(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 01.08.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.50/14 arising out of FIR No.162/12 PS GTB Enclave by which the appellants - Asif (A-1) was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 394/397/411/309/34 Penal Code and Sardar @ Ilyas (A-2) was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 394/411/34 IPC, they have filed the instant appeals. By orders dated 07.08.2015, they were sentenced to various prison terms with fine. All the sentences were to operate concurrently.
(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 10.08.2012 at about 02.00 p.m., at GT road, opposite Jhilmil Metro Station, Delhi, the appellants in furtherance of common intention robbed complainant - Mukhtiar Ahmed and deprived him of cash and other articles. He was also inflicted injuries by a knife. It is further alleged that in order to prevent any action against himself, A-1 attempted to commit suicide by stabbing himself. On receipt of information recorded by Daily Diary (DD) No.30B (Ex.PW-12/A) on 10.08.2012 at PS GTB Enclave, the investigation was assigned to ASI Bacchu Singh. After recording victim s statement (Ex.PW-1/A) the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. A-1 was apprehended at the spot. Since he had sustained injuries, he was admitted at GTB Hospital. Subsequently, A-2 was arrested. Application for conducting TIP was moved; A-2, however, declined to participate in it. Pursuant to A-2 s disclosure statement, the robbed articles were recovered from his house. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for committing various offences in the Court. The prosecution examined nineteen witnesses to prove its case. In 313 Crimial P.C. statements, the appellants denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeals have been preferred.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Appellants counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. A-1 was falsely implicated by the complainant for the self-inflicted injuries on his body. No crime weapon was recovered from A-2. The Trial Court committed grave error to base conviction on the testimonies of interested witnesses without any independent corroboration. Despite availability of number of independent public persons, none was associated at any stage of the investigation. The Investigating Agency had also shown the accused persons to the complainant and there was no occasion to participate in the TIP proceedings. Numbers of inconsistencies and infirmities have emerged in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. No finger prints were found on the knife recovered in this case. Recovery of Rs. 26,000.00 at A-2 s instance is highly doubtful. It is unbelievable that A-2 would not spend the robbed cash and keep it intact for number of days. A-2 s counsel urged to get conduct lie detection test to prove his version. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that no valid reasons exist to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant who had no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the appellants in the crime.