Delhi High Court
Aryan @ Maxi vs State on 4 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 30.07.2025
Pronounced on : 04.08.2025
+ CRL.A.1195/2016
ARYAN @ MAXI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar and Mr. Piyush
Aggarwal, Advocates
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State
+ CRL.A.1026/2017
VICKY @ VIKAS @GANJA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Moksh Arora, Advocate
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants, through the present appeal filed under Section 374
Cr.P.C. impugns the judgment on conviction dated 24.09.2016 and order on
sentence dated 29.09.2016 in SC No.191/2013 arising out of FIR
No.186/2013 registered under Sections 392/394/397/34 IPC at P.S. Rani
Bagh, Delhi. On conclusion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to be
filed under Sections 392/394/397/411/414/34 IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GAUTAM CRL.A.1195/2016 & CRL.A.1026/2017 Page 1 of 10
ASWAL
Signing Date:05.08.2025
17:15:10
Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant in CRL.A.1195/2016,
namely, Aryan @ Maxi, has been convicted under Sections 392/394/34 IPC,
and the appellant in CRL.A.1026/2017, namely, Vicky @ Vikas @ Ganja,
has been convicted under Sections 392/394/397 IPC. There were two other
accused, namely Neeraj @ Rahul who was convicted under Sections
392/394/34 IPC and Ispreet Singh @Honney who was convicted under
Section 411 IPC.
Vide order on sentence, appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for
07 years for the offence under Section 392 IPC along with fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in default whereof, appellants were sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for 02 months and further sentenced to undergo RI for
09 years for the offence under Sections 394 IPC along with fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default whereof, appellants were sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for 02 months. The appellant/Vicky was additionally
sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years for the offence under Section 397 IPC.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellants were
also given the benefit of Section 428 CrPC.
2. Wheels of the investigation were put in motion on receipt of a
complaint from one Anuj Sehdev (PW10), wherein it was stated that on
05.06.2013, the complainant was coming back from District Centre, Janak
Puri in his Wagon-R car bearing No. DL-3C-BJ-6784 and when he reached
near Madhuban Chowk, Pitampura, Delhi, at about 11:45 pm, three boys,
who were on a motorcycle, stopped and inquired about the way to Power
House, Pitampura. While the complainant was guiding them, they robbed
him of his car. The complainant protested and lay down on the bonnet, and
when they could not remove him from the bonnet, one of the boys fired a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GAUTAM CRL.A.1195/2016 & CRL.A.1026/2017 Page 2 of 10
ASWAL
Signing Date:05.08.2025
17:15:10
shot in the air, and later the same person fired a shot at the complainant. The
complainant sustained a bullet injury on his left hand and consequently, he
fell down on the road. Thereafter, they ran away with the car alongwith 2
mobile phones and one purse containing Rs.4000, debit cards, credit cards,
driving license and RC of the said car. The above articles were lying in the
car. Consequently, the present FIR was registered. Tracking of one of the
stolen phones lead to co-accused Ishpreet @ honey, who stated that the
same was sold to him by Appellant/Aryan.
3. Pertinently, the role assigned to the appellant/Aryan @ Maxi is that,
he along with the two main accused, i.e. Neeraj @ Rahul and
appellant/Vicky, came on the motorcycle to commit robbery, and appellant
/Vicky was the person who fired at the complainant. The bullet was seized
from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/B. The appellant/Aryan @ Maxi
was arrested on 26.06.2013 and thereafter, he made the disclosure statement
(Ex.PW-28/B) and the stereo of the said car was recovered from his house
(Ex.PW-28/E) at his instance. The car was recovered at the instance of co-
accused Neeraj and appellant/Vicky. The pistol and cartridge (Ex.PW-7/B
and Ex.PW-7/C resp.) used in the commission of crime and purse (Ex.PW-
25/A) including articles as mentioned in paragraph 2 were recovered at the
instance of appellant/Vicky. During the course of investigation, the role of
co-accused Ishpreet @ honey, was revealed by PW14, Sanjeev Malhotra,
who stated that co-accused Ishpreet offered to sell him the robbed mobile
phone.
4. Post completion of the investigation, charges for the offence under
Sections 392/394/411/34 IPC were framed against the appellants.
Additionally, charge under Section 397 IPC was framed against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GAUTAM CRL.A.1195/2016 & CRL.A.1026/2017 Page 3 of 10
ASWAL
Signing Date:05.08.2025
17:15:10
appellant/Vicky. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In total, the prosecution has examined 30 witnesses, out of which PW-
10 is the complainant, PW-13 and PW-15, public witnesses who deposed on
similar lines with the complainant. Rest of the witnesses were public
witnesses, police witnesses, medical and forensic witnesses who deposed
about various aspects of the investigation. Statement of the appellants were
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein they denied the prosecution’s
case and claimed innocence and false implication. They, however, did not
examine any defence witness.
6. Pertinently, Co-accused Neeraj @ Rahul also preferred an appeal
against conviction before this Court bearing Crl.A.No.1025/2017. However,
he chose not to press the appeal on merits and rather prayed that he be
released on period already undergone, which was allowed vide order dated
18.07.2023.
Similarly, Crl.A.No.987/2016 preferred by the co-accused, Ishpreet
@ honey has also not been pressed on merits and he has been directed to be
released on period already undergone, as noted in the order dated
30.07.2025.
7. While assailing the conviction, it was contended on behalf of Mr.
Naagar, learned counsel for the appellant/Aryan @ Maxi that the
identification of the appellant is not established beyond reasonable doubt as
the complainant failed to identify the appellant/Aryan in trial and further, the
testimony of PW-13 and PW-15 did not corroborate the testimony of
complainant insofar as appellant’s identity is concerned. It is next contended
that the recovery of the car stereo at the instance of the appellant/Aryan @
Maxi is also not duly proved as the prosecution failed to put any suggestion
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GAUTAM CRL.A.1195/2016 & CRL.A.1026/2017 Page 4 of 10
ASWAL
Signing Date:05.08.2025
17:15:10
with respect to the same at the stage of recording his statement under
Section 313 CrPC.
8. The sentence of Appellant/ Vicky was suspended, however, he after
being released failed to appear and all efforts to serve him remained
unsuccessful. As per status reports, the appellant could not be traced and
produced despite issuance of bailable/non-bailable warrants by this Court
vide orders dated 28.11.2024 and 24.07.2025 respectively. In this
eventuality, Mr. Moksh Arora, Advocate was appointed as an Amicus to
represent the appellant/Vicky.
Learned Amicus contended that apart from the testimony of PW-10,
there is no other witness to corroborate and establish the identity of the
appellant. It is further submitted that the prosecution has relied on the
testimony of PW-13 & PW-15 to corroborate the incident of robbery,
however, both the witnesses failed to identify the appellants, and neither
deposed anything with respect to the factum of gunshot injury to the
complainant. It is further submitted that offence of Section 397 IPC as
alleged was not attracted against the appellant/Vicky @ Vikas @ Ganja, as
even as per the prosecution version, the gun was used after the offence of
robbery was already committed.
9. Per contra, the learned APP for State would submit that the identity
of the appellants was duly established in the testimony of PW-10 and the
details of the incident were further corroborated by the testimony of PW-13
& PW-15. Furthermore, the recoveries affected at the instance of the
appellants, along with MLC and FSL results, substantiate the version of the
complainant. It is also submitted that the refusal to participate in TIP
proceedings by the appellants further draws an adverse inference against
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GAUTAM CRL.A.1195/2016 & CRL.A.1026/2017 Page 5 of 10
ASWAL
Signing Date:05.08.2025
17:15:10
them. Pertinently, the appellant/Vicky is stated to be the BC of the area.
10. The complainant’s testimony would reveal that on 05.06.2013 at
around 11.45 pm, 3 boys on a motorcycle had made him stop his car in front
of Shiva Market, Madhuban Chowk on the pretext of asking for directions
and blocked his car with their bike. While one of the accused,
appellant/Aryan ran away, the other two, being Neeraj @ Rahul and
appellant/Vicky, removed the complainant from his car and tried to escape.
However, due to rush on the traffic signal, the complainant was able to lie
on the bonnet of the car in an attempt to stop them, even as the accused
continued driving the car, with the complainant on the bonnet. The accused
stopped the car at some distance and appellant/Vicky took out his gun and
fired two shots, the first in the air near the foot of the complainant and the
second at his hand, injuring him, as a result of which he let go of the car and
the accused escaped from the spot. PW13 and PW15 were public witnesses
who corroborated the complainant’s version of the incident. They deposed
that they saw one boy on the bonnet of a 4-wheeler at Madhuban Chowk red
light at 11.30 pm. They also stated that someone was giving beatings to the
person who was crying for help. However, they could not identify any of the
assailants.
11. The complainant’s MLC (Ex.PW9/A) was proved by PW9. The MLC
records that the complainant had sustained a punctured wound , approx. 1
cm in diameter over the left lower third of forearm and an abrasion
approximately 1x .5 cm in size present over the anterior aspect of the chest.
The MLC thus lends credence to the complainant’s version of receiving a
gunshot wound and injuries due to laying down on the bonnet.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GAUTAM CRL.A.1195/2016 & CRL.A.1026/2017 Page 6 of 10
ASWAL
Signing Date:05.08.2025
17:15:10
12. Firstly, with respect to the appellant/Vicky @ Vikas @ Ganja, the
complainant in his testimony before the court has correctly identified the
appellant/Vicky as the person who had given beatings to him and fired a shot
due to which he sustained a bullet injury. As noted above, the factum with
respect to the gun shot injury is further corroborated by the MLC (Ex.
PW9/A). The appellant/Vicky was arrested in connection with FIR No.
297/13 and at the time of arrest, one pistol containing one magazine with
two cartridge and one cartridge in barrel of the pistol were recovered from
him. The recovery of the pistol and the bullets used in the commission of
offence was duly proved by PW7 and PW30 respectively and the
complainant’s purse that was lying in the robbed car was also recovered at
the instance of the appellant/Vicky (Ex.PW-25/A). The FSL report (Ex.
PW12/A) was proved by, A. Dey, Principal Scientific Officer (PW12) who
stated that on 16.08.2013, one sealed parcel was received by him for
examination with respect to the present case and in the said parcel, he found
one 7.65 mm fired bullet (marked BC/1 by him). After forensic examination,
in the FSL Report, he opined that the said bullet had been fired through 7.65
mm country-made pistol (earlier marked W/2).
13. The contention that the gun was not used during the commission of
the offence but only used later after the robbery was committed, is meritless.
As per complainant, while the accused were trying to get away in
complainant’s car, he had chased and latched on to the bonnet of car. The
gun was used by the appellant at the time of commission of the offence and
thus the act falls squarely within the ambit of Section 397 IPC. This Court is
fortified in reaching the conclusion with the observations of a Co-ordinate
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GAUTAM CRL.A.1195/2016 & CRL.A.1026/2017 Page 7 of 10
ASWAL
Signing Date:05.08.2025
17:15:10
Bench of this Court in Asif v. State (NCT of Delhi)1 wherein it was held as
under:-
“9. It is trite law that even if the weapon of offence is shown after
snatching had taken place for running away along with snatched article,
offence under Section 397 IPC is attracted. Section 390 Cr.P.C. provides
that in a robbery, there is either theft or extortion. It is further provided
that theft is ‘robbery’ if, in order to committing of the theft or in
committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away
property obtained by theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or
attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or
fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
Thus, if the offender uses the deadly weapon at the time of committing
robbery or dacoity which would include even the fear of instant death or
instant hurt or wrongful restrain or an attempt to cause death or hurt or
wrongful restraint even while carrying away or attempting to carry away
the property obtained by theft, the act of the offender will fall within the
four corners of Section 397 IPC. Thus the contention of learned counsel
for the appellant that Section 397 1PC is not made out as the blade was
allegedly shown after the mobile phone was robbed, deserves to be
rejected. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant did not consider the necessary ingredients of an offence of
robbery which in turn is a necessary Ingredient of an offence punishable
under Section 397 IPC.”
14. In view of the foregoing discussion and considering that the offence
of robbery has been committed by the appellant/Vicky using a deadly
weapon, i.e., desi pistol which is further substantiated by the medical and
forensic evidence available on record, I find no infirmity in the judgment on
conviction of the appellant/Vicky by the Trial Court and the same is upheld.
15. Insofar as the conviction of appellant/Aryan @ Maxi is concerned, it
is noted that the complainant at the time of recording of his deposition failed
to identity the appellant/Aryan @ Maxi. Apparently, at that point of time, the
Trial court adopted a strange procedure when it asked the complainant to
identify the appellant of the two persons who were present in court on that
1
2022 SCC OnLine Del 270
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GAUTAM CRL.A.1195/2016 & CRL.A.1026/2017 Page 8 of 10
ASWAL
Signing Date:05.08.2025
17:15:10
day, one of whom was the appellant/Aryan. The complainant pointed
towards the appellant/Aryan and stated that the third boy was having a
similar stature as him, and deposed as under:-
“Jaise hi teen ladke bike par aaye un me se isi stature ka ladka
tha. Usne helmet nahi pehna tha. Usko maine theek se nahi
pehchana tha lekin isi built-up aur stature ka tha. 85 % yehi
stature tha.”
During his cross-examination, the complainant has categorically
stated that he was seeing appellant/Aryan for the first time in Court itself and
he had not got any sketch prepared. The appellant’s identity is not further
established by any other prosecution witness. Furthermore, both the
appellants refused to participate in the TIP proceedings by stating that their
photographs had been taken in the police station which had been shown to
other persons.
16. Therefore, analysing complainant’s testimony, though he stated that
the accused who had run away at time of incident had similar body structure
but that by itself cannot be held to conclusively identifying the appellant as
the accused person.
17. This Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the abovesaid
facts and the considering that in absence of any other incriminating evidence
against the appellant/Aryan @ Maxi to connect him with the commission of
offence, his conviction under sections 392 and 394 IPC cannot be sustained
and therefore, the appellant is acquitted for the commission of said offences.
18. Resultantly, while CRL.A.1195/2016 preferred by appellant/Aryan @
Maxi is allowed, CRL.A.1026/2017 preferred by appellant/ Vicky @ Vikas
@ Ganja stands dismissed. As per the nominal roll dated 30.07.2025,
received from the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail No.10, Rohini, it is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GAUTAM CRL.A.1195/2016 & CRL.A.1026/2017 Page 9 of 10
ASWAL
Signing Date:05.08.2025
17:15:10
revealed that the appellant/Vicky was granted interim bail on 05.10.2015 till
27.10.2015, however, subsequently, he failed to surrender. Bailable/ Non
bailable warrants have also been issued by this court. Considering the same,
it is directed that the appellant/Vicky shall be taken into custody, as and
when arrested, to serve the remaining sentence.
19. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Trial
Court as well as to the concerned Jail Superintendent.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 04, 2025
ry-rj
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GAUTAM CRL.A.1195/2016 & CRL.A.1026/2017 Page 10 of 10
ASWAL
Signing Date:05.08.2025
17:15:10