused Ram Babu u/s 212 IPC and alternative charge u/s 216-A IPC and against accused Gulab Singh, Ram Babu and Sunil @ Bunty u/s 395 IPC. Against Sunil @ Bunty and Gulab Singh charges were framed u/s 412 IPC and against accused-appellant Sunita @ Anita charges were framed u/s 395 IPC u/s 109, 412 and 489 IPC. 5. The accused denied the charges and sought their trial. 6. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused have relied upon the documentary evidence i.e. written report Ext. Ka-1, Chik FIR Ext.Ka-9, Charge Sheet Ext.Ka-3, the application Ext.Ka-2 given by the informant to Inspector Kotwali. The recovery memo of the recovered article Ext.Ka-4, site-plan Ext.Ka-5, recovery memo of the arrest and recovered article Ext.Ka-6 and 7 and G.D. Ext. Ka-10. 7. The prosecution in support of it's case examined P.W.1 Mahesh Chand Bansal, P.W.2 Vijendra Pal Singh, P.W.3 Kishan Singh, P.W.4 Dilip Singh (Station Officer), P.W.5 Rajiv Chaturvedi, P.W.6 S.I. Rajesh Chaturvedi, P.W.7 Dinesh Kumar Dubey, P.W.8 Puran Singh Mehra, P.W.9 Arun Kumar Sharma, P.W.10 Ranveer Singh Nagar, P.W.11 H.M 81 Niranjan Singh. 8. P.W.1 Mahesh Chand Bansal has deposed before the trial court that near Holi Gate in-front of Apsara Cinema in dense market on Agra Road, he is having a shop of Jewellery by the name R.B. Jewellers. On 6.4.2006 at about 1.15 noon when he was sitting in his shop along with his servant Rajiv Chaturvedi, then two boys of young age came to his shop and asked to show Bracelet and while he was talking to them, one boy also came in the shop and remained standing near the two boys. They requested him to show heavy items. He showed Bracelet to them and stated that except the said heavy Bracelet, he has no heavy Bracelet beside this and if order is given then he would get it made. At that moment two more boys of young age also entered in his shop and put a revolver at his temporal region and also on his servant. He showed Bracelet to them and stated that except the said heavy Bracelet, he has no heavy Bracelet beside this and if order is given then he would get it made. At that moment two more boys of young age also entered in his shop and put a revolver at his temporal region and also on his servant. P.W.1 and his servant was dragged in the strong room of the shop and the rest three miscreants started keeping the ornaments of gold and silver in their black bag from the counter of the shop in huge quantity. From the adjacent shop which is of his younger brother Awadhesh his servant namely Ashok came to the shop who was also pushed in the strong room of the shop by the miscreants and at the pointing out of revolver, all the ornaments of gold and silver kept in the strong room were filled in the bag by the miscreants and P.W.1 along with two servants all the three were locked in the strong room by the miscreants who bolted the same from outside. All the five miscreants were of young age between 25–35 years and all of them committed dacoity in the shop of P.W.1. He stated that after knocking the door of strong room, from inside his brother came and opened the door of the strong room and they were rescued. He further deposed that he could identify the miscreants if they come before him. After some time he came to know that the said miscreants had come in a white vehicle from the side of old bus stand. He got the written report drafted by his brother Awadhesh Kumar Bansal and after hearing and understanding the same, he had signed the written report and submitted the same to the police station Kotwali which he proved as paper no.3-A/2 and was marked as Ext.Ka-1. This witness after identifying the woman present in the court stated that the said woman is Sunita @ Anita who on 3.4.2006 had come to purchase ornaments in his shop and had taken a pair of silver 'Pajeb' and also made the payment of the same and she had further showed several notes in her bag and she had stated that she wanted to purchase several other ornaments. On the next day i.e. 4.4.2006 in the noon, the said woman had again come to his shop and returned the purchased 'Pajeb' to him. On 8.4.2006, he had given the descriptions of the ornaments which were looted by submitting the same through an application at Police Station Kotwali which was worth Rs.24-25 lakhs which was looted in the dacoity committed at his shop. He proved the same as paper no.4-A/6 which is in his handwriting and signed and marked as Ext.Ka-2. On 22.6.2006, the police informed him that some mobile numbers have been trapped and the informer of the present case has informed that one woman Sunita @ Anita R/o Ghaziabad is going to meet her lover Jitendra Sirohi to Bulandshahar on the said day. Police also called him then he along with his elder brother Dinesh Chand accompanied the police in a private vehicle to Bulandshahar District Jail and reached near the said jail and then at 12 noon the said woman Sunita @ Anita who was present in the court came along with the accused Sunil @ Bunty in-front of Bulandshahar jail and he identified her and informed the police that she is the same woman who had come on 3 and 4th April, 2006 at his shop. On seeing the police team the two accused tried to run away but the police apprehended them at 12.15 hours and on query made by them, the woman disclosed her name Sunita @ Anita w/o Khan Chand, R/o Ghaziabad and the person accompanying disclosed his name Sunil @ Bunty R/o Baraut, Baghpat. On search made of Sunita @ Anita, a mobile phone was recovered from her and she told that she had come to the shop of P.W.1 on 3 and 4th April, 2006 and further stated that she had come to meet Jitendra Sirohi who was confined in jail at whose instance, she had helped the said gang. She further disclosed that in the said incident, one Indrapal @ Guddu, Mohit @ Netrapal, Amit @ Kalu, Abdul, Farukh, Saleem were also involved in the said dacoity. The said woman had also disclosed that on 3.4.2006, the said persons have dropped her to Mathura by a Wagon-R car and told her about the shop from outside. She had purchased the Pajeb from the said shop and thereafter returned the same. The said woman had also disclosed that on 3.4.2006, the said persons have dropped her to Mathura by a Wagon-R car and told her about the shop from outside. She had purchased the Pajeb from the said shop and thereafter returned the same. The said woman further disclosed that the location of the shop was told by her to Indrapal and others and on the second day of the incident in which the dacoity was committed, Indrapal had handed over the ornaments which were looted from the shop and she had hidden the same in her house and she could get the same recovered. The accused Satish and Indrapal have also given some ornaments to his companions Sunil @ Bunty for selling who also corroborated the said fact and has stated that he could also get the ornaments recovered. P.W.1 along with his brother and police team accompanied the two accused to Ghaziabad by a vehicle which was stopped outside the house and Sunita @ Anita went inside and brought the ornaments which were kept in a polythene after taking out a brick from a room. The police showed the ornaments which were kept in the polythene to P.W.1 who identified the same and stated that the said ornaments belong to his shop which were weighing about 300 gram and some counterfeit currency of notes of 100-50 denomination which were recovered in a large number and were printed at one side only. The police recovered the same all of them and sealed the same. The recovery memo to that effect was also prepared by the police. On the same day Sunil @ Bunty also took to his house at Baraut along with Sunita @ Anita and P.W.1 along with police team Sunil @ Bunty also went inside his house and brought the ornaments kept in a plastic box from inside the room of his house which was shown by the police to P.W.1 who identified the same and has stated that the said ornaments belong to his shop. The said ornaments weighed about 300 grams. The said ornaments were also sealed after preparing of the recovery memo which was made on the spot. The said ornaments weighed about 300 grams. The said ornaments were also sealed after preparing of the recovery memo which was made on the spot. On 28/29.4.2006, in the night at about 1 a.m., the call was received on a mobile phone from the police that one miscreant has been arrested who was also connected with dacoity committed at the shop of P.W.1 and he was called by the police at old bus stand, Mathura, thus P.W.1 and his brother Dinesh Bansal went to the bus stand. There police had arrested an accused and he has disclosed that he has kept the looted ornaments of the shop of P.W.1 at his house Bulandshahar and he disclosed his name as Gulab Singh. This witness deposed that on the information given by the said accused, he along with his brother and police party went to Bulandshahar and on 29.4.2006 at about 6.30 a.m., the accused Gulab Singh took them to mohalla Deputy Ganj, Bulandshahar and knocked the door of his house and his children opened the door. Gulab Singh went inside the room of his house and got recovered the looted ornaments which were kept in a polythene wrapped in a newspaper and gave it to the police. In the said ornaments, there was chain, ear-ring, neck-less etc which weighed about 250 gm. Which were made of gold and he identified the same to be of his shop which have been looted and the police made a recovery memo of the same and sealed the same and also got signatures on the recovery memo. The accused Gulab Singh who was present in the Court was also given a copy of the recovery memo on which signatures of his was also taken by the police. The P.W.1 has proved paper no.4Ka/7 on which he has put his signatures and also identified the same. The witness further stated that the recovered ornaments from the accused Sunita @ Anita, Sunil @ Bunty and Gulab Singh which were looted from his shop, were given by the orders of the court and he has received the same and is in his 'supurdagi'. He further deposed that the miscreants who had committed dacoity in his shop, one of them is also present in the Court who disclosed his name as Abdul Farooq and rest of the miscreants are not present. 9. He further deposed that the miscreants who had committed dacoity in his shop, one of them is also present in the Court who disclosed his name as Abdul Farooq and rest of the miscreants are not present. 9. P.W.2 Vijay Pal Singh has deposed before the trial court that he knew accused Ram Babu who is present in the court as he belongs to his village and rest of the accused Gulab Singh, Sunil @ Bunty, Sunita @ Anita, Indrapal and Guddu are not known to him. He does not know that Indrapal is the Bhanja of accused Ram Babu. He has not seen them in the village Jabra of Ram Babu at any point of time. He came to know through newspaper that dacoity has been committed in the shop of P.W.1. He does not know about the incident. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. 10. P.W.3 Kishan Singh has deposed before the trial court that he does not know the accused Ram Babu who is present in the Court and rest of the accused Gulab Singh, Sunil @ Bunty, Sunita @ Anita, Indrapal and Guddu are not known to him and he also deposed in the same manner as P.W.2 and was declared hostile. 11. P.W.4 Dilip Singh has stated that on 29.04.2006 he was posted as Station Officer at Police Station Kotwali, Mathura and he was entrusted with the investigation of the present case i.e. 158 of 2006 u/s 395, 212, 216A, 412, 489 IPC State Vs. Mohit @ Netrapal and he took over the investigation of the case from the earlier Investigating Officer namely A.K. Sharma and he was conversant with the writing of the said Investigating Officer who has prepared the recovery memo. He has further recorded the statements of Station Officer Shishupal, Naresh Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C and eye-witnesses Resham, Ashok and further recorded statement of witness Rajesh Chaturvedi and after completing the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against accused Ram Babu, Sunita @ Anita, Sunil @ Bunty and Gulab Singh u/s 395, 212, 216A, 412 IPC and proved the same as Ext.Ka-3. 12. P.W.5 Rajeev Chaturvedi who is servant in the shop of P.W.1 has deposed before the trial court that he was working at the shop of R.B. Jewellers prior to 5-6 years of the incident. 12. P.W.5 Rajeev Chaturvedi who is servant in the shop of P.W.1 has deposed before the trial court that he was working at the shop of R.B. Jewellers prior to 5-6 years of the incident. On 6.4.2006 when he was sitting along with his employer Mahesh Chand Bansal on the shop at about 1.15 in the noon, five boys aged about 25-35 years came in the shop for purchasing and asked them to go inside and three miscreants started filling-up the jewelleries of the shop and locked him and his employer in the strong room. They filled the ornaments of the shop in a bag and also collected the ornaments of gold and silver. He further stated that from the adjacent shop which belongs to the brother of his employer which is also of jewellery, his servant Ashok came at the shop and he too was locked by the miscreants in the strong room who looted the ornaments from the strong room and locked all the three in the strong room. He and his employer knocked the door of the strong room and on hearing the same, the brother of his employer namely Awadhesh had come to the shop and opened the door. He further deposed that a call had come three days prior to the incident. He identified the accused Abdul who was wearing white T. Shirt and identified that it was he who had come in the shop on the date of incident and when the said accused were asked about his name, he disclosed Abdul @ Farooq 13. P.W.6 S.I Rajesh Chaturvedi in his examination-in-chief has deposed before the trial court that on 27.4.2006 he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Kotwali, Mathura. On the said day he along with S.I. Dinesh Kumar, Constable Vinod, Constable Jitendra left the police station on a government vehicle and went to raid the house of accused Indrapal, r/o village Meerpur, P.S. Viswa, Aligarh and accused Gulab Singh, r/o Deputy Ganj, P.S. Kotwali, Bulandshahar who was wanted in the present case but they were not found at their house in district Aligarh and Bulandshahar and while they were returning to Police Station Kotwali, Mathura, they received an information from the police informer that the wanted accused Gulab Singh is standing at old bus stand near modern garden. On the said information they reached the said place and after pointing out, the informer left and thereafter the accused Gulab Singh was arrested on 29.4.2006 at 00-45 hours. On the interrogation, he stated that he knew accused Mohit, Indrapal, Satish, Kallu and Abdul who have given the looted articles which were looted on 6.4.2006 and from the looted articles, some of the articles were kept in his house and he could get the same recovered on which S.O made a call to the informant Mahesh Chand Bansal who along with his brother Dinesh Chand Bansal left and all of them along with other accused went to mohalla Deputy Ganj, district Bulandshahar and the accused Gulab Singh knocked the door and got the house opened at about 6.30 a.m. who took out a bundle from a box in which gold ornaments were kept and he told that the said ornaments were the looted one in the incident dated 6.4.2006. In the bundle it was found that one chain set, one ear-ring, neck-less, a big chain and bangles etc. which were shown to the informant who identified the same and stated that these articles were looted from the shop on 6.4.2006 and the weight was 246.35 gm. Recovery memo of the said ornaments were prepared and marked as Ext.Ka-5. 14. P.W.7 Dinesh Kumar Dubey stated that he was posted as S.O Kotwali Mathura on 11.4.2006 and on the said date, he was entrusted with the investigation of case crime no.158 of 2006 u/s 395 IPC and had looked into the earlier investigation done by the previous station officer and the investigating officer. For working out the incident dated 6.4.2006, the S.S.P, Mathura had constituted a team of S.H.O, Vrindavan Arun Kumar Sharma, S.O Highway S.S. Negi and S.I. Naresh Kumar from whom some information was gathered and he in order to trap certain numbers he submitted report to S.S.P. On the next day i.e. 12.4.2006 in parcha no.5, he interrogated the informant and required an information from the sub-inspector, Delhi of the registered owner of Wagon-R car and also required information from Police Station Mant where the said accused Ram Babu was stated to be living. There Vijendra Pal Singh, Kishan Pal Singh, Jagveer Singh and Ramveer Singh were interrogated and after interrogation on 13.4.2006 accused Ram Babu was arrested and his statement was recorded and on the same day in parcha no.6-A was done. He further submitted a report to S.S.P for trapping the certain numbers and on 14.4.2006, he gathered some information for the team entrusted for working out the incident and it came into light that on 15.4.2006 in parcha no.7, some mobile numbers were addressed out and he made a report to S.S.P for listening/trapping them and got an information about the location of rest of the accused at Ahemadabad and on receiving the said information, he proceeded along with S.I. Ram Ashrey Yadav, S.I Ram Naresh to Ahmedabad. On 16.4.2006 in parcha no.9 he took some information from Ahmedabad bus stand and local police made some queries and search from the nearby hotels etc of the bus stand but he could not be successful. On 17.4.2006 in C.D No.10, he endorsed his going from Ahmedabad to Surat where he got the location of the accused, hence he proceeded from Ahmedabad to Surat. On 18.4.2006 in parcha no.11 he made an entry regarding the interrogation and information from Police Station Umara Surat and Crime Branch for seeking information about the miscreants and he came to know that a Maruti Zen was looted on 15.4.2006 which was suspected to have been looted by the gang of Indrapal @ Guddu. On the same day he received an information that in Baroda City a jewellery shop has been looted and the location of the miscreants was found to be in Vadodara, hence he proceed with his team to Vadodara from Surat. On 19.4.2006 in parcha no.12, he endorsed about reaching Vadodara City and came to know that at J.P. Road Police Station, dacoity had been committed in the shop by the name Nami Bhai Jewellers and further that the accused had been arrested. He tried to make an interrogation from the said accused but because of being engaged in the said police station, he could not interrogate the said accused on the said date. He tried to make an interrogation from the said accused but because of being engaged in the said police station, he could not interrogate the said accused on the said date. On 20.4.2006 in parcha no.13, the accused Mohit @ Netrapal, S/o Ranveer Singh @ Daryab Singh was arrested in Vadodara and when he was interrogated, he confessed that in Mathura, he committed dacoity in R.B. Jewellers along with his associates Indrapal @ Guddu, Satish, Kallu, Abdul @ Farooq at the instance of Jatin Sirohi who was confined in jail. He further informed to the police team that lover of Jatin Sirohi namely Sunita @ Anita, r/o Appu Colony Shalimar Garden had also facilitated in the crime and further other things in the connection of the said incident. On 30.4.2006 in parcha no.15 some numbers were also reported by him to S.S.P for tapping them. On 22.4.2006 Inspector Arun Kumar Sharma and it's team members on the information given by the informer, some accused whose complicity has come into light namely Sunita @ Anita W/o Khan Chand was arrested along with one accused namely Sunil @ Bunty, r/o Gautam Buddha Nagar, P.S. Barot, Baghpat. On the interrogation of Sunita @ Anita stated about the incident dated 6.4.2006 and further disclosed that in the said incident Satish @ Mahendra Singh, Guddu @ Indrapal, Kalua S/o Dahadey, Mohit @ Netrapal and Abdul were also involved. She further stated that on 3.4.2006, she had gone to the shop of P.W.1 as a customer in order to gather information and after the dacoity was committed, and had taken her share of the looted ornaments and hidden in her house and Sunil @ Bunty had taken some of the looted ornaments for sale and had stated that it was kept in his house. Thereafter the said ornaments were recovered from the house of Sunita @ Anita at her pointing out and some counterfeit currencies were also recovered. The ornaments recovered from the house of Sunita @ Anita were identified by the informant Mahesh Bansal and stated that they were the same ornaments which were looted from his shop on 6.4.2006 and fard recovery was made and the same was sealed. The ornaments recovered from the house of Sunita @ Anita were identified by the informant Mahesh Bansal and stated that they were the same ornaments which were looted from his shop on 6.4.2006 and fard recovery was made and the same was sealed. Thereafter all the police personnel along with arrested accused Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty and the informant P.W.1 went to the house of accused Sunil @ Bunty at Gautam Budh Nagar from where on his pointing out, the ornaments were recovered from a plastic box which were kept in a room who handed over the same and has stated that the said ornaments were given by Satish and Guddu for the purpose of sale and the ornaments which were recovered were seven golden chain, one teeka of gold, four bangles, three pair of ear-ring etc. and all the ornaments were weighed and sealed and recovery memo was prepared after showing it to the informant who stated that the said ornaments were looted from his shop. The said recovery memo was dictated by Inspector Arun Kumar Sharma and written by S.I. Ram Ashray Yadav and the recovery memo was signed by Sunil @ Bunty and carbon copy was also given to him. On 28/29.4.2006 at 00.45 hours on the information given by the informer, the accused Gulab Singh, S/o Panna Lal, r/o Deputy Ganj, Police Station Kotwali, district Bulandshahar was arrested by the said witness along with his team S.I. Rajesh Chaturvedi, Constable Vinod Kumar, Constable Jitendra in-front of old bus stand and on interrogation by him he stated that on 6.4.2006 along with Indrapal, Mohit @ Netrapal, Satish, Kallu @ Kalua, Abdul @ Farooq to whom he knew from before having committed dacoity and have looted ornaments weighing about 9 kg and 250 gram and has stated that he has received the said ornaments along with his son and ornaments weighing 250-300 gram are kept in his house and the rest is with his son Devendra @ Chaua and he could get the same recovered. The informant Mahesh Chand Bansal was taken by the police team to the house of Gulab Singh where they reached at 6.30 a.m. at Bulandshahar and he got the same recovered from the room kept in a box wrapped in the newspaper and polythene and same were identified, who stated that the same were looted from his shop on 6.4.2006 and in the said ornaments, there were chain set of gold, neck-less, one big chain etc. weighing 246.350 gram were sealed after preparing the recovery memo of the same. The recovery memo was written on the dictation of S.I. Rajesh Chaturvedi and the police team and accused Gulab Singh had signed the same and copy of the same was also given to Gulab Singh. Thereafter on 2.5.2006 in parcha no.20, an FIR which was registered at Faridabad as case crime no.92 of 2006 u/s 395, 397 IPC, he received the papers regarding the same and made search and effort to arrest of other accused persons. On 3.5.2006 in parcha no.21 the accused Mohit @ Netrapal who was arrested from J.P. Road Vadodara and other accused Satish, Amit @ Kallu, Kalu @ Kalua and accused Indrapal @ Guddu, Police Station Faridabad who had been arrested, a warrant was prepared in the Court. On 13.5.2006 the search was made of accused Abdul @ Farooq and Devendra @ Chaua but they could not be arrested. Thereafter, the said witness was transferred to police station Govind Nagar and investigation was handed over to Inspector Puran Singh Mehra. 15. P.W.8 Inspector Puran Singh Mehra in his deposition before the trial court has stated that he has taken the investigation on 15.5.2006 and on 15.5.2006 warrant of accused Satish, Indrapal, Amit and Kalua were sent to Faridabad jail but the C.J.M, Faridabad rejected the same. On 4.6.2006 he has prepared the site-plan of the place where the Wagon-R car used in the incident had over turned and the said site-plan was prepared at the pointing out of S.I. Pratap Narain Pandey which was paper no.4-A/3 and marked as Ext.Ka-5. 16. On 4.6.2006 he has prepared the site-plan of the place where the Wagon-R car used in the incident had over turned and the said site-plan was prepared at the pointing out of S.I. Pratap Narain Pandey which was paper no.4-A/3 and marked as Ext.Ka-5. 16. P.W.9 Arun Kumar Sharma, Inspector Police Station New Agra, Agra in his deposition has stated that on 22.4.2006 he was posted as Inspector Vrindavan and under the orders of S.S.P, he along with his S.O Highway S.S. Negi, S.O.G Naresh Kumar and other police personnel were entrusted for case crime no.158 of 2006, u/s 395 IPC for listening of mobile number 93583770088 from which they came to know that a lady Sunita @ Anita, W/o Khem Chand, r/o Pappu Colony, Ghaziabad is going to meet Jitendra Sirohi in Bulandshahar jail on 22.4.2006. On the said information, he along with police team informed to S.O Kotwali Dinesh about the said fact and the informant Mahesh Chand Bansal and Dinesh Chand Bansal were called who told that on 6.4.2006 on which date the incident had taken, three days prior to it, a woman had come to his shop with huge money and purchased 1 or 2 items and on the next day she came out returned the same. Hence due to the said fact, the two informant and his brother were also taken by the police team which consisted of S.O Kotwali D.K. Dubey, S.S.I P.N. Pandey, S.I. Naresh Kumar, S.I Ram Ashrey and Constable Sadhana Sharma and other police force on a private and government vehicle and some of the police team were in plain dress reached at District Jail, Bulandshahar at 12 noon where a lady and a male person had come and on seeing the said lady, the informant identified her to be the woman who had come on 3.4.2006 at his shop at 12.15 and when she was interrogated, she stated her name to be Sunita @ Anita W/o Khem Chand, r/o Pappu Colony, Ghaziabad and the person accompanying her disclosed his name to be Sunil @ Bunty, s/o Mahuaram r/o Gautam Budh Nagar and they were arrested and on the search of Sunita @ Anita, a L.G.mobile set was recovered in which Reliance mobile number was found and recovered and when they tried to inquire from her then she showed her reluctance but thereafter when she was told that her conversation has been recorded, then she confessed the crime that she facilitated the accused on the instance of Jatin Sarohi in committing dacoity in jewellery shop on 6.4.2006 in Mathura City and in the said incident Satish, S/o Mahendra, r/o Sadarpur, P.S. Salempr, Bulandshahar, Guddu @ Indrapal S/o Devendra, r/o Meerpur, P.S. Milwa, Aligarh, Kalua S/o Dahadi r/o Pratapgarh, P.S. Sikandrabad, Bulandshahar, Mohit, S/o Netrapal, S/o Ranveer @ Bohrey, r/o Bhavorka, P.S. Jebar, district Bulandshahar and Abdul R/o Viptipur were involved in the incident. On 3.4.2006 she had gone in Wagon-R car to Mathura and she had pointed out the shop where the dacoity was committed and she has purchased a 'Pajeb' from there and on the next day had returned the same and further she gave details about the shop to the gang and thereafter on 6.4.2006, the gang has committed dacoity in the said shop and the ornaments which were given to her were kept and she gave some ornaments to Sunil @ Bunty who was accompanying her and the same has been sold by Satish and Guddu. The accused Sunil @ Bunty also admitted the said fact and stated that the ornaments are with him and further informed that the looted ornaments were sold in Bulandshahar. The accused Sunil @ Bunty also admitted the said fact and stated that the ornaments are with him and further informed that the looted ornaments were sold in Bulandshahar. As the two accused had informed that they would get the looted ornaments recovered, then they were taken to their house from where the same were recovered on their pointing out. The ornaments which were recovered at the pointing out of the two accused were identified by the informant. Some counterfeit currencies were also recovered from the house of Sunita @ Anita and the same were sealed after preparing the recovery memo of the ornaments and the counterfeit currencies and the recovery memo was prepared which was marked as Ext.Ka-6. Bunty @ Sunil also got the ornaments recovered from his house which have been referred above and recovery memo was also prepared and marked as Ext.Ka-7. 17. P.W.10 Ranvir Singh Nagar in his deposition before the trial court has stated that in July 2006 in the last week, he was posted as Inspector Kotwali and some of the investigation with respect to Case Crime No.158 of 2006, u/s 395, 212, 216A, 412, 489 IPC which was pending and left over by the earlier Investigating Officer, he got an information that accused Abdul @ Farooq, r/o Saleempur, Delhi who was involved in the said case, investigation was entrusted to him and he after taking over the investigation had made a search of the said accused and got proceedings u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. initiated against him which was endorsed in the C.D dated 29.9.2006, 10.10.2006 and SCD Parcha No.9 etc. and submitted supplementary charge sheet against the said accused being Charge Sheet No.104B/2006 Abdul @ Farooq @ Farooq Mafruri which is paper no.4A/2 which he proved the same in his handwriting and signature as Ext.Ka-8 and he too was transferred leaving some part of investigation pending. 18. and submitted supplementary charge sheet against the said accused being Charge Sheet No.104B/2006 Abdul @ Farooq @ Farooq Mafruri which is paper no.4A/2 which he proved the same in his handwriting and signature as Ext.Ka-8 and he too was transferred leaving some part of investigation pending. 18. P.W.11 H.M 81 Niranjan Singh has stated before the trial court that on 6.4.2006 he was posted as Head Moharrir at Police Station Kotwali, district Mathura and at about 14.40 p.m., Mahesh Chand Bansal, S/o late Ratan Lal had given a written report written by Awadhesh Kumar Bansal that five unknown persons have committed dacoity in his shop R.B. Jeweller, who had come for purchase and the dacoity was committed at the point revolver, regarding which, Case crime No.158 of 2006 u/s 395 IPC was registered by him and the same was also endorsed in the G.D. No.27 at 14.40 hours. He has proved the G.D. as paper no.4A/26 which is in his handwriting and signature. He has further proved the same as Ext.Ka-9 and Ext.Ka-10 19. The statement of accused namely Anita @ Sunita, Ram Babu, Sunil @ Bunty u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded and they have deposed that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and the witnesses have falsely deposed against them. 20. So far as accused Gulab Singh is concerned, he has stated that false prosecution has been launched against him and in his written statement he further stated that on 25.4.2006, he along with his Bhanja Harsh Kumar was forcibly taken by the police and were kept for 4-5 days and have got the ornaments of his family members and he has been implicated. The accused Gulab Singh has got himself examined as D.W.1 before the trial court and he has deposed before the trial court that on 19.4.2006, the police personnel have got his grand-son Anshu aged about 11 years and grand-daughter aged about 13 years forcibly and illegally brought them at Bulandshahar by Naresh Chand Negi R/o Bulandshahar and in order to release them, the police personnel have demanded the ornaments weighing 300 gram from his daughter-in-law Sangeeta w/o Devendra which consisted of Bangles, Chain, Pandal, Tika etc and his daughter-in-law on 22.4.2006 had given the said ornaments to the police personnel on which the police personnel have released his grand-son and grand-daughter. On 25.4.2006 Dinesh Chand Dubey and Rajesh Chaturvedi who have brought him and Harsh Kumar his nephew (bhanja) to Bulandshahar and from his pocket Rs.5100/-were also taken away after slapping him and they asked him to come to Kotwali but instead of taking him to Kotwali, he was taken direct to Mathura. On 26.4.2006 from Mathura Kotwali, his Bhanja Harsh Kumar was released on 26.4.2006. On 26.4.2006 in district Aligarh, two goldsmith namely Mukesh and Sanjay were arrested but on 27.4.2006 Sanjay was released and on 28.4.2006 Mukesh was also released. Police after taking money had released them. On 29.2.2006 the police had demanded Rs.3 lakhs from him but when he refused, he was falsely implicated in the present case. Rajesh Chaturvedi, Inspector had put a revolver in Mathura Kotwali on his temporal region and under it's pressure, signatures of his was taken on the fard recovery and his chain, ring and watch were also taken by the police at Kotwali. Prior to his arrest, he had never come to Mathura. The Police has never taken him to Bulandshahar from Mathura for recovery. The police had taken money from the four jewellers of Bulandshahar and released them and stated that he is patient of heart, T.B and also having stone in gall bladder and informant Mahesh Chand and Dinesh had never come to his house with the police. 21. D.W.2 Constable Vasudev was also examined in defence and in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 28/29.4.2006, he did not remember whether he had gone to Bulandshahar or not. He stated that paper no.185-Kha dated 11.12.2013 which is in his writing and signatures in which it has been written that on 28/29.4.2006 at the time of arrest, he had not gone to Bulandshahar by a Government vehicle nor by a private vehicle and the said application he had given on his own sweet-will in a fit state of mind. The witness was read-over paper no.185-Kha and he has stated that it was in his handwriting and signatures and identified as Ext.Kha-1. The witness was read-over paper no.185-Kha and he has stated that it was in his handwriting and signatures and identified as Ext.Kha-1. As he has received the summons from the court and he had come to the court and had also brought the logbook from 25.4.2006 to 29.4.2006 as has been ordered by the court but after great search, the said log-book could not be made available from Police Lines, Mathura and the Sub-Inspector of Police Lines namely Harish Kumar has written that the record of the log-book is not traceable and there is possibility of it's tracing been weeded out and he had submitted the paper no.215-Kha/2 report of Harish Kumar, Deputy Inspector, Traffic, Police Lines. 22. The learned AGA in support of the Government Appeal filed by the State has argued that so far as accused-respondent no.1 Ram Babu and accused-respondent no.4 Gulab Singh are concerned, they have been wrongly acquitted by the trial court of the charges framed against him as the recovery of ornaments were also made from them and accused Gulab Singh has also signed the recovery memo. He has admitted his signatures on Ext.Ka-5 but the trial court has acquitted him of the charges on the ground that the said recovery memo was got signed by the said accused under pressure by forcibly detaining his grand children. Though there appears to be no documentary evidence regarding the same when he was arrested on 28.4.2006 by the police team. Similarly it was stated that recovery was also made from the accused-respondent no.1 Ram Babu of the ornaments which was identified by the informant. It was further submitted by the learned AGA that the acquittal of other two accused-respondent nos.2 and 3 namely Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty though have been convicted by the trial court as recoveries of ornaments which were looted from the shop of the informant P.W.1 was made at their pointing out which was also identified by the informant including the two accused only for offence u/s 412 IPC but they have committed and were involved in the dacoity of the jewellery from the shop of the informant and they have been acquitted by the trial court for the offence u/s 395 read with Section 109 and 489-C IPC respectively though there was sufficient evidence against the said accused-respondents also. Hence the acquittal of accused-respondent no.1 and 4 namely Ram Babu and Gulab Singh and accused-respondent no.2 and 3 namely Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty by the trial court is perverse, hence they should be convicted and sentenced for the offences which they have been charged by the trial court and the Government Appeal be allowed. 23. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the said accused-respondents have vehemently refuted the arguments of learned AGA for the State and have submitted that the acquittal of the accused-respondent nos.1 and 4 Ram Babu and Gulab Singh by the trial court for the offences which they were charged, they have been rightly acquitted by the trial court as the recovery of ornaments made from the possession of accused-respondent nos.1 and 4 Ram Babu and Gulab Singh respectively were the looted ornaments of the shop of P.W.1 could not be proved before the trial court beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Moreover, the ornaments recovered on their pointing out were also not produced before the trial court by the informant which was given in his supurdagi as the same was released in his favour under the orders of the court. No material exhibits were also prepared of the ornaments which were recovered from accused-respondent nos.1 and 4 respectively. Moreover no identification parade was conducted of accused-respondent nos.1 and 4 as it has come in the evidence of the prosecution that the miscreants who were involved in the present case were between 25-35 years whereas the accused-respondent no.1 and 4 Ram Babu and Gulab Singh were aged about 55 years and 66 years as on 12.11.2013 when their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded by the trial court meaning thereby that they were above 43 years of age at the time of incident. So far as acquittal of the accused appellant no.2 and 3 Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty are concerned, they have been rightly acquitted by the trial court as no evidence was found against them for the offence u/s 395 r/w Section 109 IPC nor any evidence against Sunita @ Anita for offence u/s 489-C IPC. So far as acquittal of the accused appellant no.2 and 3 Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty are concerned, they have been rightly acquitted by the trial court as no evidence was found against them for the offence u/s 395 r/w Section 109 IPC nor any evidence against Sunita @ Anita for offence u/s 489-C IPC. He states that the recoveries of counterfeit currencies stated to have been made at the time of recovery of the ornaments from the house of Sunita @ Anita, no fard recovery memo was prepared nor the same was produced before the trial court, hence she was rightly acquitted for the said offence. Hence trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents of their charges and the view taken by the trial court was not perverse one, hence no interference is called for by this Court and the Government Appeal be dismissed. 24. Sri Mohd. Kalim and Shams-Us-Zaman, appearing in the two criminal appeals on behalf of the appellants Smt. Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty have vehemently argued that as the appellants have been acquitted of the offence for which they were charged by the trial court, hence only on the basis of recovery which was made at the pointing out of the said two accused-appellants, they have been convicted u/s 412 IPC and sentenced to ten years R.I by the trial court which is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. It was submitted from the evidence of P.W.7 that Dinesh Kumar Dubey, Station Officer of Hasayan district Mahamayanagar is stated to have arrested the accused-appellant Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty on 22.4.2006 but it appears from his evidence that he had gone to Ahmedabad on 16.4.2006 as has been endorsed in parcha no.9 and thereafter he had gone to Surat on 18.4.2006 as it appears from parcha no.11 in search of other accused persons. Hence it was not possible for him to arrest the said two accused-appellants on 22.4.2006 as he remained out till 20.4.2006 as it appears from parcha no.13 at Vadodara where some of the accused namely Mohit @ Netrapal S/o Ranveer Singh @ Daryab Singh who disclosed that along with him Indrapal @ Guddu, Satish, Kallu, Abdul @ Farooq were also involved in his confessional statement. In view of the same, it has been argued that the recovery which has been made from the possession and on the pointing out of accused-appellant Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty is false one as the police in order to work out the case has been planted the said jewellery and ornaments on the two appellants and their arrest is also false. The trial court believing the same has convicted the two appellants for offence u/s 412 IPC. It was lastly argued by the appellant's counsel that only on the basis of recovery, the two appellants have been convicted for ten years R.I which appears to be harsh one as prosecution case is for committing dacoity on the shop of informant P.W.1, has been found to be false by the trial court and not found to be proved by the trial court, hence only on the basis of recovery, the two appellants out of which appellant no.1 is lady, they have already served out near about five years in jail and their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. He further submits that there were five other co-accused persons besides the present accused who were separately tried by the trial court who were involved in the present case in S.T. No.76 of 2007 and they have also been acquitted by the trial court but no Government Appeal has been filed against their acquittal by the State. 25. D.W.2 Vasudev Singh who was produced from the side of the defence has stated before the trial court that he was the driver of the jeep in which raiding party had gone to arrest the accused and made recovery, had deposed before the trial court that he did not go with the police team on 28/29.4.2006 for arresting of the accused, the said fact was also considered by the trial court in acquitting the accused-respondents. 26. Accused namely Mohit @ Netrapal, Indrapal @ Guddu, Satish, Kallu, Abdul @ Farooq too have been acquitted by the trial court but against the said judgment of the trial court, the State has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal which has been admitted by learned AGA for the State. 27. 26. Accused namely Mohit @ Netrapal, Indrapal @ Guddu, Satish, Kallu, Abdul @ Farooq too have been acquitted by the trial court but against the said judgment of the trial court, the State has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal which has been admitted by learned AGA for the State. 27. After having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court as well as record of the case, it is apparent from the prosecution case that the FIR was lodged by P.W.1 Mahesh Chand Bansal on 6.4.2006 at the Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura against unknown persons wherein he has stated that five miscreants between 25-35 years entered into his shop and they after dragging him and his employee and one other person Awadhesh who had come from neighbouring shop were locked in the strong room and all the ornaments made of gold and silver were looted by them and they carried the same in a airbag. After the incident, a list of ornaments made of gold and silver were also given by P.W.1 Mahesh Chand Bansal giving the details and value of the ornaments to the police. During investigation, the police arrested the accused persons namely Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty on 22.4.2006 and on their pointing out, the ornaments made of gold and silver were recovered from their houses. Further the same were identified by P.W.1 who also accompanied the police team at the time of arrest and recovery. The two accused could not give plausible explanation regarding the recovery of the ornaments which were stated to be looted from the shop of P.W.1. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that the two appellants who on the basis of evidence of P.W.7 Dinesh Kumar Dubey has tried to show that the recovery which was made by P.W.7 at the time of arrest of two accused was not possible as he was at Ahmedabad from 16.4.2006 to 20.4.2006 which shows that the recovery is false one is not at all acceptable. In this regard, the learned AGA has pointed out that the evidence of P.W.9 Arun Kumar Sharma who was the Inspector of Police Station New Agra, District Agra has deposed before the trial court that in pursuance of order of S.P, he received an information about the accused-appellant Sunita @ Anita on the basis of tracking the mobile number 93583770088 that a woman Sunita @ Anita w/o Khem Chandra, r/o Pappu Colony, district Ghaziabad is going to Bulandshahar Jail on 22.4.2006 to meet Jitendra Sirohi and on receiving the said information, he also informed to Dinesh Chand and Mahesh Chand along with police team and has arrested the said accused along with accused Sunil @ Bunty who was also accompanying the accused Sunita @ Anita and both of them have disclosed about their participation in the dacoity in the shop of P.W.1 and also informed about the other accused persons who were tried separately by the trial court and on the basis of the recovery made at their pointing out from their houses of the ornaments which were said to be looted, recovery was made and to say that it was a false recovery planted on the two accused as has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants is not at all acceptable. 28. So far as the acquittal of the accused-respondent no.2 and 3 namely Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty for the other offences are concerned, the finding recorded by the trial court with respect to their acquittal does not seems to be perverse or illegal as it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that dacoity was committed by the two accused-respondents including the other two accused-respondents namely Ram Babu and Gulab Singh. It is noteworthy to mention here that five other accused whose involvement has come into light in the statement of accused Mohit @ Netrapal, Indrapal @ Guddu, Satish, Kallu, Abdul @ Farooq and has also been disclosed that the accused Sunita @ Anita though were tried by the trial court but they have been acquitted and no Government Appeal has been preferred against their acquittal which has also not been disputed by the State counsel. Thus to say that the two accused-respondents Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty committed dacoity along with accused-appellant Ram Babu and Gulab Singh in the shop of P.W.1 appears to be doubtful which has not been borne out from the prosecution evidence, hence the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent nos.2 and 3 of the charges framed against them besides Section 412 IPC. Similarly the participation of accused-respondent no.1 and 4 Ram Babu and Gulab Singh are concerned, prosecution evidence it has not been proved that the said two accused actually committed dacoity in the shop of P.W.1 along with other accused persons. Moreover they were also not put for identification though it is stated that they were identified by the informant when recoveries were made on their pointing out but the said recovery could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, hence the same was disbelieved by the trial court as it has been argued and also found by the trial court that the recoveries made by accused-respondent no.1 Ram Babu and Gulab Singh of the ornaments which were identified by P.W.1 to be the looted ornament from his shop were released under the orders of the court in favour of P.W.1 but the same were not produced by the trial court nor any material exhibit was prepared and the said fact has also been admitted by the State counsel, hence the trial court appears to be right in acquitting the said two accused of all the charges including Section 412 IPC. Thus the view take by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse and illegal and the view taken by it was possible view, therefore, the same does not require any interference by this Court. The learned trial judge was perfectly justified in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal of the aforesaid accused-appellants. 29. Therefore, the present Government Appeal is dismissed, accordingly. 30. The learned trial judge was perfectly justified in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal of the aforesaid accused-appellants. 29. Therefore, the present Government Appeal is dismissed, accordingly. 30. As regards the conviction of the appellants Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty in the aforesaid two criminal appeals are concerned, the prosecution has proved the recovery of looted ornaments of pure gold and silver from the said appellants and no explanation has been given by the two accused for the recovery which has been made at their pointing out from their house of the ornaments of jewelleries and the arguments which has been raised by the counsel for the appellant of the two accused accused that the recovery was false on account of the fact that he tried to draw attention of the Court towards the statement of P.W.7 Dinesh Kumar Dubey has no substance keeping in view the evidence of P.W.9 Arun Kumar Sharma. Thus the conviction of the two appellants Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty by the trial court is also hereby upheld. 31. As regards the sentence of the said two appellants, it has been argued that one of the appellant is a lady and other appellant along with him has no criminal antecedents and both of them have undergone five years sentence out of sentence awarded by the trial court of ten years awarded to them u/s 412 IPC which appears to be too harsh, hence their sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone. 32. 32. Considering the said arguments of learned counsel for the appellants as the ornaments which were stated to have been looted from the jewellery shop of P.W.1 have already been recovered and has been released in his favour and the five set of accused who were involved in the present incident were subsequently arrested and have also been tried separately and acquitted by the trial court and against their acquittal, no Government Appeal has been filed by the State and the two accused tried with the appellants have already been acquitted of all charges and the conviction of the two appellants on the basis of recovery only would in our opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of the two appellants is reduced to five years R.I from ten years R.I. Hence they are sentenced to five years R.I for the offence u/s 412 IPC. They are stated to be in jail. They shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other criminal case. 33. The Crl. Appeal on behalf of Sunita @ Anita and Sunil @ Bunty is partly allowed. They shall furnish bail bonds with sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned in terms of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 34. Let the lower court record with the present order be transmitted to the trial court concerned for necessary information and it's compliance forthwith.