Delhi District Court
State vs Ranjeet Yadav on 21 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 27347/2016)
FIR No. 314/2011
Police Station Crime Branch
Charge-sheet filed under Sections 399/402/482 IPC & Sec.
25/54/59 Arms Act.
Charges framed against accused Sec. 399/402/174A IPC &
Sec. 25 Arms Act.
State Versus Ranjeet Yadav,
S/o Sh. Bishamber Yadav,
R/o VPO Budhseni, PS Balani,
District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.
Also at:-
Mohalla Yasin Garhi VPO Dosha
District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
...Accused
Date of Institution of case 25.02.2012
Date of Arguments 06.02.2026
Judgment reserved on 06.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on 21.02.2026
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Ranjeet Yadav is facing trial for the offences
punishable under 399/402/174A IPC & Sec. 25 Arms Act. The
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 1 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
story of the prosecution is that on 07.12.2011 at 07:20 pm, at
Gharhi Park, Kudesia Ghat, near Ring Road, ISBT Kashmere
Gate, accused Ranjeet Yadav along with his associates namely
Alam @ Saleem, Yasin, Farman, Shahbuddin (all four have
already been acquitted by Ld. Predecessor vide judgment dated
30.06.2022) & Wasim @ Guddu @ Sameer (since PO) were
making preparation for committing dacoity of cash from CNG
Station, near Chandgi Ram Akhara, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
Further on the abovesaid date, time and place, accused Ranjeet
Yadav along with aforesaid five accused persons had assembled
for preparation and commission of dacoity. Further on the
abovesaid date, time and place, accused Ranjeet Yadav was found
in possession of one country made pistol with one loaded live
cartridge and two live cartridges without any license or permit.
Further, during trial, accused Ranjeet Yadav absconded and failed
to appear before Ld. Predecessor and was declared proclaimed
offender vide order dated 03.05.2016.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the
case are that on 07.12.2011 at about 04:00 pm, one secret informer
came to the office of Crime Branch, Kotwali, Delhi and met PW-5
Ct. Aslup and informed that Alam, a notorious gangster and a
gang member of Shaukat Pasha gang and his associate namely
Wasim @ Guddu who had absconded from the custody of UP
Police in the year 2008 and were active in committing theft,
robbery and dacoity in the area of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh would
assemble with their associates at about 06:00-06:30 pm in Ghadi
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 2 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
Park, Kudesia Ghat, Ring Road, ISBT Kashmere Gate having
illegal arms and ammunition with intention to commit dacoity at
CNG Pump, ISBT Kashmere Gate, near Chandgi Ram Akhara and
if raided, they could be apprehended with illegal arms. Thereafter,
PW-5 Ct. Aslup produced the said informer before PW-7 SI
Nirbhay Rana, who reduced the said information into writing vide
DD No. 13 and conveyed the said information to Inspector Sunil
Kumar who directed him to take necessary action. Thereafter,
PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana constituted a raiding party consisting of
himself, SI Ravinder, HC Ravinder Baliyan, Ct. Ashok, HC Eid
Mohammad, Ct. Sajjad Ali, HC Vikram, Ct. Prempal & Ct.
Davinder. Raiding Team got allotted arms and ammunition and
thereafter raiding team members along with secret informer
proceeded from spot via Ring Road in private vehicles i.e. Tavera,
WagonR and Maruti car and at about 05:20 pm, they reached
ISBT, Kashmere Gate, where PW-7 SI Nirbhay Singh Rana
requested 6-7 passersby to join the raiding party but none agreed
and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses.
Thereafter without wasting time, raiding team members were
deployed near Ghadi Park, Kudesia Ghat, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
3. Thereafter, at about 06:35 pm, two persons came from the
side of Monastery and secret informer informed that one of those
person was Alam. After some time, one Swift car bearing
registration no. DL-6CG-6456 came outside the Park and parked
the same near the park and out of which, four persons alighted and
met Alam and other person and thereafter, all the six persons
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 3 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
entered into Gadhi Park, Kudesia Ghat. All the six persons sat
near the wall of the park and started talking to each other.
Thereafter at about 07:00 pm, PW-5 Ct. Aslup went near outer
side the boundary wall of the park and heard their conversation
and after ten minutes, he returned and stated that the accused
namely Alam @ Saleem along with co-accused persons was
planning to rob cash from CNG Station, adjacent to Chandgi Ram
Akhara. Thereafter PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana along with raiding
team entered into the park and he disclosed his identity to the
accused persons and informed them that they were surrounded by
police and asked them to surrender and he with the assistance of
raiding team members apprehended accused persons. Thereafter
on inquiry, the names of said persons revealed as Alam @ Saleem,
Waseem @ Guddu @ Sameer, Yasin, Farman, Shahbuddin &
Ranjeet Yadav and on their personal search one pistol and live
cartridges were recovered from each accused persons except
accused Wasim and from possession of accused Wasim one open
knife was recovered, which were seized by PW-7 SI Nirbhay
Rana. During proceedings, PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana also seized one
black colour leather bag and filled the FSL form.
4. Thereafter, PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana prepared rukka, Ex.
PW-7/A and got the present FIR registered through PW-5 Ct.
Aslup at PS Crime Branch. After registration of FIR, on
instructions of senior police officials, further investigation of the
present case was entrusted to PW-6 SI Ravinder Teotia.
Thereafter, PW-6 IO/SI Ravinder Teotia came to the spot of
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 4 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
incident and PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana handed over sealed case
properties, documents prepared by him and custody of accused
persons to him. During investigation IO prepared site plan at
instance of PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana exhibited as Ex. PW-6/A,
seized fake number plate of car of accused persons and seized
vehicle bearing registration no. UP-14Z-6100. IO also arrested
accused persons namely Shahbuddin, Wasim @ Guddu @ Sameer,
Yasin, Farman, Alam @ Saleem & Ranjeet Yadav, vide arrest
memos Ex. PW-5/U, Ex. PW-5/U1, Ex. PW-5/U2, Ex. PW-5/U3,
Ex. PW-5/U4 & Ex. PW-5/U5, conducted their personal search
vide memos Ex. PW-5/V5, Ex. PW-5/V, Ex. PW-5/V2, Ex.
PW-5/V3, Ex. PW-5/V1, Ex. PW-5/V4 and recorded their
disclosure statements exhibited as Ex. PW-5/P, Ex. PW-5/O, Ex.
PW-5/R, Ex. PW-5/Q, Ex. PW-5/T. During investigation, IO sent
the case property to FSL for expert opinion, examied registered
owner of seized car, obtained sanction under Sec. 39 Arms Act
and complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C was filed by the
concerned ACP. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed in the Court by the IO through SHO. After receiving of FSL
report, supplementary charge-sheet was also filed before the
Court.
5. Vide order dated 0 4 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 2 , copy of the charge-sheet
under Section 207 Cr.P.C was supplied to a l l the accused
p e r s o n s and v i d e o r d e r d a t e d 1 8 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 2 the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
6. Vide order dated 28.05.2013, the Ld. Predecessor Court
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 5 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
was pleased to frame charges under Sec. 399/402 IPC & Sec. 25
Arms Act against all the five accused persons, to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. During trial, accused persons namely Wasim & Ranjeet
Yadav absconded and they were declared Proclaimed Offenders
vide orders dated 18.05.2013 & 03.05.2016 respectively. Vide
jdugment dated 30.06.2022, remaining four accused persons
namely Alam @ Saleem, Yasin, Farman & Shahbuddin were
acquitted from the case by Ld. Prdecessor of this court. Thereafter,
on arrest of accused Ranjeet Yadav, supplementary charge-sheet
was filed against him and additional charge under Section 25 Arms
Act was framed against accused Ranjeet Yadav. Thus, the judgment
in the present case is being pronounced only qua accused Ranjeet
Yadav.
8. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses.
The testimonies of presecution witnesses along with its nature has
been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
9. PW-1 HC Jaipal Singh, was Duty Officer at PS Crime
Branch. He proved copy of present FIR exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that he handed over the
original rukka and FIR to Ct. Aslup at about 01:45 am. He also
deposed that he did not send any copy of the FIR to the concerned
MM. He denied the suggestion that he had not handed over the
copy of FIR to Ct. Aslup.
10. PW-2 Sh. Brij Raj Krishan, Junior Assistant, RTO Office,
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 6 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
Ghaziabad proved record of Maruti Swift bearing registration no.
UP-14Z-6100 as Ex. PW-2/A. This witness was not cross-
examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
11. PW-3 Sh. Sanjay Bhatia, Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Crime & Railway proved sanction under Sec. 39 of The Arms Act
for the prosecution of accused persons exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A.
This witness was also not cross-examined on behalf of accused
despite opportunity given to him.
12. PW-4 Ms. Reshma was registered owner of Swift Car
bearing registration no. UP-14Z-6100. She deposed that the said
car was purchased by her around four years ago and the said car
was seized by police and it was later on got released by her on
superdari. This witness also not cross-examined on behalf of
accused despite opportunity given to him.
13. PW-5 Ct. Aslup was one of the member of raiding team
constituted at Crime Branch. He deposed that on 08.12.2011, he
had joined the investigation of present case along with SI N. S.
Rana. He further deposed that on that day, secret informer
informed IO/SI N. S. Rana that the notorious gangster Alam who
had absconded from the custody of UP Police and was involved in
several criminal cases would come at Kudesia Ghat, Kashmere
Gate with conspiracy of robbing. He further deposed that on this
information, IO prepared raiding party comprising of himself, HC
Ravinder, Ct. Sajjad Ali, HC Vikram, Ct. Prempal, Ct. Davinder
and secret informer. He further deposed that thereafter at about
05:20 pm, they reached the spot i.e. near Kudesia Ghat, Kashmere
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 7 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
Gate. He further deposed that at about 06:35 pm, two persons
were seen coming from Kashmere Gate and they sat in the park of
Kudesia Ghat and after 15-20 minutes, four boys also came there
in Swift car. He further deposed that those four boys also joined
both the persons in the park. He further deposed that he was
deputed by the IO as shadow witness to over hear their
conversation and accordingly he took position behind the wall
adjacent to the park. He further deposed that he heard that one
person, whose name was later on disclosed as Alam was guiding
remaining members sitting there in the park to rob the cash from
CNG Pump. He further deposed that he immediately disclosed
such conversation to IO/SI N. S. Rana and thereafter SI N.S. Rana
along with entire raiding team entered the park and asked all the
members present inside the park to surrender before police as they
had been surrounded. He further deposed that all accused persons
were nabbed by the police party and they were interrogated and on
interrogation, their names were revealed as Aslam, Yasin, Farman,
Wasim, Ranjeet Yadav & Shabuddin. He further deposed that on
personal search of accused Alam, one loaded country made pistol
and three live cartridges were recovered from his possession. He
further deposed that on personal search of accused Yasin, one
loaded country made pistol and three live cartridges were
recovered from his possession. He further deposed that on
personal search of accused Ranjeet Yadav, one loaded country
made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from his
possession. He further deposed that on personal search of accused
Farman, one loaded country made pistol and three live cartridges
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 8 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
were recovered from his possession. He further deposed that on
personal search of accused Wasim, one open knife was recovered
from his possession. He further deposed that on personal search of
accused Sahbuddin, one black colour leather bag containing four
monkey caps, three live rounds, one screw driver, one plass, four
pieces of rope were recovered from the right shoulder of accused.
He proved sketches of aforesaid recovered arms and ammunition
from possession of accused persons as Ex. PW-5/B, Ex. PW-5/C,
Ex. PW-5/E, Ex. PW-5/G, Ex. PW-5/J & Ex. PW-5/L. He also
proved seizure memos of aforesaid arms & ammunition as Ex.
PW-5/A, Ex. PW-5/D, Ex. PW-5/F, Ex. PW-5/H, Ex. PW-5/K, Ex.
PW-5/M & Ex. PW-5/N respectively. He also deposed that Swift
car number of which he did not remember but it was of grey
colour was also seized. He further deposed that SI N. S. Rana
prepared rukka which he took to PS for getting the case FIR
registered and after registration of case FIR, he came to the spot
along with SI Ravinder Tewatia to whom further investigation was
marked. He further deposed that SI N. S. Rana handed over entire
documents, case property and accused persons to the second IO
and he appended FIR number on all the documents and case
property. He further deposed that on the pointing out of SI N. S.
Rana, second IO prepared site plan and arrested accused persons
namely Yasin, Shahbuddin, Alam, Farman, Wasim @ Guddu and
Ranjeet Yadav in the present case. He proved arrest memos of
aforesaid accused persons as Ex. PW-5/U to Ex. PW-5/U5, their
personal search as Ex. PW-5/V to Ex. PW-5/V5 and their
disclosure statements as Ex. PW-5/O to Ex. PW-5/T. This witness
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 9 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
correctly identified all the accused persons (except accused Wasim
as he was proclaimed offender) as well as case properties during
his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he
deposed that he made DD entry no. 13 at the time of leaving the
office of Crime Branch, Kotwali for the spot. He also deposed that
he heard the conversation of the accused persons from near a wall
of Ghari Park from a distance of about five steps. He also deposed
that he was in civil clothes and he could not tell the distance
between the place where the members of the raiding party were
standing and the place where he was hearing the conversation. He
also deposed that they remained at the spot for about 4-5 hours.
He also deposed that he returned to the spot at about 01:30 am
along with copy of FIR and rukka along with SI Ravinder Teotia.
He also deposed that the disclosure statement of all the accused
persons were recorded by SI N. S. Rana at the spot while sitting
inside the park but he could not tell the time of recording of
disclosure statements. He admitted that IO recorded the disclosure
statement of the accused persons on 07.12.2011. He also deposed
that the arrest memos of the accused persons were prepared on
07.12.2011. He also deposed that after arrest, all the accused
persons were taken to Geeta Colony. He denied the suggestion
that all the accused persons were lifted from their houses and
implicated falsely in this case. He also denied the suggestion that
nothing had been recovered from the accused persons.
14. PW-6 SI Ravinder Teotia, was the Investigating Officer in
the present case. He deposed that on 07.12.2011, he was posted at
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 10 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
PS Crime Branch, Sun Light Colony. He further deposed that on
that day, after receiving information from SI N. S. Rana, he
reached the spot i.e. Gadhi Park, Kudesia Ghat near Ring Road,
ISBT Kashmere Gate where he met with SI N. S. Rana along with
staff members and they had apprehended six persons namely
Alam, Yasin, Farman, Ranjeet Yadav, Shahbuddin and Wasim. He
further deposed that SI N. S. Rana handed over the Rukka to Ct.
Aslup for registration of FIR and accordingly Ct. Aslup went to
PS Crime Branch for registration of FIR. He further deposed that
thereafter SI N. S. Rana handed over all the accused persons along
with seven sealed pullanda, sketches, memos and FSL form to
him. He further deposed that at about 02:00 am, Ct. Aslup
informed him through telephone regarding the FIR number and he
told that FIR No. 314/11 was registered and accordingly, he put
the FIR number on all the documents prepared by SI N. S. Rana as
well as on sealed pullandas. He further deposed that he prepared
site plan, Ex. PW-6/A at instance of SI N. S. Rana and thereafter
he recorded statement of SI N. S. Rana and he was relieved from
investigation. He proved seizure of swift car bearing registration
no. DL-6CG-6456 as Ex. PW-6/B, arrest of all six accused
persons as Ex. PW-5/U to Ex. PW-5/U5, personal search of
accused persons as Ex. PW-5/V to Ex. PW-5/V5, & disclosure
statements of accused persons as Ex. PW-5/O to Ex. PW-5/T. He
also proved the pointing out memo of spot by accused persons as
Ex. PW-6/C to Ex. PW-6/J. He also proved FSL report and
Sanction under Sec. 39 Arms Act as Ex. PW-6/K & Ex. PW-3/A.
This witness correctly identified accused persons during
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 11 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed
that he reached at the spot at about 11:30 pm. He also deposed
that SI N. S. Rana handed over the rukka to Ct. Aslup at about
11:40 pm and Ct. Aslup returned to the spot with copy of FIR and
rukka at about 01:30 am. He also deposed that site plan was
prepared by him at about 12:00 night and signature of SI N. S.
Rana was obtained on site plan as witness. He also deposed that
no documents were recovered from Swift car bearing registration
no. DL-6CG-6456 and ownership of the said car was verified
from accused Yasin who disclosed that the said car existed in the
name of his wife. He also deposed that they reached the Crime
Branch office along with accused persons and Swift car at about
01:20 am on 08.12.2011 from Tavera jeep. He also deposed that
no notice was given to any of the public person to join the
investigation at the time of recovery of swift car. He also deposed
that Ct. Aslup handed over him copy of FIR and rukka at the PS at
about 01:30 am. He also deposed that he had recorded disclosure
statements of accused after 02:00 am at his office. He denied the
suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that he had not
investigated the matter or that he had never visited the spot or that
accused persons were lifted from their houses and implicated in
this case falsely.
15. PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana was leading the Raiding Team
constituted at Crime Branch Office. He deposed that on
07.12.2011 at about 04:00 pm, Ct. Ashok came to his office along
with one secret informer and informed that Alam, a notorious
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 12 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
gangster and a gang member of Shaukat Pasha and his associate
namely Wasim @ Guddu who had absconded from the custody of
UP Police in the year 2008 and was active in committing theft,
robbery and dacoity in the area of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh would
assemble with his associates at about 06:00-06:30 pm in Ghadi
Park, Kudesia Ghat, Ring Road, ISBT Kashmere Gate having
illegal arms and ammunition with intention to commit dacoity at
CNG Pump, ISBT Kashmere Gate, near Chandgi Ram Akhara and
if raided, they could be apprehended with illegal arms. He further
deposed that he reduced the said information into writing vide DD
No. 13 and conveyed the said information to concerned Inspector
Sunil Kumar who directed him to take necessary action. He
further deposed that he constituted a raiding party consisting of
himself, SI Ravinder, HC Ravinder Baliyan, Ct. Ashok, HC Eid
Mohammad, Ct. Sajjad Ali, HC Vikram, Ct. Prempal & Ct.
Davinder. Raiding Team got allotted arms and ammunition and
thereafter raiding team members along with secret informer
proceeded from spot via Ring Road in private vehicles i.e. Tavera,
WagonR and Maruti car and at about 05:20 pm, they reached
ISBT, Kashmere Gate, where he requested 6-7 passersby to join
the raiding party but none agreed and left the spot without
disclosing their names and addresses. He further deposed that they
parked their vehicles on the side of the road and went inside the
Kudesia Park. He further deposed that at about 06:35 pm, two
persons came from the side of Monastery and secret informer
informed that one of those person was Alam. He further deposed
that after some time, one Swift car bearing registration no.
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 13 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
DL-6CG-6456 came outside Kudesia Park and parked the same
near the park and out of which, four persons alighted and met
Alam and other persons and thereafter, all the six persons entered
into Gadhi Park, Kudesia Ghat. All the six persons sitting near the
wall of the park and started talking to each other. He further
deposed that he directed Ct. Aslup to over hear the conversation of
those six persons and if anything is found incriminating, he would
signal the members of other raiding party while waiving his hand
over his head. He further deposed that after sometime, Ct. Aslup
returned and stated that those six persons were planning to
commit dacoity in a CNG Station, adjacent to Chandgi Ram
Akhara. He further deposed that he along with raiding team
entered into the park and challenged them to surrender before the
police. He further deposed that all the persons tried to escape from
the spot but they were overpowered by the members of raiding
party. He further deposed that on inquiry, the names of said
persons revealed as Alam @ Saleem, Waseem @ Guddu @
Sameer, Yasin, Farman, Shahbuddin & Ranjeet Yadav. He narrated
about recovery of arms and ammunition from possession of
accused persons on the lines of PW-5 Ct. Aslup and proved their
sketches and seizure memos. He also deposed that he prepared
rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Aslup for registration of
FIR at PS Crime Branch with the request to hand over the
investigation to SI Ravinder Singh after registration of FIR. He
further deposed that SI Ravinder Teotia came to the spot of
incident and he handed over sealed case properties, documents
prepared by him and custody of accused persons to him. He also
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 14 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
deposed that IO prepared site plan, Ex. PW-6/A at his instance.
This witness correctly identified accused persons as well as case
properties during his deposition before the court. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that the distance between the spot and
his office was about four kilometers and they reached at the spot
within 15-20 minutes. He also deposed that he remained at the
spot till 12:00/12:30 am. He also deposed that no chance prints
were taken by him of the arms and ammunition. He also deposed
that SI Ravinder Teotia reached at the spot at about 11:15 pm and
he left the spot about 12:00-12:15 am. He admitted that he did not
interrogate the accused persons regarding the source of recovered
arms and ammunition. He also deposed that Ct. Aslup left the spot
with the rukka at about 11:40 pm. He admitted that he had not
recorded any disclosure statement of the accused persons and the
disclosure statement of accused persons was not recorded by SI
Ravinder in his presence. He also deposed that he did not know
about the persons who came at the spot in a Gypsy or Wagon-R.
He admitted that accused persons were not known to him prior to
this case. He denied the suggestion that accused persons had been
falsely implicated or that case property had been planted upon the
accused persons. He also denied the suggestion that all the
accused persons were lifted from their houses from different
places to implicate them falsely in this case.
16. PW-8 HC Eid Mohd. deposed that on 02.02.2012, as per
instruction of IO, he had gone to FSL Rohini along with authority
letter and collected the result from the office of FSL as well as
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 15 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
five sealed parcels which he deposited with MHC(M), Crime
Branch. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of
accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
17. PW-9 Retd. ASI Jag Narayan, was the MHC(M) at PS
Crime Branch. He proved entries in register no. 19 & 21 regarding
movement of case properties as Ex. PW-9/A & Ex. PW-9/B. He
also proved acknowledgment received from FSL as Ex. PW-9/C.
This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons
despite opportunity given to them.
18. PW-10 HC Dheeraj, deposed that on 27.09.2013, he was
posted at AHTU, Crime Branch, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi and on
that day, one secret informer came there and informed that
accused Ranjeet Yadav, who was absconding in a Crime Branch
case, was present at near Suman Cinema, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad,
UP and can be apprehended, if raided. He further deposed that he
apprised about the information to his senior officer and on their
directions, he along with secret informer left his office to conduct
raid vide GD No. 68A. He further deposed that on 28.09.2023 at
about 05:00 am he along with secret informer reached near Suman
Cinema, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP where secret informer
pointed out towards a person and informed that he was Ranjeet
Yadav. He further deposed that he apprehended the said person
and on inquiry his name was revealed as Ranjeet Yadav. He
further deposed that he made verification from MHC(R), Crime
Branch and found that Ranjeet Yadav was proclaimed offender in
case FIR No. 314/11, PS Crime Branch. He further deposed that
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 16 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
he arrested accused Ranjeet Yadav under Sec. 41.1 Cr.PC. He
proved arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Ranjeet
Yadav as Ex. PW-10/A & Ex. PW-10/B. He also proved Kalandara
under Sec. 41.1 Cr.PC as Ex. PW-10/C. This witness was not
cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to
him.
19. PW-11 HC Neeraj Kumar, executed the process under Sec.
82 Cr.PC against accused Ranjeet Yadav. He deposed that on
03.03.2016, he went PS Balani, District Bagpat and made arrival
entry there and took assistance of local police and went to given
address i.e. village Bursani but accused could not be found. He
further deposed that he made inquiry from Mr. Bijari, husband of
Pradhan of village who told that accused had not been
residing/visiting village for long time. He further deposed that he
assembled the villagers and announced about the process under
Sec. 82 Cr.PC in loud voice and pasted one copy of process on the
door of the house of accused. He proved his detailed report in this
regard as Ex. CW-1/A and his arrival entry at local police station
as Ex. CW-1/B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did
not take photography of pasting of process on the door of house of
accused. He also deposed that it took around one hour in
conducting proceeding under Sec. 82 Cr.PC at village of accused.
He also deposed that no notice was served to any
neighbour/public person when the process under Sec. 82 Cr.PC
was executed. He admitted that he did not record statement of any
neighbour/public person while executed process under Sec. 82
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 17 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
Cr.PC. He denied the suggestion that he had no personal
knowledge regarding the facts of the present case or that he had
deposed only at the instance of the IO.
20. PW-12 SI Samrat, filed the supplementary charge-sheet
against accused Ranjeet Yadav. He deposed that on 29.09.2023, he
was informed by Duty Officer regarding apprehension of accused
Ranjeet Yadav, who had been declared PO on 03.05.2016 by
AHTU, Crime Branch. He further deposed that he prepared
charge-sheet against accused Ranjeet Yadav, Ex. PW-12/A and
moved before the court of Ld. CMM through SHO. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that he did not record statement of any
witness and he also did not visit the place of incident. He also
deposed that he did not visit the place from where accused was
apprehended by AHTU.
21. PW-13 Sh. Satish Kumar, Ahlmad, produced the original
file of case with respect to the trial of co-accused persons namely
Alam, Yasin, Farman & Shahbuddin. He deposed that vide order
dated 03.05.2016, Sh. Atul Kumar Garg, Ld. ASJ declared
accused Ranjeet Yadv as PO. In his cross-examination, he
admitted that as per record, Alam, Yasin, Farman and Shahbuddin
were acquitted in this case.
22. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused
was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied all the
charges against him. He claimed that he was innocent and police
officials had falsely implicated him in the present case. He further
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 18 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
claimed that he had hot arguments with the police officials of PS
Crime Branch and that is why, they had falsely implicated him in
the present case.
23. After recording of statement of accused persons under Sec.
313 Cr.P.C, accused examined himself on oath under Sec. 315
Cr.PC in his defence. The testimony of accused has been
discussed in brief as under:-
24. DW-1 Accused Ranjeet Yadav, deposed that he was in JC in
the case FIR No. 33/2016, titled as ‘State Vs. Naveen & Ors.’, PS
Singhawali, Ahir, District Bagpat, UP, under Sec. 379/411 IPC
from 12.03.2016 to 04.11.2016 and was lodged at Meerut &
Bagpat Jails. He further deposed that he had no information about
the issuance of process under Sec. 82 Cr.PC against him as same
was issued during this period. He proved relevant certified
documents of concerned court as Ex. DW-1/A (colly). In is cross-
examination, he admitted that the certified documents, Ex.
DW-1/A (colly) were not showing his JC on dated 03.05.2016 in
any court. He also admitted that he was declared PO in the present
case on 03.05.2016. He denied the suggestion that he was on bail
on 03.05.2016 that is why he could not produce any order
showing him being in JC on 03.05.2016.
25. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Shreyas Pragyanan,
Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Sanjeev Malik, Ld. Counsel for
accused.
26. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 19 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution
witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have
corroborated each other’s version. To substantiate his submissions,
he argued that the on the basis of secret information, accused was
apprehended with illegal weapons. He further argued that PW-5
Ct. Aslup and PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana have deposed about the
preparation being done by the accused along with associates for
the commission of dacoity. He further argued that there is
complete consistency in the testimonies of PW-5 Ct. Aslup &
PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana and they have corroborated each other’s
version. He further argued that police officials were not known to
the accused and there is no question of his false implication in the
present case. He further argued that sanction under Sec. 39 Arms
Act has been duly proved by PW-3 Sh. Sanjay Bhatia. He further
argued that the IO as well as the other police officials have duly
proved the proceedings conducted by them. He also argued that
since the prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond
reasonable doubt, accused should be convicted for the offences
under which charges have been framed against him.
27. Per Contra Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove its case against accused beyond
reasonable doubt. He argued that accused has been falsely
implicated in the present case by concocting a false story. To
substantiate his submissions, he argued that the investigation in
the present case has been conducted in an arbitrary manner. He
further argued that no independent public persons were joined in
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 20 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
the investigation and the case property has been planted upon the
accused. He further argued that there are material contradictions in
the testimonies of PW-5 Ct. Aslup, PW-6 SI Ravinder Teotia &
PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana. He further argued that during the trial
accused was declared PO and he was arrested by PW-10 HC
Dheeraj and the process under Sec. 82 Cr.PC has not been duly
proved by the prosecution as the accused was in JC in another
case at Bagpat & Meerut Jails. He further argued that co-accused
persons have already been acquitted by the Ld. Predecessor. He
further argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its
case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt, accused
should be acquitted under all the sections of law under which
charges have been framed against him.
28. In the present case, charges under Sec. 399/402/174A IPC
& Sec. 25 Arms Act. were framed against accused. These Sections
have been defined as follows:-
399. Making preparation to commit dacoity:-
Whoever makes, any preparation for committing dacoity,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
402. Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity:-
Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall be
one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of
committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also beFIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 21 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
liable to fine.
174A. Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under
section 82 of Act 2 of 1974:-
Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the
specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-
section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration
has been made under sub section (4) of that section pronouncing
him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to fine.
29. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced,
perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence
led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of
law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld.
Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused.
30. PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana deposed that he along with his staff
left the office of Crime Branch vide DD No. 13. As per the case of
the prosecution, DD No. 13 pertains to receiving of secret
information and leaving of raiding party from the office of SOS,
Crime Branch, Kotwali, Delhi. However, the prosecution has not
proved DD No. 13. This has weakened the case of the prosecution.
31. PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana deposed that on 07.12.2011 at about
04:00 PM Ct. Ashok came to his office alongwith one secret
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 22 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
informer and informed him that one notorious gangster namely
Alam who had absconded from the custody of UP Police will
come at Kudesia Park along with his associates to commit some
crime. However, PW-5 Ct. Aslup deposed that a secret informer
informed IO/SI N. S. Rana and he has not deposed about Ct.
Ashok. Moreover, Ct. Ashok has not been examined as PW by the
prosecution. This raises serious doubts with respect to the
receiving of any such secret information.
32. PW-5 Ct. Aslup deposed that he was deputed by the IO as a
shadow witness to overhear the conversation of accused persons.
PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana also deposed that he directed Ct. Aslup to
hear the conversation of six accused persons. PW-5 Ct. Aslup
deposed that accordingly he took his position behind the wall
adjacent to the park and heard that one person i.e. accused Alam
was guiding remaining members sitting in the park to rob cash
from CNG Pump. In his cross-examination, PW-5 Ct. Aslup
deposed that he heard the conversation of accused persons from
near the wall of park from a distance of five steps. PW-7 SI
Nirbhay Rana deposed that the boundary wall of Ghadi Park was
about 3-3½ feet high. If the height of the wall was only 3-3 ½ feet
high, how PW-5 Ct. Aslup was successful in hiding himself
behind the wall. PW-5 Ct. Aslup has specifically deposed that
accused Alam was guiding the other accused persons which means
that the face of accused Alam was visible to PW-5 Ct. Aslup from
a distance of five steps and in these circumstances it cannot be
believed that if the accused persons were planning for commission
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 23 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
of dacoity and they were not able to see a person hearing them
from a distance of just five steps. Thus, the planning/preparation
of commission of dacoity in presence of a strange person i.e.
PW-5 Ct. Aslup is highly improbable. This raises serious doubts
on the prosecution story.
33. PW-5 Ct. Aslup deposed that he came to the spot along with
SI Ravinder Teotia to whom further investigation of case was
marked. He further deposed that he returned to the spot at about
01:30 am along with copy of FIR and rukka along with SI
Ravinder Teotia. Thus, as per version of PW-5 Ct. Aslup, PW-6 SI
Ravinder Teotia came at the spot with him at about 01:30 am after
registration of FIR. However, PW-6 Ravinder Teotia deposed that
on 07.12.2011, he reached the spot after receiving information
from SI N. S. Rana. He specifically deposed that he reached at the
spot at about 11:30 pm and he had gone to the spot alone. He
further deposed that SI N.S. Rana handed over the rukka to Ct.
Aslup for registration of FIR in his presence. Thus, as per version
of PW-6 SI Ravinder Teotia, he had reached at the spot of incident
before the preparation of rukka at about 11:30 pm, while as per
version of PW-5 Ct. Aslup, PW-6 SI Ravinder Teotia came to the
spot with him at about 01:30 am. Both the versions are
contradictory to each other and cannot co-exist. This raises serious
doubts on the veracity of PW-5 Ct. Aslup, PW-6 SI Ravinder
Teotia & PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana as well as on the prosecution
story.
34. PW-5 Ct. Aslup deposed that IO recorded disclosure
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 24 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
statement of accused persons at the spot vide memos Ex. PW-5/O
to Ex. PW-5/T. He also deposed that all the six persons were
arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-5/U to Ex. PW-5/U5. He also
deposed that IO recorded statements of witnesses at the spot and
after completion of investigation, they returned to the Police
Station. However, PW-6 SI Ravinder Teotia deposed that he along
with accused persons and police staff came to the office of Crime
Branch and thereafter all the accused persons were arrested. He
also deposed that all the accused persons made their confessional
statements which were reduced into writing. Thus, as per version
of PW-5 Ct. Aslup, the disclosure statements and arrest memos of
accused persons were prepared at the spot of incident while as per
version of PW-6 IO/SI Ravinder Teotia, the disclosure statements
and arrest memos of accused persons were prepared at the office
of Crime Branch. Both the versions are contradictory to each other
and cannot co-exist. This raises serious doubts about the veracity
of PW-5 Ct. Aslup & PW-6 IO/SI Ravinder Teotia as well as on
the prosecution story.
35. PW-5 Ct. Aslup deposed that he did not remember to whom
he had apprehended. He also deposed that he did not remember
which accused was apprehended by him. Since PW-5 Ct. Aslup
was member of raiding team and he along with his team members
had apprehended different accused persons and in these
circumstances, he was expected to explain as to which accused
was apprehended by whom. Accused has taken the defence that he
has been falsely implicated in the present case. The version of
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 25 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
PW-5 Ct. Aslup coupled with the defence taken by the accused
raises serious doubts on the prosecution story.
36. PW-5 Ct. Aslup deposed that the disclosure statements of
all the accused persons were recorded by SI N.S. Rana at the spot
while sitting inside the park. However, PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana
deposed that he had not recorded any disclosure statements of any
accused persons and the disclosure statements of accused persons
was not recorded by SI Ravinder in his presence. PW-6 IO/SI
Ravinder Teotia deposed that he had recorded disclosure
statements of accused persons, exhibited as Ex. PW-5/O to Ex.
PW-5/T. On the perusal of record also, it is revealed that the
disclosure statements of accused persons were recorded by
PW-6/IO SI Ravinder Teotia. This raises serious doubts on the
veracity of PW-5 Ct. Aslup and prosecution story.
37. PW-5 Ct. Aslup deposed that he went to the spot of incident
along with original rukka and copy of FIR and at that time PW-6
SI Ravinder Teotia was with him. PW-6 SI Ravinder Teotia in his
examination-in-chief deposed that Ct. Aslup came in the office of
Crime Branch with copy of FIR and original rukka and same were
handed over to him. However, in his cross-examination, PW-6 SI
Ravinder Teotia deposed that Ct. Aslup returned to the spot with
copy of FIR and rukka at about 01:30 am. There are material
contradictions in the testimonies of PW-5 Ct. Aslup and PW-6 SI
Ravinder Teotia with respect to the same set of facts. This raises
serious doubts on the veracity of PW-5 Ct. Aslup & PW-6 SI
Ravinder Teotia as well as on prosecution story.
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 26 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
38. PW-4 Ms. Reshma deposed that she was the registered
owner of Swift Car bearing registration no. UP-14Z-6100. She
further deposed that the said car was seized by the Police and it
was later on got released by her on superdari. She has not deposed
that she had given her abovesaid car to any of the accused on the
date of incident. This raises serious doubts on the prosecution
story.
39. PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana deposed that he conducted search of
accused Ranjeet Yadav and from his search one loaded country
made pistol and two other live cartridges were recovered. He
deposed that he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/F.
The recovery of case property from possession of accused has to
be proved by the prosecution as per the established principles of
law. PW-7 SI Nirbhay Singh Rana deposed that at about 05:20
pm, they reached at ISBT Kashmere Gate where he requested 6-7
passersby to join the raiding party but none agreed and left the
spot without disclosing their names and addresses. PW-7 SI
Nirbhay Rana had not given any notice under Sec. 160 Cr.PC to
the public persons who refused to join the investigation. PW-5 Ct.
Aslup specifically deposed that in his presence no notice was
given by the IO to any public person to join the investigation.
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Judgment titled as ‘Mohammad
Burhan Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, cited as
MANU/DE/3131/2017′ has held that:-
‘ joining of independent public witness is not mere a
formality; it is a vital safeguard to avoid falseFIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 27 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
implication of individual. In number of cases either no
independent public witnesses are associated on the
pretext that none of them is available; in some cases
only passerbyes are requested to join the investigation.
Non-examination of independent public witness in the
instant case is serious flaw and adverse inference is to
be drawn against the prosecution for withholding them’.
40. In the present case PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana had received the
secret information with respect to the coming of accused persons
at the spot of incident with illegal weapons. He had sufficient time
to arrange independent public persons. He was also under duty to
serve notice under Sec. 160 Cr.PC to those public persons who
refused to join the investigation. However, PW-7 SI Nirbhay Rana
did not make any effort for joining the independent public persons
in an investigation nor he noted down their names and addresses.
Joining of independent public person in investigation is not a
formality but it is an important safeguard to avoid false
implication of persons in cases by the police. Applying the law
laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘ Mohammad
Burhan (supra)’, this court is of considered opinion that non-
joining of independent public persons at the time of recovery of
case property from possession of accused is fatal to the case of the
prosecution and hence the prosecution has failed to prove the
recovery of illegal weapon i.e. one loaded country made pistol and
two live cartridges from the possession of accused Ranjeet Yadav
beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 28 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
41. PW-3 Sh. Sanjay Bhatia, the then DCP has proved the
sanction for prosecution of accused under Sec. 39 Arms Act. Since
the recovery of illegal weapon/cartridges from possession of
accused has become doubtful, the testimony of PW-3 Sh. Sanjay
Bhatia does not have much evidentiary value.
42. Accused Ranjeet Yadav is also facing trial for the offence
punishable under Sec. 174A IPC. PW-11 HC Neeraj Kumar
deposed that he was assigned process under Sec. 82 Cr.PC against
Ranjeet Yadav and on 03.03.2016 he went to PS Balani, District
Bagpat, took assistance of local police and went to the address of
accused i.e. Village Bursani but accused could not be found. He
further deposed that he assembled the villagers and announced
about the process under Sec. 82 Cr.PC in loud voice and pasted
one copy of process on the door of accused. PW-11 HC Neeraj
Kumar has not proved the photographs of pasting the process at
the door of the house of accused as well as on the notice board of
court. Thus, the process under Sec. 82 Cr.PC has not been duly
executed by PW-11 HC Neeraj. Accused examined himself as
DW-1 under Sec. 315 Cr.PC on oath and deposed that he was in
JC in case FIR No. 33/2016 titled as ‘State Vs. Naveen & Ors.’
under Sec. 379/411 IPC PS Shinghawali Ahir, District Bagpat, UP
from 12.03.2016 to 04.11.2016 and was lodged at Meerut and
Bagpat Jails. He also deposed that he had no information about
issuance of process under Sec. 82 Cr.PC against him. He also
proved the certified copies of the court proceedings exhibited as
Ex. DW-1/A in this regard. The certified copies of court
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 29 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
proceedings are admissible under provisions of Indian Evidence
Act. Accused was declared PO on 03.05.2016. Thus, through the
documents Ex. DW-1/A has successfully proved that he was in jail
on 03.05.2016 when he was declared PO. Thus, prosecution has
failed to prove the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec.
174A IPC against accused Ranjeet Yadav.
43. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but
the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in
arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that
the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a
criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of
prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To
secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution
witness must be of sterling quality.
44. In case titled as ‘Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21′, it is held that :
“22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness”
should be of a very high quality and caliber whose
version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court
considering the version of such witness should be in a
position to accept it for its face value without any
hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the
status of the witness would be immaterial and what
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 30 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement
made by such a witness. What would be more relevant
would be the consistency of the statement right from
the starting point till the end, namely, at the time
when the witness makes the initial statement and
ultimately before the court. It should be natural and
consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the
accused. There should not be any prevarication in the
version of such a witness. The witness should be in a
position to withstand the cross-examination of any
length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under
no circumstances should given room for any doubt as
to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved,
as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should
have corelation with each and every one of other
supporting material such as the recoveries made, the
weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the
scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said
version should consistently match with the version of
very other witness. It can even be stated that it should
be akin to the test applied in the case of
circumstantial evidence where there should not be
any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold
the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him.
Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the
above test as well as all other such similar tests to be
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 31 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
applied, can it be held that such a witness can be
called as a “sterling witness’ whose version can be
accepted by the court without any corroboration and
based on which the guilty can be punished. To be
more precise, the version of the said witness on the
core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while
all other attendant materials, namely, oral,
documentary and material objects should match the
said version in material particulars in order to enable
the court trying the offence to rely on the core version
to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the
offender guilty of the charge alleged.”
45. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
“23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a
case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of
the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where
the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the
prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast
of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence
of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be
sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on
the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do
not fine her evidence to be of such quality.”
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 32 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
46. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the
version of the witness should be natural one and it must
corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with
the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such
a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
47. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the
considered opinion that PW-5 Ct. Aslup, PW-6 IO/SI Ravinder
Teotia & PW-7 SI Nirbhay Singh Rana are not witnesses of
sterling quality as their versions are not natural and they have also
failed to withstood the test of cross examination. This court is of
the considered opinion that the testimonies of PW-5 Ct. Aslup,
PW-6 IO/SI Ravinder Teotia & PW-7 SI Nirbhay Singh Rana are
not clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and same
have not been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses and
other corroborative evidence on record and the circumstances.
48. It is established principle of law that if two views are
possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted.
The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the
prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
49. The Hon’ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of
U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:-
“The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty
person should be preferred to conviction of an
innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishesFIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 33 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a
conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A
criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of
the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at
least a reasonable level of certainty that the
appellants were the real culprits.”
50. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh
and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held as follows:-
“The golden thread which runs through the web
of administration of justice in criminal cases is
that if two view are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of
the accused and the other to his innocence, the
view which is favourable to the accused should
be adopted. The paramount consideration of the
Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may
arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than
from the conviction of an innocent. In a case
where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is
cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the
evidence where the accused has been acquitted,
for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether anyFIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 34 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
of the accused really committed any offence or
not.”
51. In the present case, due to material contradictions in
testimonies of PW-5 Ct. Aslup, PW-6 IO/SI Ravinder Teotia &
PW-7 SI Nirbhay Singh Rana, non-joining of independent
witness, non-collection of CCTV footage of the spot of incident/
area and the defence taken by the accused serious doubts have
been created upon the prosecution story and two views are
possible in this case and hence the benefit of the same must go to
the accused.
52. The prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of offences
punishable under Sec. 399/402/174A IPC & Sec. 25 Arms Act
against accused Ranjeet Yadav beyond reasonable doubts.
53. Accordingly, accused Ranjeet Yadav is hereby acquitted for
the offences punishable under Sec. 399/402/174A IPC & Sec. 25
Arms Act.
Digitally signed
by VIRENDER
VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR KHARTA
Announced in the open court KHARTA Date:
2026.02.21
on 21st day of February, 2026 14:57:32 +0530
(Virender Kumar Kharta)
ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:21.02.2026
FIR No. 314/2011, PS: Crime Branch, Page No. 35 of 35
State Vs. Ranjeet Yadav.
