Delhi High Court – Orders
Asha vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~34 & 35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 760/2017
ASHA .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Mr. Kamlesh
Kumar, and Mr. Gaurav Kalra,
Advocates, with Appellant in person.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahlot, APP for the
State
+ CRL.A. 765/2017
MANJU @ MANI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Mr. Rupel Gupta,
and Ms. Antra Mishra, Advocates,
with Appellant in person.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahlot, APP for the
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
ORDER
% 22.07.2025
1. The present appeals have been instituted under Section 374 Cr.P.C.
against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 09.06.2017 and order on
sentence dated 04.07.2017 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court, North-West District, Rohini, Delhi in the case arising out of
FIR No. 05/2013 registered under Sections 328/379/392/394/411/120-B/34
IPC at P.S. Rithala Metro.
Vide the aforesaid judgment and order on sentence, the
CRL.A. 760/2017 & 765/2017 Page 1 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2025 at 21:57:08
appellant/Asha was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411
IPC and the appellant/Manju was convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 379 IPC. Appellant/Asha was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and to a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In
default of payment of fine, she was directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months. Appellant/Manju was sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
In default of payment of fine, she was directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was given to
both the appellants.
2. Pithily put, the prosecution’s case is that appellant/Manju made the
complainant’s acquaintance during their metro journey and caused her to
temporarily lose her senses by administering an intoxicating substance.
When the complainant regained awareness a few hours later, she realized
that her jewellery, mobile phone, and other valuables were missing.
Following the registration of an FIR, an investigation was conducted, which
led to the arrest of six individuals, including the two appellants herein. The
prosecution asserts that appellant/Manju, along with other co-accused,
drugged and robbed the complainant, and that the complainant’s stolen
mobile phone came to the share of appellant/Asha. The prosecution
examined thirteen witnesses in support of its case and asserted that a clear
conspiracy was established, which stands proved in view of the judicial TIP
of the complainant’s stolen items.
3. As regards appellant/Asha, the complainant’s mobile phone, which
was under surveillance, was found to be in use by her during the
investigation. PW13 SI Nand Lal deposed that on 04.02.2013,
CRL.A. 760/2017 & 765/2017 Page 2 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2025 at 21:57:08
appellant/Asha was apprehended after the complainant’s stolen mobile
number was traced to her. PW10 WHC Kamlesh, who was present with SI
Nand Lal at the time, corroborated this testimony, confirming that
appellant/Asha was found in possession of the stolen mobile phone. Neither
appellant/Asha nor her husband, Ashok Kumar (accused no. 3 before the
Trial Court), disputed the possession of the mobile phone but claimed that it
had been left behind by a passenger in Ashok Kumar’s autorickshaw, and
was innocuously handed over to appellant/Asha by him. Further, during the
investigation, Ashok Kumar led the police to his residence, where a gold
kara belonging to the complainant, along with some loose strips of Ativan
2mg, was recovered. These items were seized and identified by the
complainant during the judicial TIP. The testimony of PW5 ASI Rajesh
Kumar, regarding the recovery of the stolen kara from Ashok Kumar,
remained uncontroverted. The Trial Court noted that, even if the mobile
phone had been left in Ashok Kumar’s TSR, appellant/Asha or her husband
had a duty to inform the police immediately, which they failed to do.
4. As regards appellant/Manju, the complainant testified that she first
encountered appellant/Manju when the complainant stopped near the
Chandni Chowk metro station to bargain for shawls with a hawker on the
footpath. Appellant/Manju approached her from behind and initiated a
conversation. Later, appellant/Manju assisted the complainant in using the
escalator at the metro station and boarded the same train. During the metro
journey, appellant/Manju allegedly made the complainant inhale an
intoxicating substance, after which the complainant lost her senses. It was at
this time that appellant/Manju is said to have taken advantage of the
complainant’s state and stolen her jewellery, mobile phone, and other
CRL.A. 760/2017 & 765/2017 Page 3 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2025 at 21:57:08
valuables. The complainant deposed that all the stolen items were taken by
appellant/Manju, and she proved her statement as Ex. PW3/A. She further
testified that she had gone to P.S. Rithala Metro on 05.03.2013, where she
identified appellant/Manju correctly. During the trial, the complainant again
correctly identified appellant/Manju. In her statement recorded under
Section 313 CrPC, the appellant/Manju denied the allegations, claiming that
she had been falsely implicated. She further stated that she had never met
the complainant and was not acquainted with any of the co-accused, except
for accused no. 4, Devender Pal Singh (her relative). The Trial Court
concluded that the complainant had withstood the test of cross-examination
and correctly identified appellant/Manju. The Trial Court noted that there
was no apparent reason for the complainant to falsely implicate
appellant/Manju, especially given that there was no enmity between the two.
5. This Court, based on the material produced and keeping in mind the
facts and circumstances, concurs with the findings of the Trial Court. The
testimony of complainant is consistent on the aspect of identity and the role
played by the appellant/Manju. The stolen articles, on being recovered from
possession of the appellants, were duly identified in trial. After going
through the impugned judgment, this Court is of the considered view that no
grounds to interfere with the same are made out. Consequently, the
conviction of appellant/Asha is upheld qua the offence under Section 411
IPC; and the conviction of appellant/Manju is upheld qua the offence under
Section 379 IPC.
6. At this stage, learned counsels for the respective appellants, on
instructions from the respective appellants who are both present in person,
state that the appellants do not challenge their conviction under the aforesaid
CRL.A. 760/2017 & 765/2017 Page 4 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2025 at 21:57:08
sections, and pray instead that the sentences awarded to them be modified to
the period already undergone by them.
7. It is stated that appellant/Asha is an illiterate elderly woman belonging
to a poor strata of society. It is further stated that she has three children: two
daughters, who are married, and one 21-year-old son, who remains
unmarried. It is also stated that her husband is deceased. The offence in
question pertains to the year 2013. The latest nominal roll on record, dated
07.02.2025, indicates that appellant/Asha has served 1 month and 15 days of
incarceration, with satisfactory jail conduct. The learned APP states on
instructions that appellant/Asha is not involved in any other case.
8. It is stated that appellant/Manju is a housewife and the sole caretaker
of her two minor children: a 13-year-old daughter and a 5-year-old son. It is
further stated that her husband is employed. The offence in question pertains
to the year 2013. The latest nominal roll on record, dated 07.02.2025,
indicates that appellant/Manju has served 10 months and 8 days of
incarceration, with satisfactory jail conduct. The learned APP, on
instructions, states that appellant/Manju is not involved in any other case.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the sentences of both the appellants are
modified to the period already undergone. Their respective bail bonds are
cancelled and their respective sureties stand discharged.
10. A copy of this order be communicated to the Trial Court as well as to
the concerned Jail Superintendent.
11. Both the present appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
JULY 22, 2025/nb
CRL.A. 760/2017 & 765/2017 Page 5 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2025 at 21:57:08