Holding

The Court held that the arrest and identification of the accused were unreliable, and in the absence of corroborative evidence the benefit of doubt requires acquittal, setting aside the convictions.

Summary

The appellants, Wahid and Anshu, were convicted for robbery under IPC sections 392/397 and for possession of arms under the Arms Act, based on an FIR that named no specific perpetrators. The prosecution’s case relied on the complainant’s identification of the accused at a bus depot two days after the incident and the recovery of weapons from them, without any test identification parade or recovery of the stolen articles. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the arrest, noting inconsistencies in police testimonies, the improbability of the complainant’s late‑night actions, and the lack of corroborative evidence. It also found the dock identifications unreliable, as several eye witnesses either denied recognizing the accused or could not do so due to darkness, and the identifications were made years after the crime. Applying the principle of benefit of doubt, the Court held that the prosecution had not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the convictions. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the appellants were acquitted.

Issues considered

Whether the conviction under IPC sections 392, 397 and the Arms Act can be sustained when the FIR is lodged against unknown persons and identification of the accused is doubtful.
Whether the manner of arrest and recovery of alleged weapons by the police is reliable and sufficient to support conviction.
Whether the absence of a test identification parade and lack of recovery of stolen articles warrants granting the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 25
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 392, s. 397, s. 411

Subjects

FIRRobberyFIR against unknown personsDiscovery of articleRecovery of articleCorroborative evidenceDock identificationTest identification paradeBenefit of doubt

Judgment

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 363 : 2025 INSC 145

Wahid
v.
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
(Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2020)
04 February 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
The appellants herein have preferred appeal against their
conviction. Appellant-W was convicted by the Trial Court for offence
punishable u/s.392 r/w. s.397 IPC and appellant-A was convicted
u/s.392 r/w. s.397 IPC and s.25(1) of the Arms Act. Their appeals
were dismissed by the impugned order of the High Court.

Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.392, 397, 411 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25 –
Prosecution case was that complainant (PW-1) while travelling
along with other passengers in a Gramin Sewa (mini bus)
got robbed by four persons armed with weapons – FIR was
registered – Appellant-W was convicted by the Trial Court for
offence punishable u/s.392 r/w. s.397 IPC, but acquitted u/s.411
IPC – Appellant-A was convicted and sentenced u/s. 392 r/w.
s.397 IPC and s.25(1) of the Arms Act – Both the appellants
filed appeal before the High Court which were dismissed –
Correctness:
Held: Having perused the materials on record, prosecution has
succeeded in establishing that on the night of 3.12.2011 the
travellers of Gramin Sewa were robbed by four persons – However,
mere proof of robbery is not sufficient to hold that the accused
persons who were put to trial were the ones who committed the
offence – In the instant case, neither the accused persons were
named nor they were known either to the complainant or the
witnesses from before – Prosecution case is rather too simple, that
is, two days later, on 5.12.2011, PW-1 himself noticed the accused
persons standing near DTC Bus Depot; immediately thereafter he
informed the police about their presence; the police went to the
spot, arrested them, and, upon search of those persons, recovered

* Author
364 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

from them weapons including screw driver, as described in the FIR,
used by the robbers to threaten the passengers – The aforesaid
prosecution story of four accused persons, not belonging to one
family, being spotted together at a public place (i.e., bus depot),
that too near a police station, just two days after the incident,
that too with weapons corresponding to the weapons held by the
robbers mentioned in the FIR, appears too well-crafted to be real –
More so, the arrest memorandums of the four accused which
indicate that they were arrested post 10 pm on 5.12.2011 – This
was quite an odd hour for any person to venture out on a winter
night – Such a story appears improbable because PW-1, who is
not a resident, and had suffered an act of robbery just two days
before, in ordinary circumstances would not venture out so late
in the night, just to hand over receipt regarding purchase of his
robbed mobile – These circumstances make the prosecution
story relating to the manner of arrest highly improbable – There is
discrepancy regarding receiving information about the presence of
accused persons at the bus depot from PW-1 – According to PW-10,
information was given when the police party, which had already left
the police station, met PW-1 at the red light – Whereas according to
PW-13 the police team left the police station with the complainant
(i.e., PW-1) and at bus depot, PW-1 pointed towards the accused
persons – PW-1’s statement-in-chief is also on similar terms as
that of PW-13 – However, there is no disclosure in the testimony
of any of the police witnesses that before leaving the police
station, the information provided by PW-1 regarding spotting the
accused was entered in any of the diaries maintained at the police
station – From the statements of key witnesses, and on cumulative
analysis of the circumstances, while taking into consideration the
statements of accused-appellants recorded u/s. 313 of the CrPC
that they were picked up from home and falsely implicated by
the police, a serious doubt is cast on the manner in which the
prosecution claims to have arrested the accused – Admittedly,
no test identification parade was conducted and the statement
of PW-1 was recorded in court on 28.05.2013, that is, after 16
months of the incident – In such circumstances, not much reliance
can be placed on his statement – As far as dock identification is
concerned, the remaining two eye witnesses identified the accused
persons during their deposition in court in the year 2015, that is,
after nearly 4 years of the incident – PW-6, resident of Aligarh,
though stated that he identified the accused persons on 06.12.2011
while they were in the police lock-up, admitted that he went to
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 365

Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

the police station without being summoned at 07:30 a.m – His
statement does not inspire confidence – In the circumstance,
when three eye witnesses stated that accused persons were
not the ones who committed the crime and another one stated
that it was too dark, therefore, he could not recognise, bearing
in mind that the accused persons were not known to the eye
witnesses from before, not much reliance can be placed on the
dock identification – In such circumstances, and in absence
of corroborative evidence of recovery of looted articles at the
instance of or from the accused persons, in view of this Court,
the appellants should have been given the benefit of doubt.
[Paras 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – When FIR is lodged against
unknown persons:
Held: In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons,
and the persons made accused are not known to the witnesses,
material collected during investigation plays an important role to
determine whether there is a credible case against the accused –
In such type of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine
the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived
clue about the involvement of the accused in the crime; (b) the
manner in which the accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in
which the accused was identified – Apart from above, discovery/
recovery of any looted article on the disclosure made by, or at
the instance of, the accused, or from his possession, assumes
importance to lend credence to the prosecution case. [Para 14]

Case Law Cited
Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2022] 9 SCR 452 :
(2023) 2 SCC 353 – referred to.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.

List of Keywords
FIR; Robbery; FIR against unknown persons; Discovery of article;
Recovery of article; Corroborative evidence; Dock identification;
Test identification parade; Benefit of doubt.
366 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 201
of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLA No. 1015 of 2017

Appearances for Parties
Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Ibad Mushtaq, Ms. Akanksha Rai,
Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Praveen Chaturvedi, Praveen Chaturvedi,
Ms. Jyoti Chaturvedi, Tarun Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Chirag M. Shroff, Adv. for the Respondent.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Manoj Misra, J.

1. These two appeals impugn a common judgment and order of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi1 dated 15.11.2018, inter alia, passed in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1015 of 2017 and 1132 of 2017, whereby the
appeals of the appellants preferred against the judgment and order
of the Additional Sessions Judge-04 (Shahdara), KKD Courts, Delhi
(i.e., the Trial Court) dated 16.08.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.
78 of 2014 were dismissed.
2. The appellants along with two others were tried for offences
punishable under Sections 392/397/411 of the Indian Penal Code,
18602 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 19593 in connection with F.I.R.
No. 512 of 2011 at PS Nand Nagri, Delhi.
3. Appellant Wahid was convicted by the Trial Court for offence
punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC, but
acquitted under Section 411 IPC. For his conviction under Section
392 read with Section 397 IPC, Wahid was sentenced to undergo

1 The High Court
2 IPC
3 Arms Act
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 367

Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

rigorous imprisonment of seven years with fine of Rs. 5000/-, coupled
with a default sentence of two years. Insofar as appellant Anshu
is concerned, he was convicted and sentenced under Section 392
read with Section 397 IPC to seven years of rigorous imprisonment
along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, coupled with a default sentence of two
years; besides that he was also convicted for offence punishable
under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced thereunder to
three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-,
coupled with a default sentence of six months.
4. There were two other accused, namely, Narender and Arif, who were
also tried and convicted but since they are not before us, and it is
reported that they have already served the sentence awarded to them,
we do not propose to deal with the merits of their conviction, though
they had also separately preferred appeal before the High Court.
5. The appellants, Wahid and Anshu, had separately preferred appeal
against their conviction before the High Court. Their appeals were
dismissed by the impugned order.
6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeals, the appellants have
preferred these appeals.

PROSECUTION CASE
7. Before we proceed to notice the submissions made before us, it
would be apposite to notice in brief the prosecution case.
8. The prosecution case bereft of unnecessary details is that while
complainant (PW-1) was travelling along with four other passengers,
driver and conductor in Gramin Sewa (a mini bus), at about 11:25
p.m., in the night of 03.12.2011, four persons boarded the vehicle
near Gagan Cinema. Those four thereafter threatened the passengers
with knives, screw driver and country-made pistol, robbed them of
their mobile(s) and cash and deboarded the vehicle. The driver
thereafter took the passengers/victims to nearby police (PCR). The
police officer present there was apprised of the incident and later a
formal first information report (FIR) was registered at Police Station,
Nand Nagri, Delhi as FIR No. 512/2011.
9. The investigation of the case was carried out by PW-13 who,
allegedly, on the basis of information provided by the complainant
(PW-1), effected the arrest of all four accused on 05.12.2011 from
368 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

near DTC Bus Depot at Nand Nagri. According to the prosecution,
at the time of arrest, Narender alias Bhola (non-appellant) had a
knife, Anshu (appellant in criminal appeal no. 202/2020) had a
country-made pistol, Arif (non-appellant) had a button operated
knife and Wahid (appellant in criminal appeal no. 201/2020) had
a screw driver. Besides that, they had some cash. On 6.12.2011,
according to the prosecution, looted mobile(s) were recovered
separately at the instance of accused Narender and Arif i.e., non-
appellants.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the materials on record.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
11. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the FIR named
none of the accused persons; the incident occurred in the darkness
of night; the accused and the witnesses were not known to each
other; the arrest of four accused, who were not related to each other,
from one place and at one time, based on identification by PW-1 is
highly doubtful; no test identification parade was conducted by the
investigating agency to test whether the other passengers could
recognise them; no looted articles were recovered from any of the
accused; even recovery of knives, screw driver and country-made
pistol is rendered doubtful by the statement of PW-1 to the effect
that he was made to sign on blank papers; PW-2, PW-3 and PW-
12, who were also travelling in the same Gramin Sewa, specifically
stated that the accused were not those who committed the robbery;
PW-14, who was also travelling in that Gramin Sewa stated that it
was dark and, therefore, he is unable to recognise the robbers; and,
besides above, there are material contradictions in the statement
of witnesses who were allegedly travelling in that Gramin Sewa. In
these circumstances, benefit of doubt ought to have been extended
to the accused persons.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submitted that even if few
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, conviction can
be sustained on the basis of testimony of other witnesses who had
no motive to falsely implicate the accused. The testimony of PW-1,
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 369

Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

PW-5 and PW-6 is reliable and sufficient to hold the accused guilty.
In these circumstances, once the courts below, after appreciating
the evidence, have held the accused appellants guilty, no case is
made out to interfere with the findings returned by the courts below
in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

ANALYSIS
13. Having perused the materials on record, we find that prosecution
has succeeded in establishing that on the night of 3.12.2011 the
travellers of Gramin Sewa were robbed by four persons, who
entered and exited the vehicle together after looting the travellers
of their belongings such as cash and mobile phones, under threat
of knife, country made pistol and screw driver. In respect of the
above allegations, there is no discrepancy in the FIR and the eye
witnesses (i.e., travellers, conductor and driver of Gramin Sewa)
account. Moreover, the FIR of the incident has been lodged at the
first opportunity. However, mere proof of robbery is not sufficient to
hold that the accused persons who were put to trial were the ones
who committed the offence.
14. In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and
the persons made accused are not known to the witnesses, material
collected during investigation plays an important role to determine
whether there is a credible case against the accused. In such type
of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence
regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the
involvement of the accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which
the accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the accused
was identified. Apart from above, discovery/ recovery of any looted
article on the disclosure made by, or at the instance of, the accused,
or from his possession, assumes importance to lend credence to
the prosecution case.

Manner in which accused persons were arrested and recovery
effected appears doubtful
15. In the instant case, neither the accused persons were named nor
they were known either to the complainant or the witnesses from
before. Prosecution case is rather too simple, that is, two days later,
on 5.12.2011, PW-1 himself noticed the accused persons standing
370 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

near DTC Bus Depot at Nand Nagri; immediately thereafter he
informed the police about their presence; the police went to the spot,
arrested them, and, upon search of those persons, recovered from
them weapons including screw driver, as described in the FIR, used
by the robbers to threaten the passengers.
16. The aforesaid prosecution story of four accused persons, not
belonging to one family, being spotted together at a public place
(i.e., bus depot), that too near a police station, just two days after
the incident, that too with weapons corresponding to the weapons
held by the robbers mentioned in the FIR, appears too well-crafted
to be real. More so, when we consider it in conjunction with the
arrest memorandums of the four accused which indicate that they
were arrested post 10 pm on 5.12.2011. This is quite an odd hour
for any person to venture out on a winter night. PW-1, who is a
witness to the arrest memorandums, in his statement- in- chief said
that while he was going to the police station to handover mobile
purchase receipt, he spotted the accused persons. Such a story
appears improbable because PW-1, who is not a resident of Nand
Nagri, and had suffered an act of robbery just two days before, in
ordinary circumstances would not venture out so late in the night,
just to hand over receipt regarding purchase of his robbed mobile.
These circumstances make the prosecution story relating to the
manner of arrest highly improbable. Therefore, it should have put the
court on guard as to look for corroborative pieces of evidence before
accepting the prosecution story as credible. One such corroborative
piece of evidence could be recovery of looted articles from the
accused which, in the present case, is absent inasmuch as the trial
court has already acquitted the appellant(s) of the charge of offence
punishable under Section 411 IPC.
17. Taking a guarded approach we have therefore carefully examined
the prosecution evidence to be satisfied about the truthfulness of
the prosecution story. Having done so, we found that there appears
some discrepancy in the statement of PW-10 (i.e., head constable
Mursaleen, posted at P.S. Nand Nagri) and PW-13 (i.e., Narendra
Singh Rana, the investigating officer of the case) regarding the place
where they received information about the presence of the accused
persons at the bus depot. In this regard, PW-10 (HC Mursaleen)
stated:
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 371

Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

“On 5/12/2011, I was posted at PS Nand Nagri, on that
day, I joined the investigation in the present case. I
along with IO Insp. Narendra Singh Rana, SI Rajiv, Ct.
Kushal Pal, Ct. Jasvir went to red light Nand Nagri, where
complainant Imtiaz met us, who informed to the IO that
four persons involved in the present case are standing
near bus depot, Nand Nagri. After receiving information,
we rushed to the Nand Nagri, bus depot where we found
that four persons were standing near bus depot. Upon
seeing them, complainant pointed out towards them by
stating that they are the same persons who had committed
offense with him.”
On the other hand, PW-13, Inspector Narendra Singh Rana (i.e.,
the investigation officer of the case) stated:
“On 5.12.2011, I was posted as Inspector in PS Nand Nagri,
Delhi. On that day, I along with SI Rajiv, HC Mursaleen,
Ct. Jasvir and Kushal Pal along with complainant left
the police station for investigation of the case. When we
reached at main road in front of Nand Nagri DTC Depot,
the complainant Imtiaz pointed out towards four young
men i.e., Arif, Wahid, Narendra alias Bhola and Anshu,
who are present in the court today. He further stated that
the accused persons had robbed him and others in Gramin
Seva bus while they were travelling from Nand Nagri to Gol
Chakkar, Loni. I with the help of staff had apprehended the
accused persons and interrogated and after interrogation
all the accused persons were arrested…”
The statement-in-chief of PW-1 (i.e., Imtiaz), however, corroborates
the statement of PW-13 noticed above. PW-1 in his statement-in-
chief stated:
“The police had asked me to produce the copy of the
receipt of my mobile phone vide which I had purchased
the same. I went to my house and brought the same on
the next day and produced the same before the police.
Same is Ex PW1/C which bears my signature at point A.
At that time when I was going to the PS, I saw all the four
accused persons present in the court were standing at the
372 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

bus stop of Nand Nagri. I told the police that the accused
persons are standing at the bus stop of Nand Nagri. The
police along with me immediately went there and on my
pointing out they had apprehended all the four accused
persons present in the court.”
18. From the statements extracted above, what is clear is that, according
to the prosecution, the police got information about the presence of
accused persons at the bus depot from PW-1. However, where that
information was given by PW-1 to the police, there is discrepancy in
the testimony of witnesses who were part of the team that effected
arrest of the accused persons. According to PW-10, information
was given when the police party, which had already left the police
station, met PW-1 at the red light of Nand Nagri whereas according
to PW-13 the police team left the police station with the complainant
(i.e., PW-1) and at bus depot, PW-1 pointed towards the accused
persons. PW-1’s statement- in -chief is also on similar terms as that
of PW-13 inasmuch as he states that when he spotted the accused
persons near the bus depot, enroute to the police station, he went
to the police station and informed the police about their presence
there, whereafter the police team accompanied him to apprehend the
accused persons. But if the version of PW-1 is correct, there ought
to have been a record of receipt of such information at the police
station. Because, in ordinary course, before leaving the police station,
based on any information, the police officer enters the information in
the relevant diary and then proceeds. Here there is no disclosure in
the testimony of any of the police witnesses that before leaving the
police station, the information provided by PW-1 regarding spotting
the accused was entered in any of the diaries maintained at the
police station. Besides that, PW-1, during cross-examination, made
a self-contradictory statement which renders the prosecution case
regarding arrest and recovery from the accused persons doubtful.
The relevant portion of PW-1’s statement during cross-examination
is extracted below:
“I.O. of the case met him at the police station when the
PCR took him and the accused persons to the police
station. On the next day, he again met me at the bus stop
of Nand Nagri where he remained with the I.O. for 10 to
15 minutes, thereafter, the I.O. did not meet me. I saw the
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 373

Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

accused person present in the Court on the date of the
occurrence and thereafter, I have seen them in the court
on the date of this matter.
(emphasis supplied)

The underscored portion of PW-1’s statement would suggest that
PW-1 had not seen the accused persons on 5.12.2011 (i.e. the date
of arrest) because the date of the occurrence was 3.12.2011.
19. In respect of recovery from the accused persons, PW-1, who was
signatory to seizure memorandums, during cross-examination, stated:
“It is correct that IO obtained my signature on blank papers
and had not recorded my statement. It is further correct
that statement Ex. PW1/A bears my signature at point A,
but at that time it was blank.”
20. From the statements of key witnesses extracted above, and on
cumulative analysis of the circumstances discussed above, while
taking into consideration the statements of accused-appellants
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 that they were picked up from home and falsely implicated
by the police, a serious doubt is cast on the manner in which the
prosecution claims to have arrested the accused. Unfortunately, the
High Court and the trial court were not circumspect while evaluating
the prosecution evidence and thereby failed to test the prosecution
evidence on the anvil of probability as was required in the facts
of the case. For the reasons above, we hold that the arrest of the
accused persons in the manner alleged by the prosecution is highly
doubtful and unworthy of acceptance.
21. Once we doubt the manner in which the accused were stated to
have been arrested, the alleged recovery of screw driver, knives
and country-made pistol made at the time of arrest is rendered
unacceptable. Moreover, weapons /articles allegedly recovered are
not so unique that they cannot be arranged.

Dock Identification by few eye witnesses not reliable
22. Normally, where accused persons are unknown and are not
named in the FIR, if the prosecution case as regards the manner
in which they were arrested is disbelieved, the Court should
374 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

proceed cautiously with other evidence and objectively determine
whether all other circumstances were proved beyond reasonable
doubt.34In this light we shall now consider the evidence relating to
identification of the accused persons. Admittedly, this is a case of
night incident. Though seven eye witnesses of the incident were
examined by the prosecution, only three (i.e., PW-1, PW-5 and
PW-6) identified the accused in court. Out of the remaining four,
three including the driver categorically stated that the accused
persons are not those who robbed the passengers that night.
The fourth one stated that it was too dark, therefore, he is unable
to recognise. PW-1, at whose instance the arrest of the accused
persons was allegedly effected, during cross-examination, stated
that he saw the accused persons first on the date of the incident
and second on the date fixed in the case. Admittedly, no test
identification parade was conducted and the statement of PW-1
was recorded in court on 28.05.2013, that is, after 16 months of
the incident. In such circumstances, not much reliance can be
placed on his statement.
23. As far as dock identification by the remaining two eye witnesses is
concerned, they identified the accused persons during their deposition
in court in the year 2015, that is, after nearly 4 years of the incident.
PW-6, though stated that he identified the accused persons on
06.12.2011 while they were in the police lock-up, admitted that he
went to the police station without being summoned. Interestingly, as
per his description in the record, he is a resident of Aligarh. During
cross-examination, he stated that he visited the police station on
06.12.2011 at 07:30 a.m. Considering that he is a resident of Aligarh,
his statement that he visited the police station without summons on
06.12.2011 at 07:30 a.m. does not inspire our confidence. Admittedly,
memory of those witnesses was not tested through a test identification
parade. In such circumstances, when three eye witnesses stated
that accused persons were not the ones who committed the crime
and another one stated that it was too dark, therefore, he could not
recognise, bearing in mind that the accused persons were not known
to the eye witnesses from before, not much reliance can be placed
on the dock identification.

3. See Manoj and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, paragraph 88
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 375

Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

24. In such circumstances, and in absence of corroborative evidence
of recovery of looted articles at the instance of or from the accused
persons, in our view, this was a fit case where the appellants should
have been given the benefit of doubt.
25. In view of the analysis and conclusions above, these appeals are
allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set
aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge(s) for which they
were tried and convicted. They are reported to be on bail. They need
not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan