Delhi District Court
State vs Firoz on 30 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINEET KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No.148/2024
FIR No. 610/2023
U/S: 392/394/397/34 IPC
P.S: Madhu Vihar
State Vs. 1. Firoz
S/o Sh. Iliyas
R/o E-13/A-82, Jhuggi
New Seelampur, North-East,
Delhi.
2. Ashraf @ Ashu
S/o Sh. Abbas
R/o E-13/A-82, Jhuggi
New Seelampur, North-East,
Delhi.
Date of Committal to Sessions Court : 10.04.2024
Date of Arguments : 08.05.2025
Date of judgment : 30.05.2025
Accused Firoz represented by : Adv. Mohd. Aslam.
Accused Ashraf represented by : Adv. Amit Kumar
State represented by : Ld. Addl. PP Sh. Parmod Kumar
JUDGMENT
Summary of facts:
1. Briefly, the case of prosecution is that on 04.12.2023
upon receipt of PCR Call vide GD No. 11 with respect to
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMARKUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
16:58:45 +0530FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.1 of 40
looting, SI Shiv Om along with Ct. Jitender reached at the spot
i.e. Hasanpur village near ganda nala, I.P. Extension, Delhi,
where victim/complainant Rishabh Aggarwal met them and he
got recorded his statement to the effect that he was a resident of
Pilibhit and used to run printing press; that he came to Delhi for
buying some business material; that on 04.12.2023 at about
4.00 am he got down from a bus in front of EDM mall, he hired
an auto rickshaw for going towards Kashmiri Gate; that one
person was already sitting in the said auto on rear seat; that on
the way, driver stopped the auto and told that he was going for
urination; that after some time, he suddenly came inside the
auto and pushed the complainant; that he put a knife on the
neck of complainant and said chilla mat jo kuchh hai nikaal de
nahi to chaaku maar dunga and on the point of said knife, he
took out Rs.3000/- from the pocket of wearing pant of
complainant and Rs.1400/- from the pocket of his jacket and the
other person who was already sitting in the auto, robbed mobile
phone of complainant. After recording statement complainant,
he was got medically examined from LBS hospital; that IO
obtained the MLC bearing no. 8716/2023 of complainant on
which history of physical assault and nature of injury was
mentioned as ‘simple’ by the concerned doctor. On the basis of
statement of complainant as well as result on his MLC, the
present case FIR no. 610/2023 u/s 392/394/397/34 IPC was
registered; that during investigation, upon analyzation of CCTV
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMARKUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
16:58:54 +0530FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.2 of 40
footage of the spot, the number of TSR, in which alleged
incident took place, found out as DL-1RAB-2498 and as per
ZIPNET checking, an E-FIR bearing no. 037051/2023 was
found to be registered at P.S. Mandir Marg regarding theft of
said TSR; that said TSR was found to be stationed at the
premises of P.S. Seelampur; that upon enquiry, HC Sudhir
informed the IO that on 09.12.2023 accused Firoz was arrested
in the said E-FIR along with said stolen TSR; that 10 mobile
phones were also recovered from the possession of accused
Firoz; that accused Firoz was found to be in JC in above said E-
FIR; that upon interrogation, accused disclosed his involvement
along with co-accused Ashu in the present case; that IO got
conducted TIP of accused Firoz during which complainant
correctly identified him; thereafter accused Firoz was arrested
in the present case and at his instance, accused Ashraf @ Ashu
was arrested in the present case; that during TIP proceedings,
complainant correctly identified accused Ashraf @ Ashu and
after completion of all necessary investigation, charge-sheet
was filed against both accused Firoz and Ashraf @ Ashu before
the court of Ld. MM concerned.
2. After taking cognizance and upon compliance of section
207 Cr. P.C., this case was committed to the Sessions Court and
thereafter vide order passed by Ld. Principal District &
Sessions Judge (SHD), KKD Courts, the present case was
assigned to this Court for its trial.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
16:59:02 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.3 of 40
Charge framed against the accused
3. Upon committal, after hearing both the sides on the point
of charge, Charge was framed under Section 392/394/34 IPC
against both accused persons and in addition to it, charge for
the offence under Section 397 r/w Section 392 IPC was framed
against accused Firoz, to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
Witnesses examined
4. In order to substantiate the charge, evidence was led by
prosecution during the course of which, 10 witnesses were
examined. Brief summary of the deposition of prosecution
witnesses is as under:
PW-1 is WHC Aklesh, Duty Officer at PS Madhu Vihar
on 04.12.2023, has deposed that on 04.12.2023 at about
10/10.15 am, Ct. Jitender came in Duty Officer Room and he
handed over statement/complaint of Rishabh Aggarwal along
with original rukka prepared by SI Shiv Om to her and contents
of said statement and rukka were fed into computer system
through CCTNS Operator and FIR No. 610 dated 04.12.2023
u/s 392/394/397/34 IPC was registered, which is Ex. PW-1/A
and endorsement thereupon is Ex. PW1/B. She has further
deposed that she had issued certificate u/s 65-B of Indian
Evidence Act regarding correctness of FIR and safe custody of
computer system which is Ex. PW-1/C.VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMARKUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
16:59:10 +0530FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.4 of 40
The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel, but nothing adverse could be elicited out of her, so as
to discredit her testimony. She has denied the suggestion that
FIR is ante dated and ante timed.
PW2 Rishabh Aggarwal is the complainant, who deposed
that he along with his family were residing at Pilibhit and he
was running a printing press in the name of Puranpur Printing
Press; that on 04.12.2023 at about 3:45 am, he arrived in a bus
at back side of EDM Mall and got down from the bus; that he
hired one auto from near Maruti Showroom situated near EDM
Mall; that in the above said auto, there was one driver and
another person was sitting on the rear seat of the said auto; that
he asked driver of the said auto to drop him at Kashmere Gate
as well as for the auto fare for the same; that the fare was
agreed as Rs. 50/-; that thereafter he asked the second person
sitting besides him, as to where he was going, upon which the
said person told the complainant that he was going to Mori
Gate. During his evidence, complainant pointed towards
accused wearing red round shape T-Shirt as the person who was
sitting on the rear seat of the above said auto and upon asking
accused has revealed his name as Ashraf. Further, witness has
also pointed towards second accused standing in the dock and
stated that the said accused was the driver of the said auto and
upon asking, accused has revealed his name as Firoz. PW2
further deposed that accused Firoz took a turn at T-Point and
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMARKUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
16:59:18 +0530FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.5 of 40
after crossing the naala, there was an isolated area and he
stopped his auto there and he informed me that he wants to
urinate. Thereafter, accused suddenly came inside the auto and
pushed the complainant and sat beside him and accused put a
knife on the neck of complainant, due to which, he frightened
and started shouting, but accused Ashraf clamped his mouth
with his hand and accused Firoz abused the complainant in
filthy language; that complainant tried to rescue himself, but
accused Firoz forcibly pressed his knife on his neck and took
out Rs.3,000/- from his left pocket of wearing jeans pant; that in
the meantime, accused Ashraf took out mobile phone of
complainant from right pocket of his wearing jeans pant and
accused persons also took out an amount of Rs.1400/- from
upper pocket of his wearing jacket; that when complainant
started shouting loudly, accused Firoz tried to throw him out
from the above said auto, but could not succeed and during
scuffle, accused Firoz and complainant came outside from the
said auto and accused Firoz gave one knife blow on his face
and another knife blow on his left arm. PW2/complainant
further deposed that he sustained injuries due to the above said
knife blows; that accused Ashraf came on the driver seat and
started said auto and thereafter, both accused persons fled away
in the above said auto. PW2 further deposed that blood was
oozing from his wounds, but no one came to help him; that he
had taken lift from a bullet rider and told him about theVINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMARKUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
16:59:25 +0530FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.6 of 40
incident, and the said bullet rider made a call to police; that
after sometime, PCR vehicle as well as police official from PS
also reached at the spot and complainant got recorded his
statement; that police official got the complainant medically
examined and after sometime, he was discharged from the
hospital. PW2 further deposed that he had shown incident spot
to IO, who prepared rough site plan at the instance of
complainant; that during investigation, complainant along with
IO had checked CCTV Cameras installed near the spot and he
had also shown the route of the above said auto from where he
was taken to the spot; that he had also given description of both
accused persons to IO and also got prepared their sketch; that
during investigation, complainant had joined the judicial TIP
proceedings of both accused persons and correctly identified
both accused persons. Complainant has also correctly identified
both accused persons Firoz and Ashraf in the court.
During the course of cross examination, PW2 has
deposed that he visited Delhi 4-5 times in a year for business
purpose from his place i.e. Puranpur by private bus and it
takes around 5-6 hours from Puranpur to reach Delhi; that on
the date of incident, he spent an amount of Rs.550/- as bus fare
and bus dropped him at the parking of EDM Mall at around
3:30-4 am; that his statement was recorded at the spot. He
further deposed that from the spot, he was taken to hospital for
medical treatment and thereafter he was taken to PS; that theVINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMARKUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
16:59:33 +0530FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.7 of 40
road was busy at the time of incident, however, he voluntarily
deposed that the incident took place at isolated place situated
beside the road; that later on he was called to join TIP
proceeding at Tihar Jail. He has denied the suggestion that he
has falsely implicated accused persons in the present case and
identified them at the instance of IO. He has denied the
suggestion that he had not joined the investigation along with
IO. Thus, he was cross examined at length, however, nothing
adverse, as such, could be elicited out of him, so as to shake the
veracity of his testimony and thereby discredit the prosecution
case.
PW3 HC Jamil Khan, Duty Officer at PS Madhu Vihar in
the intervening night of 03/04.12.2023, has deposed that on
04.12.2023 at about 4.56 am, he had received information from
E-54, Operator regarding robbery of mobile phone of caller by
placing knife on neck by an auto driver. He has further deposed
that he has recorded the said information vide GD No. 0011A
and same was marked to SI Shiv Om for further action, which
is Ex. PW-3/A and print out of said GD is Ex. PW3/B.
The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel, but nothing could be elicited out of the same, so as to
discredit his testimony.
PW4 Ct. Jitender has deposed that on 03.12.2023, he was
posted as Ct. at PS Madhu Vihar; that at about 5 am, SI Shiv
Om had received a call about robbery near Ganda Nala,
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
16:59:40 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.8 of 40
Hasanpur Village; that thereafter, he along with SI Shiv Om
reached at the spot on a private motorcycle where complainant
met them; that IO SI Shiv Om made enquiry from the
complainant about the incident and from public persons near
the spot; that complainant had bruise mark on his face and
neck; that complainant was taken to LBS Hospital for his
medical examination and after his medical examination, he was
discharged from the hospital after 30 minutes; that thereafter,
they reached at the spot along with the complainant and IO had
recorded statement of complainant and rukka was prepared by
him and same was handed over to PW4/Ct. Jitender for
registration of FIR; that he reached at PS and handed over the
original statement of complainant along with rukka to Duty
officer for registration of FIR; that after one hour, Duty Officer
handed over to copy of FIR no. 610/23 u/s 392/394/397/34 IPC
along with original statement of complainant and rukka to
PW4; that thereafter, he returned to the spot and handed over
the above said documents to the IO; that complainant led them
to the spot i.e. near EDM Mall where he took auto; that IO had
checked CCTV footage of relevant time in his presence as well
as in the presence of complainant; that in the CCTV Footage,
complainant was seen standing just ahead of EDM Mall near
Maruti Competent Showroom and he was also seen while
sitting inside an auto; that Complainant also identified the said
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
16:59:48 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.9 of 40
auto which was hired by him; that thereafter, the said auto was
also seen going towards Telco-T Point.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW4
has deposed that when information regarding robbery was
received by SI Shiv Om, he along with SI Shiv Om were on
patrolling duty in the area of concerned P.S. Further, nothing
could be elicited out of the same, so as to discredit his
testimony. He has denied the suggestion that he did not join
investigation along with IO.
PW5 Sh. Prashant has deposed that he was working as
CCTV Operator at Master Control Station Delhi Police CCTV
Project 6630; that IO of the present case visited his office to see
the CCTV Footage of the present incident on the day of
incident itself; that thereafter, on 19.12.2023, IO along with
complainant again visited his office; that IO had seen CCTV
Footages covering the present incident dated 04.12.2023 and
had requested him to give copy of two CCTV Footage of dated
04.12.2023 which were covered by Camera No. A-1 ANPR
(between 3:57 am to 3:58 am) and P4 PTZ Camera (between
3:57 am to 04:00:59 hrs.), accordingly, he had provided the
above said CCTV Footage in Sandisk Pen drive capacity 16GB
along with certificate u/s 65-B IEA. PW5 further deposed that
the above said pen drive was taken into possession by IO; that
Regn. no. DL-1R-AB-2498 of an auto was traced in the said
CCTV Footage covered by ANPR Camera and said auto was
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
16:59:55 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.10 of 40
identified by the complainant as same in which incident took
place with him.
The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsels, but nothing adverse could be elicited out of him, so as
to discredit his testimony.
PW6 Dr. Chetan Chauhan, CMO, Lal Bahadur Shastri
Hospital has deposed that on 04.12.2023, he was performing
duty as CMO at LBS Hospital; that on that day at about 9:10
am, one patient/injured namely Rishabh Aggarwal was brought
into casualty by police official and he was medically examined
and treated by Dr. Deepa (J.R.); that now Dr. Deepa had left the
services of the hospital and her whereabouts are not known;
that Dr. Deepa had worked under his supervision during her
working period. PW6 has identified the signature and
handwriting of Dr. Deepa as he had seen her while writing and
signing during the course of her duty. PW6 has proved the
MLC No. 8716 as Ex. PW-6/A bearing her signature at point A.
PW6 has further deposed that as per MLC, there were two
reddish abrasions over anterior neck region (1×0.2cm) and
another reddish abrasion over right cheek (1×0.2cm) and nature
of injury was opined ‘simple fresh’ at point B.
PW7 Sh. Rajender Kumar has deposed that on
intervening night of 03-04.12.2023, he had gone to attend a
marriage function in a Marriage Home situated behind EDM
Mall; that at about 4:45 am, he was returning after attending a
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:00:03 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.11 of 40
marriage function on his bike; that when he had crossed
Hasanpur Nala, he saw that a boy was in hopeless condition and
he had also covered his neck with handkerchief, upon which he
had turned his bike and reached near the above said boy; that
upon enquiry, said boy told PW7 that he was the resident of
Pilibhit UP and was doing printing press work; that he told
PW7 that he came to Delhi for purchasing printing press
material he hired one auto from in front of EDM Mall to reach
Kashmere Gate but the driver of said auto stopped his auto near
Hasanpur Ganda Nala on pretext of urinating and driver of the
said auto along with his two associates committed robbery of
his mobile phone and some cash amount after placing surgical
blade on his neck. PW7 has further deposed that he had seen
injury over the neck of complainant and his handkerchief was
also stained with blood; that thereafter PW7 made a call on 100
number and after some time, PCR officials and local police
officials also reached at the spot and complainant was taken to
the hospital by police officials.
This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence
counsels.
PW8 HC Neeraj Singh has deposed that on 12.12.2023,
he had joined the investigation with IO/SI Shiv Om and went to
Tihar Jail no.3 and accused Firoz was interrogated by IO in my
presence in UTP office, Tihar Jail No.3; that during
interrogation, accused Firoz has admitted his involvement in the
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:01:17 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.12 of 40
present incident and he was arrested by IO; that the disclosure
statement of accused Firoz was recorded he was arrested by IO.
PW8 further deposed that accused Firoz in his disclosure
statement confessed that he along with his associate namely
Aashu, had committed robbery of Rs.4400/- and one mobile
phone from a passenger in an auto, which was stolen from the
area of Mandir Marg and during incident, Aashu was sitting
besides the victim of robbery and he was driving the above said
auto and during robbery, he placed knife on the neck of victim
of robbery; that accused Firoz further disclosed that he had
thrown the knife used during incident near railway line and he
along with accused Aashu shared the robbed money. PW8
further deposed that on 25.12.2023, he had again joined the
investigation of the present case with IO and HC Amit, and
reached at Karkardooma Court, where accused Firoz was
produced from jail; that IO had moved an application to obtain
PC of accused Firoz and one day PC was granted by the
concerned court; that accused Firoz was taken to LBS hospital
for his medical examination and after his medical examination,
he led police party to the incident spot in govt. bolero vehicle
bearing no. DL1CAG 5280 and he correctly pointed out the
incident spot i.e. Telco T Point near Ganda Nala, Hasanpur,
Delhi, by stating that he along with accused Ashu at about 4.30
am, committed robbery of Rs.4400/- and a mobile phone make
One Plus with auto passenger on the point of knife; that
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:01:24 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.13 of 40
thereafter, upon interrogation by IO in respect of weapon of
offence i.e. knife used during incident of robbery, accused Firoz
led police party to underneath Madhu Vihar fly over and he
pointed the spot where he had thrown the knife, however, knife
could not be recovered; that thereafter, accused Firoz led police
party to jhuggies of Seelampur in search of co-accused Aashu
and accused Firoz informed that Aashu used to drive auto of his
father and after arriving at jhuggi no. E-13A/237, T Huts,
Jhuggi, Seelampur, accused Firoz informed that co-accused
Aashu may be present with auto at Fruit Mandi Khatta, as he
used to station his auto there; that thereafter they reached at
Fruit Mandi, Khatta and one auto TSR no. DL-1RW-0922 was
found stationed, but accused Aashu was not found present
there; that thereafter, they reached at jhuggi no. E-13A/237, T
Huts, Jhuggi, Seelampur, Delhi and father of accused Aashu,
namely Abbas met them and he informed that Aashu was
residing with his wife at Arya Nagar, Loni; that thereafter,
police party along with Abbas and accused Firoz reached at
Arya Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP and reached at a house and
father of Aashu identifed one person sitting in the room situated
on ground floor as his son Ashraf @ Aashu; that in the
meantime, accused Firoz also identified accused Aashu @
Ashraf involved in the present case. PW8 further deposed that
accused Aashu @ Ashraf was interrogated by the IO and his
disclosure statement was recorded and he also confessed his
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:01:31 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.14 of 40
involvement with accused Firoz in the present incident; that
Accused Ashraf @ Aashu was arrested and one keypad mobile
phone colour black was also found from his possession; that
during interrogation, accused Ashraf disclosed that he had sold
the robbed mobile phone of complainant to a boy namely Ilu
near Masjid, Seelampur, Delhi for Rs.7000/- and said money
was also shared by him with accused Firoz; that they made
search of above named person namely Illu near Masjid
Seelampur, but he could not be traced; that during investigation,
accused Ashraf @ Aashu had also correctly identifed the
incident spot.
The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel for accused Ashraf @ Ashu, but nothing could be
elicited out of the same, so as to discredit his testimony.
This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence
counsel for accused Firoz.
PW9 HC Sudhir has deposed that on 09.12.2023, he was
posted as HC at PS Seelampur; that on that day at about 7.00
pm, he along with HC Vikas were on patrolling duty in area
Seelampur; that at about 7.10 pm, one secret informer met them
near Seelampur red light 66 foota road and he informed that a
person namely Firoz had a stolen auto in his possession bearing
no. DL 1R AB 2498 colour yellow grey involved in robbery
cases; that he had conveyed the above said secret information to
then SHO / Insp. Satvinder Rana, who immediately directed
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:01:38 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.15 of 40
PW9 to conduct raid. PW9 further deposed that in the
meantime, he had tried to join 4-5 public persons after apprising
them about the facts of case but they left the spot by showing
their inability to join the investigation. PW9 further deposed
that thereafter, he along with secret informer and HC Vikas
reached at ghas mandi pulia 66 foota road Seelampur, Delhi and
after pointing out by secret informer towards a stationed auto
bearing regn. no. DL 1R AB 2498, he informed PW9 that the
said auto was stolen one; that in the meantime, PW9 along with
HC Vikas reached near the above said auto and one person was
found sitting on driver seat of said auto; that upon inquiry the
above said person revealed his name Firoz s/o Illias; that at the
same time, he asked accused Firoz to show the RC of above
said auto bearing, but he did not give any satisfactorily
explanation in this regard; that at the same time , PW9 had
checked the status of above said auto bearing on zipnet
software and came to know that above said auto was case
property of case FIR no. 37051/23 PS Mandir Marg; that it was
also noticed that one green colour bag was also found beside
the driver seat; that he had checked the green colour bag and it
was found containing 10 mobile phones of different companies;
that upon checking the above said mobile phones, some of the
mobile phones were found locked and details of said mobile
phone could not be fed into zipnet software, however, three
mobile phones i.e. realme blue colour, Samsung red colour and
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:01:46 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.16 of 40
Samsung black colour were found unlocked and their IMEI
numbers were checked by PW9; that above said 10 mobile
phones were taken into possession under section 103 DP Act ;
that he had also taken into possession auto bearing registration
no. DL 1R AB 2498. PW9 has correctly identified accused
Firoz standing in the dock. PW9 further deposed that accused
Firoz was arrested and he was taken to JPC Hospital for his
medical examination; that upon preparation of kalandara under
Section 41(1)(d)/102 Cr. PC and 103 DP Act on the next day,
accused Firoz was produced before the concerned Ld. MM,
Patiala House Court; that PW9 informed the duty officer PS
Mandir Marg regarding arrest of accused person Firoz and
about the recovery of auto bearing registration no. DL 1R AB
2498; that on 11.12.2023, SI Shivam came to PS Seelampur to
inquire about the recovery of above said auto and recorded the
statement of PW9. PW9 further deposed that the above said
recovered auto was shifted to PS Mandir Marg being case
property of E-FIR No. 37051/2023 PS Mandir Marg U/s 379
IPC.
During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel for
accused Firoz, PW9 has denied the suggestion that accused
Firoz was not arrested by him or that he was deposing falsely.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel for
accused Ashraf @ Ashu, PW9 has stated that accused Ashraf
was not found sitting in the above said auto; that during
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:01:53 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.17 of 40
interrogation, accused Firoz gave information that he had
purchased the above said auto from one pehalwan.
PW10 SI Shiv Om is the Investigating Officer of this
case. PW10 has stated that on intervening night of 03-
04.12.2023, he was posted at PS Madhu Vihar as SI and he was
on emergency duty from 8 pm to 8 am; that a DD No. 11-A
regarding robbery was received and same was marked to him;
that he along with Ct. Jitender reached at the spot i.e. near
ganda nala, Village Hasanpur, Delhi, where complainant/victim
Rishabh Aggarwal met them; that complainant orally told about
the incident; that PW10/IO along with Ct. Jitender and
complainant Rishabh Aggarwal searched for accused persons
near the area, but in vain; that complainant had sustained injury
on his cheek as well as on his neck; that IO got medically
examined the complainant at LBS Hospital and thereafter, IO
along with complainant and Ct. Jitender came back to the spot
and recorded the statement of complainant, on the basis of
which rukka was prepared by IO and same was handed over to
Ct. Jitender for registration of FIR; that Ct. Jitender went to
Police Station, in the meantime, IO prepared site plan at the
instance of complainant; that thereafter, Ct. Jitender came back
to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to IO; that
IO along with complainant and Ct. Jitender again searched for
accused persons at Anand Vihar Bus Stand and outside Anand
Vihar Railway Station and also made enquiries from auto
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:02:03 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.18 of 40
drivers who were present there; that upon checking CCTV
footage of the camera installed at the entry gate of EDM Mall,
it was revealed that an auto came from the side of Anand Vihar
Bus Stand at about 3:58 hrs and after taking a turn, it stopped at
the gate of Maruti Competent Showroom, opposite to EDM
Mall; that a passenger was talking with driver of the auto
rickshaw; complainant identified the said passenger as himself;
that complainant sat into the auto rickshaw. PW10 further
deposed that got the registration number of the said auto
rickshaw from the CCTV footage and same was DL-1RAB
2498; that upon enquiry, IO came to know that the above said
auto rickshaw was found stolen from the area of PS Mandir
Marg; that IO also searched for the above mentioned auto
rickshaw, but in vain; that IO recorded supplementary statement
of complainant and relieved him from there; that during
investigation, IO searched for the auto at many places i.e.
public place as well as parking, Seelampur Metro Parking,
Police Station Gandhi Nagar and Geeta Colony, and Police
Station Seelampur; that on 11.12.2023, when IO visited Police
Station Seelampur, the above said auto rickshwa was found
inside the parking of said Polic Station; that upon enquiry, IO
came to know that that the above said auto rickshaw was seized
by HC Sudhir of PS Seelampur u/s 102 Cr. PC; that he
collected the photocopy of documents of the Kalandra prepared
on DD No. 12-A, he recorded the statement of HC Sudhir in
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:02:12 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.19 of 40
this regard; that on 22.12.2023, IO moved an application before
the Court for interrogation and formal arrest of accused Firoz at
Tihar Jail from whose possession the above said auto rickshaw
was recovered, which was allowed and IO visited Jail No. 3,
Tihar Jail along with HC Neeraj and interrogated the accused
Firoz in the present case and formally arrested him; that IO also
recorded disclosure statement of accused. PW10/IO further
deposed that on 13.12.2023, he had moved an application for
TIP of the accused Firoz before the Ld. MM and on
23.12.2023, he got conducted the TIP of accused Firoz through
complainant Rishabh Aggarwal, who had correctly identified
accused Firoz; that on 25.12.2023, IO moved an application for
one day PC of accused for search of co-accused, recovery of
case property and one day PC Remand was allowed by Ld.
MM; that during PC remand, pointing out memo of incident
was prepared at the instance of accused Firoz; that thereafter,
accused Firoz took police party for recovery of weapons under
bridge Railway Line, Madhu Vihar, but weapon could not be
recovered; that thereafter accused Firoz led police party to
Seelam Pur jhuggi, Fruit Market, for arrest of co-accused
Ashraf @ Ashu; that accused Firoz also disclosed that
co-accused Ashraf is an auto rickshaw driver and must have
parked his auto in the Fruit market; that on checking, the auto
rickshaw of co-accused Ashraf was found parked by the side of
road; that upon checking the registration number of the auto
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:02:19 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.20 of 40
was revealed as DL1RW0922; that thereafter, accused Firoz led
police party to the jhuggi of accused Ashraf i.e. E-13/237, New
Seelampur, Delhi where IO met Abbas father of co-accused
Ashraf who informed that accused Ashraf resides in Arya
Nagar Colony; that thereafter, Abbas led us to house of Chaman
i.e. Arya Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad where co-accused Ashraf was
residing on rent; that Abbas knocked the door of the room of
co-accused Ashraf which was on the street; that accused Ashraf
was found present with his wife; that accused Ashraf was also
identified by co-accused Firoz; that IO/PW10 interrogated the
accused Ashraf and recorded his Disclosure statement; that
thereafter accused Ashraf was arrested and personally searched;
that accused Ashraf was kept in muffled face since his arrest;
that thereafter, both accused Firoz and Ashraf led police party
to near Jama Masjid, New Seelampur for recovery of mobile
phone of the complainant Rishabh Aggarwal where they
informed that they had handed over the mobile phone of
Rishabh Aggarwal to one Ilu for selling the same; that IO
searched for said Ilu but he could not be traced out; that
thereafter, IO prepared pointing out memo of the spot at the
instance of accused Ashraf; that both the accused were
produced before the concerned court and sent to JC; that on
02.01.2024, IO moved an application for TIP of accused Ashraf
before the concerned court and on 05.01.2024, IO got
conducted the TIP of accused Ashraf through complainant
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:02:27 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.21 of 40
Rishabh Aggarwal who had correctly identified him; that IO
recorded supplementary statement of complainant Rishabh
Aggarwal who told IO that accused Ashraf was sitting with him
on the rear seat in the auto rickshaw whereas accused Firoz was
driver of the auto rickshaw; that complainant Rishabh
Aggarwal had explained the role of accused Ashraf in his
statement; that during investigation on 19.12.2023, IO had
collected CCTV Footage from CCTV Room Ghazipur in a pen
drive from Mr. Prashant Kumar covering the footage of
complainant Rishabh Aggarwal while getting into auto
rickshaw of accused Firoz; that said pen drive was seized by the
IO; that a certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act was also
issued by Sh. Prashant in this regard; that during investigation,
IO had collected CPCR Form on 100 number call. PW10
further deposed that he recorded statement of witnesses and
after completion of the investigation, he prepared the charge
sheet and submitted before the court.
The said witness was cross-examined, but nothing
adverse or contrary could be brought out during the course of
the same to impeach the credibility of his testimony.
5. After culmination of prosecution evidence, statement of
accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:02:34 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.22 of 40
Statement and Defence of accused
6. Statement of the accused persons u/s. 313 CrPC was
recorded, wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence
put to them and pleaded innocence by stating that they were
innocent and falsely implicated in the present case and recovery
shown has been planted upon them. Accused persons had
refused to lead any evidence in their defense.
Arguments
7. Arguments have been addressed by the State as also by
Ld. Defence Counsels for the accused persons.
8. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that prosecution has
been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that
testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses are consistent,
corroborating each other and sufficient to hold the accused
persons guilty. It has been argued that complainant/PW-2 i.e.
Rishabh Aggarwal has fully supported the prosecution case and
his testimony could not be discredited during the course of his
cross-examination. It has been further argued that present case
warrants a conviction.
9. Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsels for accused persons
have argued that the accused persons have been falsely
implicated in the present case, as they were not arrested on the
spot. It has been further argued that nothing has been recovered
from the possession as well as at the instance of accused
persons. It has been further argued that even robbed amount as
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:02:42 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.23 of 40
well as mobile phone have not been recovered. Therefore,
accused persons cannot be convicted for offence punishable u/s
392/394/34 IPC & 397 r/w 392 IPC.
10. I have duly considered the rival submissions on behalf of
Ld. Counsel for accused persons as well as Ld. Addl. PP for the
State and perused the entire material on record.
11. Before proceeding further with discussion, it is important
to examine the necessary ingredients of each offence with
which accused persons have been charged in the present case.
First of all, it is profitable to refer to the definition of Robbery
as the accused persons have allegedly committed the same with
the complainant. Robbery is defined under section 390 IPC as:
“390. Robbery.-
In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When
theft is robbery.-Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the
committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or
in carrying away or attempting to carry away property
obtained by the 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.
When extortion is robbery.-Extortion is “robbery” if
the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is
in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits
the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant
death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint
to that person or to some other person, and, by so
putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then
and there to deliver up the thing extorted.”
Digitally signed
by VINEET
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.05.30
17:02:53 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.24 of 40
12. Robbery as defined above is punishable u/s 392 IPC,
which reads as under:
“392. Punishment for Robbery.-Whoever commits
robbery shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the
robbery be committed on the highway between sunset
and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to
fourteen years.”
13. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, it is also important to refer to the following provisions:
“394. If any person, in committing or in attempting to
commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person,
and any other person jointly concerned in committing
or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
“397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death
or grievous hurt.-If, at the time of committing robbery
or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or
causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause
death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment
with which such offender shall be punished shall not be
less than seven years.”
14. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals that for the
purpose of proving the aforesaid offences, following
ingredients are required to be met:
Essential ingredients for offence under
Section 392 IPC:
To establish the offence of robbery the
prosecution has to prove:
(1) all the elements required to prove theft;
(2) the accused while committing the
aforesaid theft or in order to commit aforesaid
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMARKUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:03:02 +0530FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.25 of 40
theft voluntarily caused or attempted to cause
to any person either (a) death, or (b) hurt, or
(c) wrongful restraint, or (d) fear of instant
death of instant hurt or instant wrongful
restraint.
Section 394 IPC:
(1) Accused committed or attempted to
commit robbery;
(2) He and anyone else jointly concerned in
committing or attempting to commit robbery
caused hurt;
(3) Hurt was caused voluntarily.
Section 397 IPC:
(1) Accused persons committed robbery or
dacoity;
(2) While committing the said offence any of
the accused
(a) used a deadly weapon; or
(b) caused grievous hurt to any person; or
(c) attempted to cause death or grievous
hurt to any person
Then enhanced punishment would be
attracted to the very accused, who used deadly
weapon or attempted to cause death or
grievous hurt or caused grievous hurt.
Discussion and Findings.
15. At the outset, it is worthwhile to mention that it is a
settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has
to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt,
whereas the accused has to prove its defence in terms of
preponderance of probabilities. But what does the expression
‘beyond reasonable doubt’ mean? The said expression has been
defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:03:14 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.26 of 40
and in one such matter of Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State
of Uttarakhand, 2011CRI.L.J.663, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B. S.
Chauhan, elaborated the concept of Standard of Proof in a
criminal trial in the following terms:
“11. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein
one is free to give flight to one’s imagination or
fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the
product of an interplay between different human
emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the
guilt of the accused charged with commission of
a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by
the yardstick of probabilities, intrinsic worth and
the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final
analysis, would have to depend upon its own
facts. The court must bear in mind that “human
nature is too willing, when faced with brutal
crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions.”
Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt
the human conscience, an accused can be
convicted only on legal evidence and not on
surmises and conjecture. The law does not
permit the court to punish the accused on the
basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone.
“The burden of proof in a criminal trial never
shifts and it is always the burden of the
prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence.” In
fact, it is a settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that the more serious the offence,
the stricter the degree of proof required, since a
higher degree of assurance is required to convict
the accused. The fact that the offence was
committed in a very cruel and revolting manner
may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the
evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature
of the crime induce an instinctive reaction
against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the
facts and law. (Vide: Kashmira Singh Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159; State of
Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh & Anr. AIR
1973 SC 2407; Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs.VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMARKUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:03:24 +0530FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.27 of 40
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765;
Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs.State of West
Bengal, (2003) 12 SCC 377; and Aloke Nath
Dutta & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, (2007)
12 SCC. 230.)”
16. Further, in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, the Hon’ble court observed as:
“Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be
true; but between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’
there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the
whole of this distance must be covered by legal,
reliable and unimpeachable evidence (before an
accused can be convicted.”
Furthermore, in the judgment of Sucha Singh and
Another Vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court explained the term ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’
and observed as under:
21. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of
doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering
suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice
cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to
let hundred guilty escape, than punish an innocent.
Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to
law. [See Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and
others, AIR 1990 SC 209: 1990(1) RCR(Crl.) 297
(SC)]. Prosecution is not required to meet any and
every hypothesis put forward by the accused. [See
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992
SC 840: 1992(3) RCR(Crl.) 63 (SC)]. A reasonable
doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible
doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and
common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in
the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that
it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable
because human beings are prone to err, it is argued
that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the
meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:03:35 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.28 of 40
innocent from being punished, many guilty persons
must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. [See Inder Singh
and Anr. v. State. of (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC
1091)]. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial
evaluation. “A judge does not preside over a criminal
trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished.
A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does
not escape. Both are public duties.” (Per Viscount
Simon in Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution
(1944 AC (PC) 315) quoted in State of U.P. v. Anil
Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998). Doubts would be called
reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract
speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other
than truth.”
17. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, the
accused persons were charged in the present case for the
offences under Section 392/394/34 IPC & Section 397 r/w
Section 392 IPC. The first question which needs to be answered
for the purpose of adjudication of the present case is as to
whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge of
committing robbery by the accused persons and while
committing the same, whether in furtherance of their common
intention, they also voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant
or not.
18. In order to sustain the aforesaid charge, prosecution had
examined PW-2/Rishabh Aggarwal, who apart from being the
complainant, is also the main injured in the present case as well
as the star witness of the prosecution. He has deposed the entire
incident in a cogent manner. He has deposed that on 04.12.2023
at about 3:45 am, he arrived in a bus at back side of EDM Mall
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:03:43 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.29 of 40
and after getting down from the bus, he hired one auto from
near Maruti Showroom situated near EDM Mall. In the above
said auto, there was one driver and another person was sitting
on the rear seat of the said auto. He asked driver of the said auto
to drop him at Kashmere Gate @ fare of Rs. 50/-. During his
evidence in court, complainant pointed towards accused
wearing red round shaped T-Shirt as the person namely Ashraf,
who was sitting on the rear seat of the above said auto and
pointed towards second accused standing in the dock namely
Firoz, as the person, who was the driver of the said auto. PW2
further deposed that accused Firoz took a turn at T-Point and
after crossing the naala, there was an isolated area and he
stopped his auto there by stating that he wants to urinate and
after some time, he suddenly came inside the auto, pushed the
complainant and sat beside him and put a knife on the neck of
complainant, due to which, he got frightened and started
shouting, but accused Ashraf clamped his mouth with his hand
and accused Firoz abused the complainant in filthy language.
He further deposed that accused Firoz forcibly pressed knife on
his neck and took out Rs.3,000/- from his left pocket of wearing
jeans pant and in the meantime, accused Ashraf took out mobile
phone of complainant from right pocket of his wearing jeans
pant and an amount of Rs.1400/- from upper pocket of his
wearing jacket. He further deposed that accused Firoz tried to
throw him out from the above said auto, but could not succeed
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:03:52 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.30 of 40
and during scuffle, accused Firoz and complainant came outside
the said auto and accused Firoz gave one knife blow on his face
and another knife blow on his left arm. PW2 further deposed
that he sustained injuries due to the above said knife blows and
thereafter, accused Ashraf came on the driver seat and both
accused persons fled away in the said auto. PW2 further
deposed that he had stopped one bullet rider and told him about
the incident, and the said bullet rider made a call to police and
thereafter, PCR officials as well as police official from local
Police Station reached at the spot and recorded statement of
complainant, which has been proved by him as Ex. PW2/A. He
further deposed that police official got him medically examined
and after sometime, he was discharged from the hospital. PW2
further deposed that he had shown incident spot to IO, who
prepared rough site plan Ex. PW2/B at the instance of
complainant. He has further deposed that he along with IO had
checked CCTV Cameras installed near the spot, in which he
had also shown the route of the above said auto from where he
was taken to the spot. He had also given description of both
accused persons to IO and also got prepared their sketch. He
further deposed that during investigation, he had joined the
judicial TIP proceedings of both accused persons and correctly
identified them. During the course of his examination-in-chief,
complainant has also correctly identified both accused persons
Firoz and Ashraf in the court. Thereafter, he was cross-
Digitally signed
VINEET by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:03:59 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.31 of 40
examined at length by Ld. Defence Counsels for accused
persons, wherein while denying all the suggestions to the
contrary, he has fully supported the case of prosecution
regarding commission of robbery by the accused persons as
well as voluntarily causing hurt to him during the course of the
same. Importantly, his testimony could not be discredited and
nothing adverse to the prosecution case, as such, could be
elicited out of him. Also, apart from mere suggestions, nothing
else has been brought on record on behalf of accused persons to
indicate as to why complainant would otherwise falsely
implicate the accused persons in the present case. Moreover, it
may well be stated that testimony of an injured witness holds
far greater evidentiary value than any other evidence due to the
fact that injured is present at the time and place of the
occurrence, having sustained injuries himself/herself. Further, it
is settled law that unless there are compelling reasons to doubt
the credibility or the accuracy of the testimony of an injured
witness, such a testimony should not be discarded lightly.
19. In this regard, it is profitable to place reliance upon the
judgment of Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. Vs State of
Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No. 1910 Of 2010, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the question as to how the
testimony of any injured eye witness is to be appreciated. The
relevant observations are reproduced here as under:
“26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is
to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principlesVINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMARKUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:04:07 +0530FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.32 of 40
enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in
mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time
and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless
there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the
evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness
would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely
implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater
evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons
exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be
doubted on account of some embellishment in natural
conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial
embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness,
then such contradiction, exaggeration or
embellishment should be discarded from the evidence
of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version
must be taken into consideration and discrepancies
which normally creep due to loss of memory with
passage of time should be discarded.”
20. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Court in Balu Sudam Khalde (Supra) to the facts of the
present case, it may well be stated that there is nothing on
record to doubt the creditworthiness of testimony of
complainant, who in the present case suffered injuries during
the commission of robbery against him. During the course of
his evidence, he has given convincing evidence and has fully
corroborated the prosecution case and there is nothing on record
to even remotely suggest as to why he would want to falsely
implicate the accused persons and would let go of the real
assailants.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:04:15 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.33 of 40
21. Further, testimony of complainant/injured to a great
extent is supported by the testimony of PW-7/Rajender Kumar,
who during the course of his examination-in-chief, has deposed
that on the intervening night of 03/04.12.2023, he had gone to
attend a marriage function in a Marriage Home situated behind
EDM Mall and at about 4:45 am, when he was returning after
attending the said marriage on his bike, he saw a boy in
hopeless condition, who had covered his neck with
handkerchief, upon which he had turned his bike and reached
near the said boy. He further deposed that upon enquiry, said
boy told him that he was a resident of Pilibhit, UP and was
doing printing press work and came to Delhi for purchasing
printing press material. PW7 further deposed that said boy
further informed him that he hired one auto but the driver of
said auto stopped his auto on pretext of urinating and said
driver along with his two associates committed robbery of his
mobile phone and some cash amount after placing surgical
blade on his neck. PW7 has further deposed that he had seen
injury over the neck of complainant and his handkerchief was
also stained with blood. He further deposed that thereafter he
made a call on 100 number and after some time, PCR officials
as well as local police officials also reached the spot and
complainant was taken to the hospital by police officials. The
said witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused
persons despite opportunity.
Digitally signed
VINEET by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:04:23 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.34 of 40
22. Thus, the testimony of PW7 corroborates the version put
forth by PW2/complainant and perusal of the same clearly
reveals that the incident as stated by PW2 had indeed taken
place on the said date with the complainant.
23. In addition to the above, the incident of robbery as stated
by PW2/complainant whereby he had suffered injury during the
commission of the same, is further substantiated by the
testimony of PW5 Prashant, who had handed over the CCTV
footage of the incident in a pendrive to the Investigating Officer
along with requisite certificate as per law. During the course of
his testimony, he has stated that in the said CCTV footage,
registration number of the aforesaid auto was visible and
importantly the identity of said auto was confirmed by the
complainant during the course of his testimony, wherein he has
stated that the said auto is the same in which incident took place
with him.
24. Further, for the purpose of appreciating the evidence of
PW2/complainant, reliance can be placed upon the judgment in
the case of Sampath Kumar Vs Inspector of Police Krishangiri
2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 231 wherein while referring to
Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed three categories of
witnesses: those who are wholly reliable, those who are wholly
unreliable and those who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly
unreliable.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:04:30 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.35 of 40
25. In the case of first category, the courts have no difficulty
in coming to the conclusion either way. It can convict or acquit
the accused on the deposition of single witness, if it is found to
be fully reliable. In the second category also, there is no
difficulty in arriving at an appropriate conclusion for there is no
question of placing any reliance upon a deposition of a wholly
unreliable witness. It is only in the case of witnesses who are
neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable that the Courts
have to be circumspect and have to look for corroboration in
material particulars by reliable testimony direct or
circumstantial. However, in the present case, PW2/complainant
Rishabh Aggarwal has turned out to be a witness of sterling
quality, who can easily be placed in the first category, as stated
above in Sampath Kumar (Supra) and he seems to have given a
consistent statement, whereby he has deposed the entire
incident in a cogent and convincing manner.
26. Further, the contention raised by Ld. Defence counsels
that the alleged weapon of offence i.e., knife was not recovered
from any of the accused persons does not have much force, as
upon a careful perusal of the testimony on record, it is evident
that complainant has categorically stated in the rukka recorded
during investigation as well as in deposition before this court
that accused Firoz was having knife and he voluntarily caused
injuries on the neck as well as right cheek of complainant.
Thus, non-recovery of knife is not fatal to the prosecution case.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:04:38 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.36 of 40
27. Further, the version of complainant/injured as far as
sustaining an injury during the course of commission of robbery
is well corroborated by the MLC on record which is Ex. PW-
6/A. The concerned doctor has deposed that as per MLC, there
were two reddish abrasion over anterior neck region (1×0.2cm)
and another reddish abrasion over right cheek (1×0.2cm) and
nature of injury was opined ‘simple fresh’ at point B. Even
though the nature of injuries were opined as simple, but this
court cannot ignore the said injures that had indeed been
inflicted on the person of complainant, that too, on the body
parts, which were mentioned in the complaint by him. The said
injury is stated to be voluntarily caused by the accused persons
and the same is within the ambit of Section 319 IPC and S. 323
IPC, which defines hurt and provides for punishment for
voluntarily causing hurt to a person respectively.
28. Further, accused persons during the course of their
statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. have answered all the questions put
to them with respect to incriminating material on record as
simply ‘incorrect’ and have primarily taken a plea that they
have been falsely implicated in the present case, but the onus to
prove such a plea was upon them. However, nothing has been
brought on record by them to even remotely prove the aforesaid
plea or to disprove the prosecution case against them or to
indicate that they have been falsely involved in the present case.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:04:45 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.37 of 40
29. Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion as well as
evidence on record, it is clear that prosecution has been able to
prove that accused persons had committed robbery against the
complainant and while committing the same had voluntarily
caused hurt to him. Suffice it to state that charge u/s 392/394/34
IPC is sustainable against both accused persons.
30. Now adverting to the other head under which accused
Firoz has been charged i.e. u/s 397 r/w 392 IPC. In order to
sustain a charge under the said provision, the prosecution was
required to fulfill the following ingredients:
(1) Accused committed robbery or dacoity;
(2) While committing such robbery or dacoity the accused:
(a) used a deadly weapon; or
(b) caused grievous hurt to any person; or
(c) attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to any person.
31. Pertinently, the first requirement of having committed
robbery has already been proved by the prosecution, as
discussed above. As far as the 2nd requirement is concerned, if
any of the conditions as enumerated above are met, then it may
be said that Section 397 IPC is attracted. The first condition
requires ‘use’ of a deadly weapon while committing robbery. It
is settled law that the phrase ‘uses a deadly weapon’ for the
purpose of Section 397 IPC means that while robbery was
being committed by an offender, who was armed with a deadly
weapon, the said weapon was within the vision of the victim, so
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:04:54 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.38 of 40
as to instil fear and terror in the mind of the victim and not that
it should be further shown to have been actually used for any
purpose such as, cutting, stabbing, shooting, as the case may be
(Ashfaq Vs. State Govt of NCT of Delhi AIR 2004 SC 1253).
32. In the case in hand, PW-2 has categorically stated that
accused Firoz forcibly pressed knife on his neck and took out
Rs.3,000/- from his left pocket of wearing jeans pant and
accused Ashraf took out mobile phone of complainant from
right pocket of his wearing jeans pant. He further deposed that
when he started shouting loudly, accused Firoz tried to throw
him out from the auto, but could not succeed and during scuffle,
accused Firoz and complainant came outside the auto and
accused Firoz gave one knife blow on his neck and another
knife blow on his right cheek. PW2/complainant further
deposed that he sustained injuries due to the above said knife
blows. Further, the position is well settled in law that to prove
an offence under Section 397 IPC, the recovery of knife is not
necessary, which is the case in hand. Reliance in this regard can
be placed upon the decision of Aas Mohd. @Aashu Vs. State
CRL.A. 557/2020 (DHC).
33. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the knife
was not only within the vision of complainant at the time of
committing robbery, but the same has actually been used, as
complainant has even sustained injuries due to an assault upon
him by accused Firoz with the said knife. Suffice, it to state that
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:05:04 +0530
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.39 of 40
a charge u/s 397 r/w 392 IPC is also sustainable against the
accused Firoz.
34. Thus, it is crystal clear from the foregoing discussion that
prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubt under Section 392/394/34 IPC against both
accused persons Firoz and Ashraf @ Ashu and charge under
Section 397 r/w 392 IPC against accused Firoz. Further, it is
clarified that offence u/s 394 IPC being an aggravated form of
offence of Robbery u/s 392 IPC, therefore, the latter offence
merges into the former offence i.e. S.394 IPC.
Accordingly, accused Firoz and Ashraf @ Ashu are
convicted for the offences under Section 394/34 IPC. Also,
accused Firoz is convicted for the offence under Section 397
r/w 392 IPC.
Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:05:16 +0530
Announced in the open court (Vineet Kumar)
On 30.05.2025 ASJ-02/E-Court (Shahdara)
KKD/Delhi/30.05.2025
FIR No. 610/2023 State Vs. Firoz and anr. PS. Madhu Vihar Page No.40 of 40