HANIF AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two appellants before this Court i.e. Sanjay and Hanif.

(2.) The version of the prosecution is that on 29.08.2000 at about 07:00 pm at the first floor of premises No. 152, Kucha Ghassi Ram, Fatehpuri, Delhi, both the accused persons along with their other accomplices had committed dacoity and had taken away Rs.20,000/- from the complainant Parkash Ram Bhai (PW-3) and Gulab Bhai (PW- 6) by theft. This incident was witnessed by the brother of PW-3 Devender (PW-5) who was on the second floor and he had witnessed this incident through the CCTV. He had in fact raised the alarm. People had gathered there and two of the accused had been apprehended at the spot. They are the appellants before this Court. From appellant Sanjay, desi katta along with one live cartridge was recovered. The bag containing the stolen amount of Rs.20,000/- was recovered from the possession of Hanif.

(3.) On behalf of the appellants, arguments have been addressed in detail by Mr. Mayank Goel and Mr. Riaz Mohammad, Advocates. On behalf of appellant Sanjay, it has been pointed out that the testimony of PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6 are full of inherent contradictions and there are substantial improvements made by the aforenoted alleged eye-witnesses; wherein PW-3 has stated that the two boys had entered the first floor and three boys had entered later on. PW-5 had spoken only of two persons. He had allegedly witnessed this incident on CCTV. The CCTV footage had not been produced. The pistol and cartridge also could not be identified by PW-3. The contradictions and improvements pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant Sanjay have also been detailed in the written submissions filed by him. They are largely to the effect that PW-3 was tutored and in his version on oath in Court, there are improvements qua his version recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Cr.PC. This Court has noted these improvements which have been pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant Sanjay in detail in para 4.7. This embroidery which has been added to the version of PW-3 can in no manner be said to be improvements which go to the root of the case. It would not tarnish his otherwise credible testimony; on oath in Court, PW-3 has stated that on the packet of currency, there was a stamp of firm Bharat Kumar Praveen Kumar which did not find mention in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.PC. In his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.PC, he has stated that the revolver had been kept on his head whereas on oath in Court he has stated that the revolver was shown to him. At the cost of repetition, this version on oath in Court of PW-3 can in no manner be said to be improvements which could cast any suspicion on his honest narration.