Learned counsel for the appellants contended that neither names of robbers nor their features were mentioned in the FIR and the complainant was examined as witness about 02 years 08 months after the occurrence, which according to her lasted for 1-2 minutes only and, therefore, she could not have identified the robbers correctly for the first time in the Court and consequently identity of appellants No.1 and 2 as robbers is not established. It was also argued that the complainant in the witness box mentioned names of appellants No.1 and 2 but the same were not mentioned in the FIR. It was next contended that at the time of apprehension by the police, Jaspal Singh had one toy pistol and Jagdish Rai had nothing incriminating and, therefore, there was no ground for their arrest which was illegal ab initio and, therefore, their alleged disclosure statements and recovery of stolen property at their instance are rendered illegal. It was also argued that accused Gurjant Singh was allegedly arrested with a revolver and he stands acquitted in that case and, therefore, his arrest was also not legal and consequent disclosure statement and recovery by him is also vitiated. It was also submitted that Niranjan Singh PW-3 of the instant case had also appeared as PW-1 in the case against Gurjant Singh under the Arms Act. It was also submitted that Makhan Singh Ex-Sarpanch and Sukhmander Singh Sarpanch, in whose presence recovered articles were identified, have not been examined and the recovered ornaments were not mixed with other similar ornaments and, therefore, there was no proper identification of the ornaments. It was also submitted that site plans of all the places of occurrence were not prepared and according to one site plan Ex.PH/1, the place of recovery was neither owned nor possessed by accused Gurjant Singh.
