(1.) The appellants have filed these appeals impugning a judgment dated 24.05.2017 passed by the learned ASJ-04, Rohini Courts, whereby they were convicted for committing an offence punishable under Sections 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC"). The appellants also impugn an order on sentence dated 27.05.2017, whereby they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine of Rs. 3,000 each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
(2.) The appellants were charged with committing offences punishable under Sections 392/411/34 of the IPC. In addition, Sandeep (the appellant in Crl. A. 620/2017) was also charged with committing an offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the appellants of all charges, other than the charge of committing an offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC, as the court did not believe that the prosecution had established that the goods recovered from the appellants were those that were stolen. Further, the complainant (who was also the eyewitness) resiled from his earlier statement that he had seen the accused Sandeep with the pistol. Before the court, he testified that he had seen the said weapon in the hands of the accused Khokhan @ Guddu (the appellant in Crl.A 900/2017). Accordingly, the accused Sandeep was acquitted of the charge for committing an offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC
(3.) Whilst the appellants do not contest that a robbery had been committed, they urge that the prosecution has failed to prove their involvement in commission of the said offence, as the testimonies of the material witnesses identifying them are inconsistent. The appellants further contend that, in any event, the testimonies of the witnesses identifying them as the offenders, are unreliable, as they were shown to the witnesses in the police station and the court premises prior to the TIP proceedings.