State of Uttarakhand v. Sandeep Kamboj and others

Mr. K.S. Bora, learned D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand/Applicant. Mr. D. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondents. Hon’ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Mr. Ashish Naithani, J. (Per Hon’ble Mr. Ashish Naithani, J.)

1. In view of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, and on being satisfied with the same, we allow the application and condoned the delay.

2. The present matters arise out of two connected sessions trials - Session Trial No. 06 of 2023 (State v. Surendra Singh, under Section 25 of the Arms Act)Session Trial No. 05 of 2023 (State v. Sandeep Kamboj &Ors., 1 Leave to Government Appeal No. 313 of 2023 in Government Appeal No.116 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs Surendra Singh with Leave to Government Appeal No.311 of 2023 in Government Appeal No. 114 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs Sandeep Kamboj and others Ashish Naithani J. under Sections 120-B, 392 read with 397, 398, and 411 IPC). Both cases stem from the same occurrence dated 01.07.2019 involving the alleged robbery of ₹8,00,000 near Kantopa crematorium, Rudrapur. Given the commonality of facts, witnesses, and evidence, both appeals have been considered together.

3. The State’s case is founded upon an occurrence dated 1st July 2019. The complainant, Rajesh Kumar, who claimed to be running a shop under the name and style of Shri Nirala Ji Enterprises at Gadarpur, alleged in his typewritten report that his driver, accused Sandeep Kamboj, along with his clerk Ajay Kumar, was directed to deliver an amount of ₹8,00,000 to his relative Ramesh Dhingra of Guru Maa Enterprises.

4. At around 6:45 p.m., when the vehicle reached near Kantopa crematorium, two persons armed with pistols allegedly intercepted the car, threatened its occupants, and forcibly looted the said cash along with the driving licence of the complainant. The miscreants, while firing towards the adjoining fields, escaped from the spot. The complainant suspected that his own driver, Sandeep Kamboj, was involved in the incident.

5. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 347 of 2019 under Section 392 IPC was registered at Police Station Rudrapur against Sandeep Kamboj and two unknown persons. During the investigation, the police claimed to have apprehended the accused Surendra Singh from a nearby fodder field with a bag containing the looted money, the complainant’s driving licence, and a country-made pistol.

6. On interrogation, Surendra Singh allegedly disclosed the involvement of co-accused Rajat Singh and Sandeep Kamboj. Subsequent investigation led to the filing of charge sheets against the accused under Sections 392, 411, and 120-B IPC, and separately against Surendra Singh under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

7. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, consolidated, and charges were framed against the accused. Eleven witnesses were examined on 2 Leave to Government Appeal No. 313 of 2023 in Government Appeal No.116 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs Surendra Singh with Leave to Government Appeal No.311 of 2023 in Government Appeal No. 114 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs Sandeep Kamboj and others Ashish Naithani J. behalf of the prosecution, including the complainant, his clerk, independent recovery witnesses, police constables, and the investigating officers. The accused, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations, claimed false implication, and led no defence evidence. After appreciating the entire material on record, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, by judgment dated 5th April 2023, acquitted all the accused of the charges. Aggrieved, the State has sought leave to appeal under Section 378(3)of theCr.P.C.

8. Heard learned D.A.G. for the State and Mr. D. N. Sharma, and perused the records.

9. Learned D.A.G., Mr. K.S. Bora, submitted that the judgment of acquittal suffers from manifest error and warrants interference. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.It was contended that the recovery of ₹8,00,000, the complainant’s driving licence, and a pistol from accused Surendra Singh stood duly proved through the testimonies of the public witnesses, namely Vimal Mashi (s/o Suril Mashi, r/o Kantopa) and Raju Maurya (s/o Bhola Maurya, r/o Kantopa), as well as the depositions of the police witnesses.

10. It was argued that PW-1 Rajesh Kumar and PW-2 Ajay Kumar consistently supported the prosecution version in their examination-in- chief, and any minor contradictions elicited during cross-examination were natural variations which the trial court should not have given undue weight.

11. It was further submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate the settled principle that minor inconsistencies do not corrode the substratum of the prosecution case where the evidence is otherwise reliable and duly corroborated. Learned State Counsel emphasised that the testimony of official witnesses, including the investigating officer, carries with it a presumption of regularity in official acts, and the trial court erred in 3 Leave to Government Appeal No. 313 of 2023 in Government Appeal No.116 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs Surendra Singh with Leave to Government Appeal No.311 of 2023 in Government Appeal No. 114 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs Sandeep Kamboj and others Ashish Naithani J. discarding such evidence solely on the ground that the witnesses were police personnel.

12. Learned counsel for the State also argued that the confession and disclosure made by accused Surendra Singh during interrogation, implicating his co-accused, ought to have been read in the context of the overall recovery and chain of circumstances. It was therefore prayed that leave to appeal be granted, as the acquittal was not only against the weight of evidence but also contrary to law.

13. Learned counsel for the accused-Respondents, Mr. D. N. Sharma, supported the impugned judgment and argued that it was a well-reasoned order based on a sound appreciation of evidence. It was pointed out that the complainant himself admitted in his testimony that the accused Sandeep Kamboj was not his driver and further conceded that the car used for transporting the alleged amount did not belong to him.

14. With respect to the alleged recovery, thelearned counsel contended that the recovery was shown to have been made by the investigating officer himself, which the courts have consistently held to be doubtful unless corroborated by independent witnesses. The so-called public witnesses either gave divergent versions about the nature of the bag and the circumstances of recovery or were not examined in a manner that inspired confidence.

15. It was further argued that there was an unexplained delay of sixteen days in recording the statement of PW-10, which seriously undermines the credibility of the investigation. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court had rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, and emphasized that once an order of acquittal has been passed, the presumption of innocence stands fortified, requiring that such an order ought not to be interfered with lightly.

16. This Court has carefully examined the judgment of the trial court in the light of the evidence available on record. The learned Sessions Judge has 4 Leave to Government Appeal No. 313 of 2023 in Government Appeal No.116 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs Surendra Singh with Leave to Government Appeal No.311 of 2023 in Government Appeal No. 114 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs Sandeep Kamboj and others Ashish Naithani J. meticulously analysed the evidence of each witness and has recorded findings which cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable.

17. The complainant, Rajesh Kumar, at whose behest the entire proceedings were initiated, did not support the prosecution’s version that Sandeep Kamboj was engaged as his driver. He further conceded that the car in which the alleged money was transported did not belong to him.

18. Such admissions strike at the very root of the prosecution case. PW-2 Ajay Kumar, the clerk who was allegedly robbed, rendered an inconsistent and self-contradictory account. Though he initially supported prosecution, in cross-examination he admitted that the assailant had covered his face and, significantly, no test identification parade was conducted. The omission of a identification parade assumes considerable importance in a case where the accused were admittedly strangers to the witness.

19. The alleged recovery of ₹8,00,000 and a pistol from accused Surendra Singh was rightly disbelieved by the trial court. The recovery, though shown to have been affected by the investigating officer himself, stood compromised in the absence of genuine independent witnesses.

20. The public witnesses examined by the prosecution contradicted one another on material particulars, most notably regarding the description of the bag said to contain the recovered articles. While some deposed that the bag had neither a pocket nor a company name, others claimed that it bore the logo of Adidas or Nike and was fitted with chains and ropes. Such glaring variations cannot be dismissed as minor discrepancies; they go to the root of the matter and strike at the very identity of the article allegedly recovered.

21. It is well-settled that an unexplained delay in recording the statement of a key witness materially erodes the credibility of the investigation and casts serious doubt on the prosecution’s version. In the present case, the statement of PW-10, a recovery witness, Inspector Kailash Chandra Bhatt, 5 Leave to Government Appeal No. 313 of 2023 in Government Appeal No.116 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs Surendra Singh with Leave to Government Appeal No.311 of 2023 in Government Appeal No. 114 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs Sandeep Kamboj and others Ashish Naithani J. was recorded after an unexplained delay of sixteen days. The prosecution has not furnished any reason as to why a recovery witness, who was himself available at the very police station, was not examined at the earliest opportunity, which further undermines the reliability of the State’s evidence.

22. The trial court further took note of the inconsistencies regarding the number of persons allegedly present at the spot. PW-1 spoke of sixty to seventy people, PW-2 estimated about fifty, whereas PW-4 claimed there were one hundred to one hundred fifty persons. Such wide variations are not minor lapses of memory but material contradictions, strongly suggesting that the witnesses were not actually present as claimed.

23. In the backdrop of these material infirmities, the trial court was fully justified in concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

24. Applying the aforesaid observations of the present case, this Court finds that the view adopted by the trial court is both plausible and reasonable on the evidence available. The trial court meticulously examined testimony of all witnesses, highlighted material contradictions, and on that basis extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. This Court does not discern any perversity, manifest illegality, or misappreciation of evidence in the findings so recorded. ORDER The learned trial court has examined the evidence in detail and has returned findings of acquittal on grounds which cannot be termed either perverse or unreasonable. In view of the settled principle that an order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, we find no ground to interfere. Consequently, 6 Leave to Government Appeal No. 313 of 2023 in Government Appeal No.116 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs Surendra Singh with Leave to Government Appeal No.311 of 2023 in Government Appeal No. 114 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs Sandeep Kamboj and others Ashish Naithani J. both applications for leave to appeal, namely Leave to Government Appeal No. 311 of 2023 (arising out of GA No. 114 of 2023) and Leave to Government Appeal No. 313 of 2023 (arising out of GA No. 116 of 2023), stand rejected. Since we have declined to grant leave, the Government Appeals also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) (Ashish Naithani, J.) Dated:18.08.2025 NR/ 7 Leave to Government Appeal No. 313 of 2023 in Government Appeal No.116 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs Surendra Singh with Leave to Government Appeal No.311 of 2023 in Government Appeal No. 114 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand Vs Sandeep Kamboj and others Ashish Naithani J.