taken by them from the complainant in April 1999. There is no explanation as to why the appellants would have kept the money with themselves for three years without spending the same. It appears that appellants were arrested in another case registered against them in the year 2002 and they were falsely involved in this case. From a perusal of the custody certificate of the appellants, placed on record, it is evident that appellants were acquitted in FIR No. 115/2002 registered against them at Police Station Murthal under Section 399, 402, 412, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 25 of the Act. Complainant was not known to appellants Sandeep and Subhash. Had the complainant known the said appellants, he would have given their names at the time of registration of FIR. Hence, identification of the accused by the complainant, while appearing in the Court, is also rendered doubtful. Complainant had not even given the number of the vehicle at the time of registration of the FIR. Therefore, there was no material on record to connect the appellants with the vehicle with the help of which the crime was committed. The disclosure statements were allegedly suffered by the appellants while they were in police custody. As per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only that part of the statement of an accused made before the police is admissible in evidence if on the basis of the said disclosure statement, some discovery/recovery is effected. The recovery of money from the appellants on the basis of their disclosure statements, is doubtful. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the alleged disclosure statements suffered by the appellants while in police custody. It is a settled proposition of law that prosecution is required to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. However, whenever there is doubt in the GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.17 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
