Delhi District Court
State vs Vipin Kumar on 6 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(FAST TRACK COURT), SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Mr. Sharad Gupta
Sessions Case No. 255/2018
CNR No. DLSW010084142018
FIR No. : 13779/2017
Police Station : Dwarka South
Under Section : 392/397/411/482/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act
In the matter of :
State
versus
1. Vipin Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Amarjeet Singh,
R/o H. No. 45, Gangotri Enclave, Gopal Nagar,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
2. Anil Kumar @ Monu,
S/o Late Sh. Tej Singh,
R/o H. No. 3, Gangotri Enclave,
Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
3. Sonu,
S/o Sh. Zile Singh,
R/o H. No. 35, Madhav Enclave,
Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
Date of institution : 12.09.2017
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 17.04.2018
Date of receipt by way of transfer : 07.09.2022
SHARAD Date of conclusion of arguments : 28.07.2025
GUPTA Date of judgment : 06.08.2025
Digitally signed State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
by SHARAD FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 1 of 21
GUPTA
Date: 2025.08.06
16:04:34 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. The accused (1) Vipin Kumar (2) Anil Kumar @
Monu and (3) Sonu were sent to face trial U/s
392/397/482/411/34 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act on 07.05.2017,
at about 11.15 pm, at Service Road, Near CNG Pump, Sector-9,
Dwarka, Delhi all the above named accused persons alongwith
their one more accomplice Katwa (not arrested) in furtherance of
their common intentions robbed the complainant Mr. Deepak S/o
Sh. Harbir of his Wagon R car bearing registration no.
UP13AT2563 and his mobile phone and while committing the
said robbery, accused Anil Kumar @ Monu and Vipin Kumar
used deadly weapon i.e. a pistol. It has also been alleged that on
19.05.2017, all the above named accused persons were found in
joint possession of the aforesaid robbed Wagon R Car which they
had retained knowing or having reasons to believe that the same
was a robbed property and they were using the said Wagon R car
with a fake number plate of DL9CAB3355. It is also the case of
prosecution that on 19.05.2017 at the time of their apprehension,
accused Anil Kumar @ Monu and Vipin Kumar were found in
possession of a country made pistol and two live cartridges each,
without any permit or license in contravention of the provisions
of Arms Act.
CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. The case of the prosecution as gleaned from the
SHARAD charge-sheet is that on 07.05.2017 on receipt of DD no. 41 A, SI
GUPTA Saveen Kharb reached at the spot where the complainant Mr.
Digitally signed by
SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
Date: 2025.08.06 FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 2 of 21
16:04:42 +0530
Deepak met him and he got recorded his statement wherein he
alleged that his car had been stolen by 3-4 boys as informed to
him by a person who was standing there. SI Sarveen Kharb
prepare rukka, got the present FIR registered at PS Dwarka
South, prepared site plan and made search for the accused
persons. During investigation on 09.05.2017, complainant Mr.
Deepak visited the police station and got recorded his
supplementary statement wherein he alleged that on the date of
the incident, he was robbed by 4 boys, of his Wagon R car and
his mobile phone on the point of a pistol and that due to fear, he
could not tell the complete and true facts to the police. In view of
the supplementary statement of the complainant, Section
392/397/34 IPC were added in the investigation of the present
case.
3. On 18.05.2017, the investigation of this case was
marked to ASI Roshan Lal, AATS/SW, who on the basis of a
secret information, prepared a raiding team and apprehended
accused Vipin Kumar, Anil Kumar @ Monu and Sonu in
possession of the robbed car of the complainant which the
accused persons were driving/using with a fake number plate of
DL9CAB3355. During the cursory search of accused Vipin
Kumar and Anil Kumar @ Monu, one country made pistol each
and two cartridges each were recovered. ASI Roshan Lal
prepared the sketches of the aforesaid illegal arms and
ammunition recovered from accused Vipin Kumar and Anil
Kumar @ Monu, sealed and seized them in the present case. IO
ASI Roshan Lal also seized the recovered Wagon R car of the
Digitally
signed by
SHARAD complainant and added Section 411/482/34 IPC and 25/54/59
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.06
16:04:48
+0530 State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 3 of 21
Arms Act in the investigation of the present FIR. The accused
persons, namely, Vipin Kumar, Anil Kumar @ Monu and Sonu
were arrested in the present case and were produced in the court
in muffled faces. IO moved an application for TIP of all the
apprehended accused persons. Accused Vipin and Anil refused to
participate in the TIP proceedings, whereas accused Sonu
voluntarily participated in the TIP proceedings, however, the
complainant Mr. Deepak failed to identify him during the TIP
proceedings.
4. During further investigation, IO sent the exhibits to
the FSL, obtained FSL result and obtained Sanction U/s 39 Arms
Act. IO recorded the statements of witnesses and collected
necessary documents. After completion of the investigation,
charge-sheet was filed in the court.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
5. In light of the police report and the documents filed
alongwith the same, cognizance was taken vide order dated
12.09.2017 and the case was committed for trial to the Court of
Sessions vide order dated 17.04.2018.
6. The case was received by way of transfer in this
Court on 09.11.2022.
CHARGE
7. Vide order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the learned
predecessor of this Court, charge for the offences punishable
SHARAD under Section 392/34 IPC, 411 and 482/34 IPC was framed
GUPTA against all the accused persons, namely, Vipin Kumar, Anil
Digitally signed by
SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 4 of 21
Date: 2025.08.06
16:04:54 +0530
Kumar @ Monu and Sonu. Further charge for the offence
punishable U/s 397 IPC was framed against accused Anil Kumar
and Vipin Kumar. Charge for the offence punishable U/s 25 Arms
Act was also framed against accused Anil Kumar @ Monu and
Vipin Kumar. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the
charges and claimed trial.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
8. Vide order dated 04.12.2024, in compliance with the
provisions of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., accused persons,
namely, Anil Kumar, Vipin Kumar and Sonu were called upon to
admit or deny the genuineness of the TIP proceedings dated
22.05.2017 of accused Vipin, Anil and Sonu, FSL Report no.
2017/F-3871 dated 30.06.2017 and Sanction U/s 39 Arms Act
dated 22.08.2017 which were admitted by the accused and in
view of the admissions made, the evidence of the concerned
witnesses were dispensed with.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
9. The prosecution in all examined seven (7) witnesses
to prove the charge against the accused persons.
10. PW-1 ASI Shyam Singh partially remained IO of
this case on 17.06.2017, while the IO ASI Roshan Lal was on
leave.
11. PW-1 (inadvertently also recorded as PW-1, now
being referred to as PW-1A) Mr. Deepak Kumar is the
complainant/victim of the present case. His testimony in detail
SHARAD
GUPTA shall be discussed in the later part of this judgment.
Digitally signed by
SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
Date: 2025.08.06 FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 5 of 21
16:05:01 +0530
12. PW-2 Ct. Sujeet had joined the investigation with
the IO ASI Roshan Lal and he was part of the raiding team which
apprehended accused Vipin Kumar, Anil Kumar @ Monu and
Sonu and recovered the robbed Wagon R Car from their joint
possession and the country made pistols and cartridges from the
possession of accused Vipin Kumar and Anil Kumar.
13. PW-3 HC Partap Singh joined the investigation of
this case with the IO on 21.05.2017 at the time of recovery of hte
documents of vehicle bearing no. UP13AT2563 from the house
of accused Vipin.
14. PW-4 SI Sarveen Kharb is the initial IO of this case.
15. PW-5 HC Amit Kumar had deposited the exhibits of
this case at FSL Rohini.
16. PW-6 Retired SI Roshan Lal is the subsequent
investigating officer of this case.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
17. In their statements recorded under Section 313
Cr.PC, accused Vipin Kumar, Anil Kumar @ Monu and Sonu
denied the entire incriminating circumstances appearing in the
evidence against them. They claimed that they have been falsely
implicated in this case. They claimed that they did not make any
disclosure statement to the police and that the police officials
have deposed falsely.
18. The accused persons did not lead any evidence in
SHARAD their defence.
GUPTA
Digitally signed by State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
SHARAD GUPTA FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 6 of 21
Date: 2025.08.06
16:05:06 +0530
19. The record has been carefully perused. The
respective submissions of Mr. Girish Kumar Manhas, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Umesh
Kumar, Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons have been duly
heard and duly considered.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Evidence adduced to establish Charge for the offences punishable
U/s 392/34 IPC and Section 397 IPC
20. In order to prove the charge against the accused
persons, namely, Vipin Kumar, Anil Kumar @ Monu and Sonu in
respect of offences punishable U/s 392/34 IPC and 397 IPC
respectively, the prosecution was required to prove that on the
alleged date, time and place, accused Vipin Kumar, Anil Kumar
@ Monu and Sonu in furtherance of their common intention with
their one more associate Katuva (not arrested) robbed the
complainant of his Wagon R Car and a mobile phone and while
committing the said robbery, accused Vipin Kumar and Anil
Kumar @ Monu used deadly weapons i.e. pistols.
21. For establishing the aforesaid allegations, the star
witness of the case of prosecution is PW-1A Mr. Deepak Kumar,
who is the victim as well as the complainant in the present case.
22. PW-1A Mr. Deepak Kumar, while appearing in the
witness box deposed that he used to drive his own Wagon R Car
no. UP13AT2563 which was attached with Ola company and that
SHARAD on 07.05.2017, at about 10.30 p.m, he went to CNG Pump
GUPTA Sector-9, Dwarka to fill the CNG. He added that after filling the
Digitally signed by
SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
Date: 2025.08.06 FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 7 of 21
16:05:13 +0530
CNG, he purchased chowmein/rice from a kiosk situated near the
pump and was eating the same in his car on the service road of
the pump, when a person came and knocked the glass of the
driver side of his car. He stated that his car was locked from
inside and when the said person knocked, he rolled down half
glass of driver side. He further deposed that the said person asked
him to drop him to sector 21 Dwarka to which he refused saying
that after eating his food, he had to go to Bulandshehar but the
said person insisted him to drop him saying that he was in some
emergency. He further deposed that at that time, one another
person knocked left front side glass of the door and when he
turned his face to see the other person on the left, the person on
his right side had put his hand inside the car from the half opened
glass and he unlocked the car from his side. He further deposed
that the person who was on left side of the car had muffled his
face with a cloth piece and as such he could not see his face. He
added that the said person sat on the front left seat beside him
and had put a pistol on his left side waist. He further deposed that
in the meanwhile, one another person entered the car from the
rear door and he had put something i.e. pistol/katta on his back
near his neck and the person who was on his right side door took
out the keys of his car from ignition and asked him to get out of
the car or else they would shoot him with the weapon and throw
his body on the back side of his car. He added that the said
person dragged him out from the car and one of those persons
had hit him with the butt of pistol/katta on his back side near his
Digitally
neck and they threw him out of the car and left with his car.
signed by
SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
23. PW-1A further deposed that he went to the owner of
2025.08.06
16:05:20
+0530
State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 8 of 21
the kiosk of the chowmein and told him about the incident, who
made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone as his wallet
containing Rs. 7000/-, his ATM Card, his Driving Licence, his
Aadhar Card and some cards, his mobile phone and another set
of Rs. 7000/- lying in dash board of the car in some papers were
also taken away by those persons alongwith his car. He further
deposed that after 10-15 minutes of making call at 100 number,
police came there and they made inquires from him. He stated
that the police officials tried to locate the car and the offenders,
however, when it could not be located, he was taken to the police
station where his statement was recorded by the police. He stated
that in the complaint, they (police officials) did not mention
about the details of cash lying in his car and wallet, though he
had narrated the same to them. He added that in the PS, he was
told that if he would give a statement that his car had been
robbed/snatched, he would not get the claim of his car from
Insurance company, to which he asked the police officials to
write the true facts of the incident. He identified his statement
Ex.PW1/A.
24. PW-1A further asserted that on 19.05.2017, he
received a call from police informing him that his car had been
recovered and they called him to the PS to identify the same. He
stated that he went to PS and identified his car and on
25.05.2017, he got released his car on superdari from court.
25. PW-1A in his testimony recorded in the court
specifically deposed that he cannot identify any of the offenders
SHARAD as he had seen the face of only one of those persons but he
GUPTA cannot identify him also due to lapse of time and also because the
Digitally signed by State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
SHARAD GUPTA
FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 9 of 21
Date: 2025.08.06
16:05:27 +0530
incident occurred during the night hours and it was dark.
26. PW-1A also could not produce his car in the court,
which according to him was seized by the bank as he could not
pay the loan EMIs. He, however, identified his signatures on the
Panchnama of the car Ex.PW1/B and the photographs of his car
Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. He stated that his car was recovered with fake
number by the police.
27. PW-1A was declared hostile and was cross-
examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he did not support
the case of prosecution on the point of identity of the accused
persons. During his cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for
the State, PW-1A deposed that his statement Ex.PW1/A was
recorded by police after the incident and that he had not narrated
the true facts in his statement Ex.PW1/A that after filling the
CNG, he parked his car and was eating chowmein near the
footpath; that after some time when he returned, he found his car
missing from there, as he had forgotten to lock his car; that one
person standing there told him that his car had been stolen by 3-4
persons; and that he searched his car when he failed to trace it,
he called at 100 number and that his car was stolen by unknown
persons.
28. During his further cross-examination by the Ld.
Addl. PP for the State, PW-1A admitted that on 09.05.2017, he
gave his statement to the police on the lines of his examination-
in-chief recorded in the court and had stated in his statement dt
09.05.2017 that due to the aforesaid reasons, he got perturbed
SHARAD
and scared and as such he could not narrate the real sequence of
GUPTA
Digitally signed by
SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
Date: 2025.08.06 FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 10 of 21
16:05:33 +0530
facts to the police and on 09.05.2017, he went to the police
station and gave his detailed correct statement in the manner in
which the incident took place.
29. PW-1 A further deposed that he had not stated in his
statement Ex.PX to the police that while he was sitting in his car
in the service road and was eating chowmein after some time one
Swift Desire white colour car came and stopped, in which four
persons were sitting; or that from the said car, three persons came
out near him and asked him to drop them at Najafgarh; or that
the fourth person in the said Swift Car which was parked on his
right side followed his car. He was confronted with his statement
Ex.PX where all these facts were stated. PW-1A volunteered that
he had stated to the police in his statement that he could only
identify one person amongst those persons.
30. During his further cross-examination by the Ld.
Addl. PP for the State, the accused persons, namely, Sonu, Vipin
and Anil @ Monu were specifically pointed to him, however,
even on seeing them, PW-1A specifically stated that none of the
accused persons were present at the spot or did the abovesaid act
with him.
31. PW-1A Mr. Deepak Kumar denied that the police
had correctly recorded his statement or that having been won
over by accused person or due to threat, pressure or undue
influence, he was deliberately not giving true and correct version
of his statement or that for the said reason, he was not identifying
the accused persons.
SHARAD
GUPTA 32. PW-1A Mr. Deepak Kumar was not cross-examined
Digitally signed State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
by SHARAD
GUPTA FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 11 of 21
Date: 2025.08.06
16:05:40 +0530
on behalf of the accused persons despite opportunity.
33. From the above detailed recapitulation of the
testimony of PW-1 Mr. Vinod Kumar who is the sole eye witness
of the incident being the victim himself, it is clear that he has not
supported the case of prosecution with regard to the identity of
accused persons as the assailants/robbers. Even on accused
persons having been specifically shown to him, he could not
identify any of the accused persons as the persons who had
robbed him. He asserted that during the incident he could see the
face of only one assailant which also he was unable to
recognize/identify as the incident took place at night and it was
dark. PW-1 was cross-examined in detail by the Ld. Addl. PP for
the State, however, despite cross-examination by the Ld. Addl.
PP for the State, he did not support the case of prosecution
regarding identity of the accused persons. Therefore, the
testimony of PW-1 is of no aid to the case of prosecution.
34. Besides PW-1A Mr. Deepak Kumar, the other
witnesses cited or examined by the prosecution are either formal
in nature or are the police officials who joined/conducted
investigation of this case on different dates and therefore, their
testimonies are also of no aid to the case of prosecution with
regard to the identity of accused persons as the assailants who
had committed robbed the complainant. The sole witness to the
incident i.e. PW-1A Mr. Deepak Kumar having turned hostile
sounded the death knell of the prosecution version and
completely demolished the prosecution version with regard to the
offences punishable U/s 392/34 IPC and Section 397 IPC.
SHARAD
GUPTA
Digitally signed by State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
SHARAD GUPTA FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 12 of 21
Date: 2025.08.06
16:05:47 +0530
35. Admittedly, besides the testimony of PW-1 Mr.
Deepak Kumar, there is no scientific or any other corroborating
evidence to connect the accused persons with the alleged offence.
No CCTV footage of the incident was either collected during
investigation or produced in the court.
36. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State
that accused Vipin Kumar and accused Anil Kumar @ Monu
refused to participate in the TIP proceedings which have been
admitted by them in the court and the refusal of the accused
persons to participate in the TIP proceedings is sufficient to show
their complicity in the alleged offence. This court is, however, of
the opinion that in the absence of any other incriminating
evidence whether oral, written or scientific, against the persons,
namely, Vipin Kumar and Anil Kumar @ Monu as discussed
above, the mere fact that they had refused to participate in the
TIP proceedings is not sufficient to convict them for the offences
charged with. So far as accused Sonu is concerned, it is a matter
of record that the complainant/victim PW-1 Mr. Deepak Kumar
could not identify him even during the TIP proceedings and the
TIP proceedings qua accused Sonu failed.
37. It is argued on behalf of the State that in the present
case, the robbed Wagon R Car was recovered from the possession
of all the accused persons on 19.05.2017. It is further argued that
various robbed articles including RC of the robbed car, certificate
of fitness, Contract Permit and Insurance of the said car were
SHARAD recovered at the instance of accused Vipin Kumar on 21.05.2017
GUPTA at his instance from his house. It is argued that in view of the said
Digitally signed by recoveries, a presumption U/s 114 B Indian Evidence Act that the
SHARAD GUPTA
Date: 2025.08.06
16:05:57 +0530 State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 13 of 21
accused are in fact the persons who had robbed the car and other
articles of the victim can be drawn and the accused can be
convicted for commission of offence U/s 392/34 IPC and Section
397 IPC. In this context, it is pertinent to observe that the date of
the incident is 08.05.2017 as per the prosecution version. The
victim disclosed the correct facts that the car and other articles
were robbed on 09.05.2017, however, the car was recovered on
19.05.2017 while the documents of the said car were recovered
on 21.05.2017. Having regard to the fact that the recoveries were
effected about ten days and twelve days respectively after the
commission of the offence, to my mind, this is not a fit case for
drawing of the statutory presumption U/s 114 B Indian Evidence
Act. This is especially more so when the victim has failed to
identify any of the accused as the culprits.
38. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of
the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against
the accused persons, namely, Vipin Kumar, Anil Kumar @ Monu
and Sonu in respect of offences punishable U/s 392/34 IPC and
Section 397 IPC.
Evidence adduced to establish Charge for the offences punishable
U/s 411 IPC, 482/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act
39. The accused persons, namely, Vipin Kumar, Anil
Kumar @ Monu and Sonu have also been charged for the
offences punishable U/s 411 IPC with the allegations that on
19.05.2017, on the road going towards Sector 19 from Sector 18
A, near Authority T-Point, Dwarka, they all were found in joint
SHARAD possession of the robbed Wagon R Car bearing no. UP13AT2563,
GUPTA
Digitally signed by
SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
Date: 2025.08.06 FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 14 of 21
16:06:03 +0530
which they had kept/retained knowing or having reasons to
believe the same to be stolen property. As per the prosecution
version, the accused persons in furtherance of their common
intention had put up a false property mark i.e. fake registration
number DL9CAB 3355 on the recovered car, the correct
registration number whereof was UP13AT2563. Further
allegations against the accused persons i.e. Anil Kumar and Vipin
Kumar are that on the said date, time and place, they were both
found in possession of a country made pistol each and two live
cartridges each. As per the case of prosecution, on 21.05.2017,
the documents of the robbed vehicle bearing no. UP13AT2563
were recovered from the house of accused Vipin Kumar which
were kept in a plastic raxine cover under the mattress of bed in a
room. However, it is a matter of record that accused Vipin Kumar
was not separately charged in respect of the said recovery.
40. In order to establish the recovery of the robbed
Wagon R Car bearing registration no. UP13AT2563 bearing fake
number plate DL9CAB3355 from possession of accused Vipin
Kumar, Anil Kumar @ Monu and Sonu, and the recovery of one
pistol and two cartridges each from the possession of accused
Anil Kumar @ Monu and Vipin Kumar, the prosecution has
examined PW-2 Ct. Sujeet and PW-6 Retired SI Roshan Lal.
41. As per PW-2 Ct. Sujeet and PW-6 Retired SI Roshan
Lal, on 19.05.2017, on the basis of a secret information, a raiding
team was constituted, which reached at the spot i.e. on the way
between Sector 18 A to Sector 19 A near Transport Authority,
where they placed barricades and started checking for the
SHARAD vehicles. As per PW-2 and PW-6, on the pointing out of the
GUPTA
State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
Digitally signed by FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 15 of 21
SHARAD GUPTA
Date: 2025.08.06
16:06:10 +0530
secret informer, they stopped a Wagon R Car which was having
the number plate of DL9CAB3355 coming from Sector 18 A
towards Sector 19 A. Accused Vipin, Anil and Sonu were
apprehended from the said Wagon R Car. The said Wagon R car
was found to be a robbed property and it was also discovered that
the original number of the said Wagon R car UP13AT2563. The
car was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/E while the fake number
plate was seized vide memo Ex.PW6/A1. The accused persons
were arrested at the spot itself vide memos Ex.PW2/F to
Ex.PW2/H and their personal search was conducted vide memos
Ex.PW2/I to Ex.PW2/K.
42. Furthermore, both PW-2 and PW-6 have deposed
that on cursory search of accused Vipin Kumar, one pistol loaded
with two live rounds was recovered. The sketch of the same was
prepared vide Ex.PW2/A. After duly sealing the same with seal
of RLY, the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/C. Also, both
PW-2 and PW-6 have deposed that on cursory search of accused
Anil Kumar @ Monu, one pistol loaded with two live rounds was
recovered. The sketch of the same was prepared vide Ex.PW2/B.
After duly sealing the same with seal of RLY, the same was
seized vide memo Ex.PW2/D.
43. A careful perusal of the testimonies of PW-2 and
PW-6 reveals that they have given all the material
details/particulars of the recoveries and the manner/spot of
recovery of the robbed Wagon R Car i.e. UP13AT2563 from the
joint possession of the accused persons, namely, Vipin Kumar,
SHARAD Anil Kumar @ Monu and Sonu and regarding recovery of one
GUPTA fire arm each with two cartridges each from possession of
Digitally signed by State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
SHARAD GUPTA FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 16 of 21
Date: 2025.08.06
16:06:16 +0530
accused Anil Kumar and Vipin. Both these witnesses have been
cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons, however,
nothing material could be brought on record to disbelieve their
testimonies. Except a bald suggestion that nothing was recovered
from the possession of any of the accused persons and the
recoveries were planted, the accused persons have not come
forward with any explanation in respect of the recovery of the
aforesaid robbed Wagon R Car from their possession or the
recovery of one fire arm each and two cartridges each from
possession of accused Vipin and Anil Kumar.
44. To establish the identity of the case property i.e.
Wagon R Car bearing no. UP13 AT 2563, the prosecution has
relied upon the testimony of PW-1A Mr. Deepak Kumar, who
even though turned hostile and did not support the case of
prosecution with regard to the identity of the accused persons,
has identified his Wagon R car in the photographs Ex.P1 to P7.
He also stated that the fact that in the said photographs, the
Wagon R car is having the number plate of DL9CAB3355. He
asserted that in one of the photographs, the engine number and
chasis number were also visible and that his car was recovered by
the police with a fake number plate. It is also a matter of record
that PW-1A could not produce the car in the court and stated that
the same was repossessed by the concerned bank as he failed to
repay the EMIs of the loan taken qua the said car, however, the
accused persons through their counsel did not insist for
production of the car in court in view of the statement of PW-1 A
and as the photographs and superdari documents pertaining to car
SHARAD number UP13AT2563 were on record. Furthermore, to reiterate,
GUPTA
Digitally signed by State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
SHARAD GUPTA FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 17 of 21
Date: 2025.08.06
16:06:24 +0530
PW-1 has not been cross-examined on behalf of the accused
persons despite opportunity. Therefore, the identity of the robbed
Wagon R Car bearing no. UP13AT2563 recovered from the joint
possession of accused Vipin, Anil and Sonu has been successfully
established by the prosecution. The prosecution has also been
able to establish that at the time of its recovery, the said car was
having fake number plate i.e. DL9CAB3355.
45. Furthermore, the prosecution is relying upon the
FSL result Ex.A4 as per which the weapons recovered from
possession of accused Vipin Kumar and Anil Kumar @ Monu
were fire arms as defined in the Arms Act and the bullets
recovered from their possession were ammunition as defined in
the Arms Act. The prosecution is also relying upon the requisite
Sanction U/s 39 Arms Act Ex.A5 as per which the concerned
authority had given Sanction U/s 39 Arms Act for prosecution of
accused Vipin Kumar and Anil Kumar. The accused persons have
not disputed the said FSL result Ex.A4 and the requisite sanction
Ex.A5. Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish that
accused Vipin Kumar and Anil Kumar were found in possession
of one fire arms each and two bullets each on 19.05.2017.
46. It is argued on behalf of the accused that public
persons were not joined during the recovery of the car and fire
arms and as such the accused persons have been falsely
implicated in this case. It is observed that merely because public
persons were not joined would not falsify the prosecution case
especially when the testimony of PW-2 and PW-6 has withstood
the test of cross-examination and their credibility could not be
Digitally
signed by
SHARAD
shaken. Furthermore, it is not the case of the accused persons that
SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date: State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
2025.08.06
16:06:30 FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 18 of 21
+0530
there was some previous enmity between them and the police
officials for which the recovery was planted upon them. Reliance
can be placed on the pronouncement in Surinder Kumar vs The
State Of Punjab, AIR 2020 SC 303 wherein the judgment of
Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 521 was quoted
with approval and it was observed that merely because public
witnesses were not joined would not falsify the prosecution
version and merely because case of prosecution is based on
evidence of official witnesses, does not mean that the same
should not be believed. The relevant portion of the said
pronouncement is reproduced hereinunder : –
“15. The judgment in the case of Jarnail Singh v.
State of Punjab4, relied on by the counsel for the
respondent-State also supports the case of the
prosecution. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court
has held that merely because prosecution did not
examine any independent witness, would not
necessarily lead to conclusion that accused was
falsely implicated. The evidence of official witnesses
cannot be distrusted and disbelieved, merely on
account of their official status. In the case of State,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil & Anr. it was held as
under:
“It is an archaic notion that actions of the
Police Officer, should be approached with initial
distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial
trust on the actions and the documents made by the
Police. At any rate, the Courts cannot start with the
presumption that the police records are
untrustworthy. As a presumption of law, the
presumption would be the other way round. The
official acts of the Police have been regularly
performed is a wise principle of presumption and
recognized even by the Legislature”.
47. It is argued on behalf of the accused persons that the
stand of the complainant/victim PW-1 A Mr. Deepak was not
consistent. That initially, he stated that the car was stolen,
SHARAD however, thereafter, he stated that the car was robbed from his
GUPTA
Digitally signed by
State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
SHARAD GUPTA FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 19 of 21
Date: 2025.08.06
16:06:39 +0530
possession. In this context, to my mind, Ld. Addl. PP has rightly
argued that it has come on record that the complainant PW-1A
Mr. Deepak has stated during investigation as well as in his
cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that he was
under fear due to the incident and for this reason he could not
disclose the correct facts initially. To my mind, a cogent reason
for the complainant/victim initially only disclosing that his car
was stolen and thereafter giving the correct particulars has been
brought on record by the prosecution. Furthermore, the stand of
PW-1A Mr. Deepak was consistent that in fact, his car had been
stolen/robbed. This argument of the accused is thus liable to be
rejected.
48. In view of the above, this court is of the view that
the prosecution has successfully proved on record that the robbed
car bearing no. UP13AT2563 was recovered from the joint
possession of all the accused persons, namely, Vipin Kumar, Anil
Kumar @ Monu and Sonu on 19.05.2017 and that at that time
fake registration plate bearing no. DL9CAB3355 was put up
upon the said vehicle. The prosecution has also established that
on 19.05.2017, accused Anil Kumar @ Monu and Vipin Kumar
were found in possession of one fire arm each and two bullets
each.
CONCLUSION
49. Resultantly, accused Vipin Kumar, Anil Kumar @
Monu and Sonu are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable
U/s 392/34 IPC. Accused Vipin Kumar and Anil Kumar @
SHARAD
GUPTA Monu are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 397
Digitally signed by
SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
Date: 2025.08.06 FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 20 of 21
16:06:47 +0530
IPC.
Further, accused Vipin Kumar, Anil Kumar @ Monu
and Sonu are hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/s
411 IPC and Section 482/34 IPC.
Accused Anil Kumar @ Monu and Vipin Kumar are
also convicted for the offence punishable U/s 25 Arms Act.
50. Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open Court on 6th August, 2025.
Digitally
signed by
(SHARAD GUPTA)
SHARAD
SHARAD
GUPTA
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court)
GUPTA Date: South West District, Dwarka Courts/New Delhi.
2025.08.06
16:06:53
+0530
It is certified that this Judgment contains twenty one
(21) pages and each page bears my initials / signatures.
Digitally signed by SHARAD
SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA
Date: 2025.08.06 16:06:58 +0530
(SHARAD GUPTA)
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court)
South West District, Dwarka Courts/New Delhi.
State Vs. Vipin Kumar and Others
FIR No.13779/2017 PS Dwarka South Page 21 of 21