Delhi District Court
State vs Imran on 24 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH ATUL AHLAWAT
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), NORTH-EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
IN RE:
SC No. 61/2017
CNR No. DLNE01-005913-2016
FIR No. 862/2016
PS New Usmanpur
U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC, 1860.
STATE VERSUS IMRAN & ANR.
Date of Committal : 15.03.2017
Date of Arguments : 08.01.2025
Date of Judgment : 24.01.2025
INDEX
S. No. Contents Page No.
1. Brief Details of the Case & Memo of Parties 2
2. Brief Case of the Prosecution 3
3. Prosecution Evidence 6
4. Admitted Documents & Plea of the Accused 18
Persons
5. Submissions made on behalf of the State 19
6. Submissions made on behalf of the Accused 22
Person
7. Relevant Law & the Case Laws 27
8. Appreciation of Evidence 35
9. Conclusion & Findings 45
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
(ATUL AHLAWAT) 2025.01.24
12:01:45
ASJ (FTC)/North- +0530
East/KKD Courts/
Delhi/24.01.2025
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 1/50
IN THE COURT OF SH ATUL AHLAWAT
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), NORTH-EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
IN RE:
SC No. 61/2017
CNR No. DLNE01-005913-2016
FIR No. 862/2016
PS New Usmanpur
U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC, 1860.
Brief Details of the Case & Memo of Parties
STATE VERSUS IMRAN & ANR.
Date of Committal : 15.03.2017
Date of Arguments : 08.01.2025
Date of Judgment : 24.01.2025
Brief details of the case
A) Case FIR No. : 862/2016
B) Charges framed under section : 394/397/34 IPC, 1860
against accused
Imran S/o Sh. Rafique
& section 411 IPC,
1860 against accused
Arshad S/o Late Sh.
Lal Mohammad.
C) Name of the complainant : Mohd. Arbaz Alam, Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 2/50 2025.01.24
12:01:52
+0530
S/o Sh. Mohd.
Kayyum,
R/o H. No. D-44, Gali
No.4, Shashtri Park,
Delhi.
D) Name of the accused persons : (1) Imran
S/o Sh. Rafique
R/o H. No. 146, CPJ-
I, New Seelampur,
Delhi.
(2) Arshad,
S/o Late Sh. Lal
Mohammad,
R/o H. No. B-28, Gali
no.6, Kabir Nagar,
Delhi.
E) Plea of the accused persons : Not guilty
F) Final Order : Acquittal
G) Date of Order : 24.01.2025
JUDGMENT
(Pronounced on the 24th day of January, 2025)
Brief Case of the Prosecution:
1. The criminal law machinery was set into motion on 10.11.2016,
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 3/50 2025.01.24
12:01:58
+0530
when DD no. 3A, Ex. PW1/A was registered at PS New Usmanpur at
12:12 AM, wherein it was recorded that ” Gali no.6 Shastri Park ke pas
jhagda, maar-peet, snatcher pakad rakha hai “. The said call was made
from mobile no. 9643972916 and same was marked to HC Sita Ram for
further action.
2. The Inquiry Officer HC Sita Ram reached the spot alongwith Ct.
Pradeep and met the complainant Mohd. Arbaz and the complainant
produced accused Imran, who was apprehended by the complainant.
3. The Inquiry Officer HC Sita Ram recorded the statement of the
complainant, Ex. PW3/A, wherein the complainant had stated that he
was residing in Shastri Park alongwith his family and was plying his
trade of selling watches and sunglasses on a rehri in Connaught Place,
Delhi. On 09.11.2016, at about 11:00 PM, at E-Block Shastri Park, he
was coming back on foot towards his house and while he was crossing
D.Aqua Hotel, suddenly, two boys had come from behind and one boy
had grabbed his neck and the other boy had placed a knife on his
abdomen. He further deposed that the assailants had robbed the mobile
phone make HTC Desire 826, blue coloured having mobile sim no.
9582628578 and IMEI No. 35963206164701. He had further deposed
that his purse containing his election I-card and Rs. 200/- cash was also
robbed from his pocket of his wearing pant.
4. It was further stated by the complainant in his statement Ex.
PW3/A that after the robbery, the assailants had pushed him with lot of
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 4/50 12:02:05
+0530
force and he fell down and received injuries. The assailants tried to run
away from there and the complainant managed to get up and he started
chasing the assailants and managed to overpower one of the assailants.
He further deposed that when he raised the alarm, public persons
gathered there and some one from the public called the police on 100
number and when the police officials reached the spot, the apprehended
assailant was handed over to the IO and he disclosed his name as Imran
S/o Rafique, who is the accused facing trial before this Court. Upon the
cursory search of accused Imran, the robbed purse containing the
election I-card of the complainant and Rs. 200/- cash was recovered. The
other assailant managed to run away from the spot and the complainant
had stated that he could identify him, if he was brought before the
complainant.
5. Upon recording of the statement of the complainant, the present
case FIR, Ex. PW1/D was registered at Police Station New Usmanpur on
10.11.2016, under sections 392/394/397/411/34 IPC, 1860. After the
registration of the FIR, the investigation was conducted by the IO and
after completion of the same the charge-sheet was filed qua accused
Imran S/o Rafique before the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate u/s
392/394/397/411/34 IPC, 1860.
6. After compliance of section 207/208 Cr.P.C, the case was committed
by the Court of Ld. MM before this court on 15.03.2017. Thereafter, the
charges were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 22.03.2017 u/s 394/397
r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against accused Imran S/o
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 5/50 12:02:11
+0530
Rafique. The accused Imran pleaded not guilty and he had claimed trial.
7. On 18.08.2018, the supplementary chargesheet qua accused
Arshad S/o Lal Mohammad was committed before this Court by the
Court of Ld. MM. Thereafter, the charges were framed by my Ld.
Predecessor on 29.09.2018 u/s 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against
accused Arshad S/o Lal Mohammad. The accused Arshad also pleaded
not guilty and he had claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence:
8. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Eight (8) witnesses,
out of which there is only one Public Witness i.e. the complainant, one
Medical Witness and remaining six witnesses were Formal Witnesses
including the three Investigating Officers:
Public Witness:
(8.1.1) PW-3 is Mohd. Arbaz and he is the complainant of the present
case. He was earlier examined as PW-3, however, after the
supplementary chargesheet qua accused Arshad was filed, he was re-
examined on 26.02.2019 and inadvertently he was given the serial
number as PW-1, in spite of the fact that ASI Jagdev Kumar was already
examined as PW-1. Therefore, the testimony of complainant Mohd.
Arbaz recorded on 26.02.2019, shall be now read as PW-3 instead of
PW-1. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:02:17
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 6/50 +0530
(8.1.2) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had deposed that he used to sell sunglasses
and watches on the pavement at Connaught Place and on 09.11.2017, at
about 11:00 PM, he was going to D-Mall Hotel from E-Block, Shastri
Park and he was on foot at that time. When he reached near the auto
stand, where other vehicles were parked and D-Aqua Hotel was at a
distance of 20-30 meters, two persons came from behind and one of
them caught hold of his neck with his arm and the other person had put a
chhuri on his belly. He further categorically deposed that the person who
had put the chhuri on his abdomen had taken out his wallet/purse
containing Rs. 200/- cash (two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each) and his
voter ID Card from the pocket of the pant that he was wearing at that
time.
(8.1.3) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had further deposed that the other person who
had caught him from his neck had taken out his blue coloured HTC
Desire 826 mobile phone from the pocket of his pant. He raised the
alarm and managed to overpower one of the robbers, who had looted his
wallet/purse by catching hold of his legs. He further deposed that the
other robber managed to flee away from the spot with his mobile phone.
The public persons gathered there and someone made the call to the
police on 100 number.
(8.1.4) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had further deposed that he had sustained
injuries on his neck and chest during the said incident, as fist blows were
given on his chest and face by the robber, who was having a chhuri in his
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 7/50 2025.01.24
12:02:23
+0530
hand. He further deposed that 3-4 police officials reached the spot and he
produced the said robber, who was apprehended by him. During his
examination-in-chief, he had pointed out towards accused Imran, who
was present in Court as the robber who had used the chhuri during the
robbery and had robbed his wallet/purse. He also identified accused
Imran as the same person, who was overpowered and apprehended by
him and was later handed over to the police officials.
(8.1.5) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had further deposed that from the spot, the
police officials took him and accused Imran to the police station and his
statement, Ex. PW3/A was recorded there. He was also taken to the
hospital, where he was medically examined vide MLC, Ex. PW2/A. He
further deposed that he had shown the place of incident to the police,
before leaving the spot for the PS. He also identified his signature on the
seizure memo of the purse/wallet and chhuri, Ex. PW3/B and on the
sketch of the chhuri, Ex. PW3/C. He also identified his signatures on the
arrest memo, Ex. PW3/D. He had categorically deposed that all the said
documents were prepared by the IO at the PS. He had correctly identified
the chhuri, Ex. P-1 and his wallet/purse, Ex P-2.
(8.1.6) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had resiled from his earlier statements and he
was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During his said cross
examination, he had categorically denied the suggestions that IO HC Sita
Ram had recorded his statement, Ex. PW3/A at the spot or that he had
signed at point A on the said statement, at the spot itself. He also
categorically denied the suggestions that all the other documents i.e. Ex. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:02:31
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 8/50 +0530
PW3/B, Ex. PW3/C and Ex. PW3/D were prepared by the IO on the
spot. To the said suggestions he had categorically voluntarily stated that
all the paper work was done at the PS only and no document was
prepared by the IO at the spot. Furthermore, he had admitted the
suggestion that accused Imran was arrested by the IO at the spot and the
IO had also made inquiries from the accused, on the spot itself. He had
also categorically denied the suggestion that the site plan was prepared
by the IO at his instance on the spot. He had voluntarily deposed that he
had shown the place of incident to the police official, however, the site
plan was not prepared in his presence.
(8.1.7) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had further deposed during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Imran that on
the day of the alleged incident, he was coming from Connaught Place to
his house situated at Shastri Park and he used to usually follow the same
route by catching the metro train from CP and he used to generally reach
his home by 11:00 PM. The place where the incident took place was
around 150 meters from his house and there was some light at the spot,
near D-Aqua Hotel. He further deposed that he could not tell about the
clothes being worn by the accused persons, even though there was no fog
at the time of the incident.
(8.1.8) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had further deposed during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Imran that
accused Imran was the same person who had put knife on his stomach
and also robbed his wallet containing Rs. 200/- cash and his voter ID
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 9/50 12:02:36
+0530
card. He further categorically deposed that he did not knew as to which
of the two assailants had grabbed his neck from behind, however, he
categorically deposed that accused Imran had given him fist blows on his
chest and face. He also deposed that he had disclosed the fact of accused
Imran giving him blows on chest and face to the IO, at the time of
recording of his statement. He was confronted from the statement,
wherein, it was not so recorded.
(8.1.9) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had further deposed during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Imran that
since, one of the assailants had caught hold of him from his neck, he was
not able to speak properly, however, he managed to attract the attention
of the public persons by waving his hands. He further categorically
deposed that the public persons were present at a distance of around 50
meters from where the incident took place, however, he had caught
accused Imran by himself only. He categorically denied the suggestion
that accused Imran was not the assailant and he was the public person,
who was sitting inside his car or accused Imran had come to the spot
alongwith other public persons, after he had raised the alarm.
(8.1.10) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had further deposed during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Imran that it
was correct that he had mentioned in his statement, Ex. PW3/A that he
had fallen down, however, he went on to further depose that despite
suffering a fall, he managed to catch hold off the accused Imran by
catching hold of his legs. He denied the suggestion that the injuries
ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 10/50
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.01.24
12:02:42 +0530
sustained by him were result of a fall or that no such injuries were
caused to him by the accused Imran.
(8.1.11) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had further deposed during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Imran that his
statement, Ex. PW3/A was partly recorded at the spot and the remaining
statement was recorded by the IO at the PS. He further deposed that he
knew one Mohd. Afzal and one Babar, who were present amongst the
public persons at the spot. He further categorically deposed that he had
told the IO that Mohd. Afzal was present on the spot and even
accompanied him to the hospital and that he did not knew whether the IO
had interrogated the said Mohd. Afzal or not.
(8.1.12) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had further categorically denied the
suggestion during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Amicus
Curiae for accused Imran that the police did not carry out any
proceedings at the spot or that the entire proceedings were conducted in
the PS itself. He further categorically deposed that he did not remember
whether his signatures on the documents were obtained at the spot or at
the PS. He also went on to depose that he had signed 3-4 papers. He also
categorically deposed that he had pointed out the place of incident to the
police officials and that the police officials were carrying out the
proceedings, however, he was not aware as to whether the site plan, Ex.
PW4/A was prepared at the spot or not.
(8.1.13) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had further deposed during his cross
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:02:48
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 11/50 +0530
examination conducted by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Imran that
accused Imran was not beaten up, after he was apprehended. He further
deposed that his wallet/purse was recovered from the possession of
accused Imran, by the police officials only and the seizure memo, Ex.
PW3/B was duly filled and written, before he appended his signatures on
the same. He further deposed that he did not remember the exact time of
signing the seizure memo, Ex. PW3/B, since after about one and a half
hours of apprehending accused Imran, he was sent to the hospital for his
medical examination. He went on to further categorically depose that he
had firstly signed his statement, Ex. PW3/A and thereafter, signed on the
seizure memo, Ex. PW3/B. He further categorically depose that the call
to the police on 100 number was made by Afzal and that the police
official had interrogated the said informant as well, besides making
inquiries from him.
(8.1.14) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz was recalled for examination-in-chief on
26.02.2019, after the supplementary chargesheet qua co-accused Arshad
was filed. During his further examination, he had categorically deposed
that on 09.11.2016, he was robbed at the point of a weapon by two
robbers. He also deposed that he had already identified accused Imran as
one of the said robbers, during the time when his examination-in-chief
was recorded earlier. However, he had categorically deposed that it was
the other assailant who had used the weapon/dagger during the robbery
and he could not identify the said other robber, as he could not see him
as the said assailant had used the weapon upon him from his back side.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:02:53
+0530CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 12/50
(8.1.15) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had further deposed during his further
examination-in-chief that he was not aware as to from whom the police
officials had recovered the said mobile phone of his, which was robbed
during the incident. He had correctly identified his mobile phone, Ex.
P-4, which was released to him on superdari.
(8.1.16) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had further deposed during his further
examination-in-chief that on 18.02.2017, he had taken part in the TIP
proceedings to identify the second robber, however, he could not identify
accused Arshad and had categorically deposed before the Ld. MM that
none of the persons who had joined the TIP proceedings, including
accused Arshad had committed any offence against him.
(8.1.17) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP for the
State and during his cross examination conducted on behalf of the State,
he had categorically denied the suggestion that accused Arshad had also
participated in the robbery or that he had robbed his mobile phone, Ex.
P-4 or that he was being told that his mobile phone was recovered by
accused Arshad on 02.02.2017.
(8.1.18) PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz had further deposed during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused Arshad that it was
correct that he had not made any call on his mobile number during the
course of the investigation and that he was not aware, as to by whom his
said sim card/mobile number was used during the period of
investigation. He admitted the suggestion that he was not told by the
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 13/50 12:03:04
+0530
police officials as to from whom his mobile phone was recovered. He
also categorically deposed that had not given any bill/invoice of his
mobile phone to the police official and had only voluntarily deposed that
he had shown the same to the police officials.
Medical Witness:
(9.1.1) PW-2 is Dr. Kunal Kishor and he had deposed that on 10.11.2016,
at about 01:31 AM, injured Mohd. Arwaz S/o Mohd. Qiyam was
produced in the casualty of JPC Hospital by HC Pradeep with the alleged
history of physical assault on 09.11.2016 at about 11:00 PM. He had
medically examined the injured vide MCL, Ex. PW2/A and upon the
local examination, the injured person was found to have an abrasion over
right side of his face, sized 2×1 cm and 1.5×1 cm, besides also
complaining of pain in his neck. After giving first aid, the injured was
discharged and the nature of the injury was opined by him as “Simple”.
(9.1.2) PW-2 Dr. Kunal Kishor during his cross examination conducted
by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Imran had deposed that the injured
had himself disclosed about the alleged history mentioned in the MLC,
Ex. PW2/A. He categorically deposed that it was possible that the said
injuries, as mentioned in the MLC, may have been sustained due to a fall
suffered while running.
Formal Police Witnesses:-
(10.1.1) PW-1 is ASI Jagdev Kumar (he was also examined as PW-1A,
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 14/50 12:03:09
+0530
after the supplementary chargesheet qua co-accused Arshad was filed).
During his testimony, DD No.3A, Ex. PW1/A, the kayami, DD No.9A
and the endorsement on the rukka, Ex. PW1/C and the copy of the FIR,
Ex PW1/D and the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was
brought on record as Ex. PW1/E.(10.2.1) Through the testimony of PW-6 ASI Sita Ram (1st IO) and PW-5
ASI Pradeep, the prosecution had sought to prove the material link
pertaining to the marking of DD no. 3A, Ex. PW1/A to Inquiry Officer,
PW6 ASI Sita Ram. They had deposed that the said DD entry relating to
one snatcher being caught hold off near D-Aqua Hotel, Shastri Park,
Delhi was being marked to PW6 ASI Sita Ram and in pursuance of the
said call they had reached the spot situated next to the said hotel and they
met the complainant Mohd. Arbaz there. The complainant told them that
he was robbed by two robbers and his mobile, wallet containing election
I-card and Rs. 200/- cash were robbed during the said incident. Accused
Imran was overpowered by the complainant, while he was running and
the dagger/chhuri and the looted purse were recovered from the
possession of the accused Imran. It also came to their knowledge, as
stated by the complainant that the other robber had managed to run away
with the looted mobile phone of the complainant. The IO found one
chhuri from the left side dub of the wearing pant of accused Imran and
the said chhuri was identified by the complainant, as the one which was
used by accused Imran at the time of the commission of the robbery,
alongwith his associate. The wallet belonging to the complainant was
found in the right pocket of the wearing pant of the accused Imran. The
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 15/50 12:03:16
+0530
said wallet was found containing one I-card and Rs. 200/- cash. The said
wallet and its contents were identified by the complainant and thereafter,
the IO recorded the statement of the complainant, Ex. PW3/A.(10.2.2) Through the testimony of PW-6 ASI Sita Ram (1st IO) and PW-5
ASI Pradeep, it has come on record that after IO PW6 ASI Sita Ram
recorded the statement of the complainant, he made the endorsement to
get the FIR registered and prepared the rukka. The said rukka was sent to
the police station by him through PW5 ASI Pradeep. After sometime, IO
ASI Naresh Kumar came to the spot to investigate the case alongwith
PW5 ASI Pradeep. PW6 ASI Sita Ram then handed over the original
rukka and copy of the FIR to the IO ASI Naresh Kumar. The accused
Imran and the recovered weapon of the offence and robbed wallet were
produced before the IO ASI Naresh Kumar and the complainant Mohd.
Arbaz was also produced before the IO. Thereafter, IO ASI Naresh
Kumar had prepared the site plan, Ex. PW4/A at the pointing out of the
complainant and in presence of both PW5 and PW6.
(10.2.3) Through the testimony of PW-6 ASI Sita Ram (1st IO) and PW-5
ASI Pradeep, it was brought on record that IO ASI Naresh Kumar then
prepared the sketch of the dagger/ chhuri, Ex. PW3/C and converted the
same into a parcel and sealed it with his seal, “NK” and seized the same
vide seizure memo, Ex. PW3/B. The accused was arrested vide arrest
memo, Ex. PW3/D and his personal search was conducted by the IO vide
memo, Ex. PW4/B. The IO then proceeded ahead with recording of the
disclosure statement of accused Imran, Ex. PW4/C and the complainant Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:03:23
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 16/50
was sent to JPC Hospital alongwith PW5 ASI Pradeep and his medical
examination was conducted vide MLC, Ex. PW2/A.(10.2.4) PW-6 ASI Sita Ram (1st IO) and PW-5 ASI Pradeep had
correctly identified the accused Imran at the time of their examination-
in-chief and also correctly identified the dagger/chhuri, Ex.P-1 and the
robbed wallet, Ex. P-2 (colly).
(10.3.1) The 2nd IO, ASI Naresh Kumar was examined-in-chief as PW-4
on 06.10.2017, however, his cross examination was deferred since there
were other material witnesses who were yet to be examined till that time.
Prior to his cross examination being recorded, he had expired and his
death certificate was filed before this Court and the said fact was duly
recorded by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated
09.05.2022.
(10.4.1) Through the testimony of 3rd IO PW-8 ASI Chander Kant and
PW-7 Ct. Adesh, the prosecution has sought to prove the arrest of
accused Arshad. It was deposed by PW-8 IO ASI Chander Kant that on
02.02.2017, he alongwith PW7 Ct. Adesh reached Zero Pushta, New
Usmanpur and he made a call to mobile number 9999164967 from his
mobile phone. The said mobile number had come into picture during the
investigation, after the CDRs were procured. Accused Arshad picked up
the said phone and he was later found at Zero Pushta Down Portion,
New Usmanpur. Upon inquiry, he disclosed his name to PW7 and PW8.
The mobile phone was recovered from accused Arshad and the IMEI
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 17/50 12:03:29
+0530
number of the said mobile handset was checked and same was found to
be matching the details mentioned in the FIR of the present case. The
said mobile phone make HTC, colour blue was seized by PW8 vide
seizure memo, Ex. PW7/A. Accused Arshad was arrested vide arrest
memo Ex. PW7/B and his personal search was taken vide memo, Ex.
PW7/C. Accused Arshad disclosed his involvement and his disclosure
statement, Ex. PW4/D was recorded. Thereafter, accused was medically
examined and was produced before the Ld. MM and he was remanded to
JC.
(10.4.2) 3rd IO PW-8 ASI Chander Kant and PW-7 Ct. Adesh, had
correctly identified the accused Arshad at the time of their examination-
in-chief and also correctly identified the mobile phone, Ex.P-4.
(10.4.3) 3rd IO PW-8 ASI Chander Kant and PW-7 Ct. Adesh had
categorically deposed at the time of their respective cross examination
conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused Arshad that PW8 ASI Chander
Kant had not asked any public person to join the investigation at the time
of alleged recovery of the mobile phone and they had both denied the
suggestions that the said case property was planted upon accused Arshad
or that he was falsely implicated in the present case.
Admitted Documents & Plea of the Accused Persons:
11. Vide their joint statements recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC, 1973, the
accused persons had admitted the CDR of mobile number 9999164967 Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:03:35
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 18/50 +0530
from 16.01.2017 to 29.01.2017 and IMEI No. 35963206156490 and the
same were exhibited as Ex. PX-1.
12. After completion of the prosecution evidence, PE was closed. The
statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C, 1973, in which they had pleaded their innocence.
13. The accused persons chose not to lead any Defense Evidence.
14. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Kamal Akhter, Ld.
Additional PP for the State; Sh. Gaurav Mishra Ld. Amicus Curiae for
accused Imran; and Sh. Yunus Khan, Ld. Counsel for accused Arshad. I
have also minutely gone through the evidence brought on record and also
other material aspects of the case.
Submissions made on behalf of the State:
15. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 09.11.2016 at
about 11:00 PM, near D-Aqua Hotel, Shastri Park, Delhi, accused Imran
alongwith his associate namely co-accused Javed (who was neither
arrested nor charged with the present offence, since he could not be
traced) had committed robbery of the wallet containing a cash amount of
Rs. 200/- and election ID card of the complainant and one mobile phone
make HTC Desire 826, blue coloured, having sim no. 9582628578 and
with IMEI No. 35963206164701. At the time of committing the said
robbery, accused Imran was armed with a deadly weapon namely a Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:03:41
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 19/50 +0530
knife/chhuri. Although, co-accused Javed managed to flee away from the
spot and accused Imran was overpowered by the complainant and was
later handed over to the police. Therefore, all the ingredients of the
offences punishable u/s 394/397/34 IPC, 1860 have been fully made out
in the present case against the accused Imran.
16. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the
robbed mobile phone make HTC Desire 826, blue coloured having sim
number 9999164967, which belonged to the complainant Mohd. Arbaz
Alam was duly recovered from the possession of accused Arshad and he
had retained the same knowing or having sufficient reasons to believe
that that the said mobile phone was a robbed property, therefore all the
ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC, 1860 is fully made out
in the present case against accused Arshad.
17. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the
testimony of the complainant PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz is categorical in
nature. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution and had
deposed that on 09.11.2016, accused Imran along-with his associate had
committed the robbery of his wallet containing his ID card and Rs. 200/-
in cash and the accused persons had also committed the robbery of his
mobile phone, at the knife point. The specific role was assigned to
accused Imran and he was correctly identified by PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz at
the time of his examination-in-chief. The case property i.e. the robbed
wallet, Ex. P-2 (colly), which was recovered from accused Imran was
also correctly identified by PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz. He had also correctly
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:04:00
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 20/50 +0530
identified the knife/chhuri, Ex. P-1, which was used by accused Imran at
the time of the commission of the offence and the said knife was also
recovered from the possession of accused Imran, in presence of the
complainant. The testimony of PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz was fully
corroborated by the testimony of the other witnesses namely PW6 ASI
Sita Ram (1st IO), PW5 ASI Pradeep and PW4 ASI Naresh Kumar (2 nd
IO).
18. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the Call
Detail Record of the mobile phone no. 9999164967 from 16.01.2017 to
29.01.2017, Ex. PX-1 was an admitted document and as per the said
document, the robbed mobile phone belonging to the complainant was
being used by accused Arshad and during the investigation, accused
Arshad was traced by IO PW8 ASI Chanderkant and he was arrested on
02.02.2017. The recovered mobile phone, Ex. P-4 was correctly
identified by the complainant PW3 Mohd. Arbaz, as the same mobile
phone which was robbed by accused Imran and his associate on
09.11.2016. While the actual worth of the said mobile phone was way
more, it was purchased for peanuts by accused Arshad and there are
more than sufficient reasons to believe that he had the knowledge that
the said mobile phone was a stolen/robbed property and still he retained
the same and continued to use it, till the time he was apprehended by the
police officials alongwith the said robbed mobile phone.
19. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the
identity of the accused Imran and Arshad was fully established in the Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:04:06
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 21/50
present case as they were duly identified by all the prosecution
witnesses, at the time of their examination before the Court.
Submissions made on behalf of the Accused Persons:
20. It is submitted by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Imran that the
accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and his name is
not even Imran S/o Sh. Rafique. The real name of the accused is Kamran
S/o Sh. Mohd. Rafiq and the IO has falsely implicated him under the
wrong name of one Imran S/o Sh. Rafique. The accused facing trial
before this Court does not have any aliases by the name of Imran and
this is a case of fake identity, wherein, the IO and the prosecution have
wrongly and illegally shown him to be accused Imran S/o Sh. Rafique.
The police officials made no efforts to verify the name of accused Imran
and the said fact had duly come in the cross examination of PW5 ASI
Pradeep, who had categorically deposed that the name of accused Imran
had come to their notice, when he was interrogated, however, neither
PW5 ASI Pradeep nor the IO HC Sita Ram had verified the name of the
accused on the spot. PW5 ASI Pradeep had further categorically deposed
that he had not seen any document which had disclosed the name of the
accused to him. Therefore, the entire investigation and the implication of
accused in the present case is shrouded in mystery.
21. It is submitted by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Imran that the
PCR call at 100 number was made from mobile number 9643972916,
however, no effort was made by the IO to trace out the said caller or to
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 22/50 12:04:13
+0530
make inquiries from him. The said fact of the call being made by a
public person had also come in the testimony of the complainant,
wherein, he had specifically deposed that the call on 100 number was
made by one Mohd. Afzal, who was present at the spot and had even
accompanied the complainant to the hospital. The IO did not record the
statement of the said informant/caller and he was not made a prosecution
witness, thereby, creating a doubt upon the entire prosecution story.
22. It is submitted by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Imran that
there are inherent contradictions in the testimony of the complainant
PW3 Mohd. Afzal and the IO regarding the documents allegedly being
prepared by the IO during the investigation. It has been categorically
deposed by the complainant PW3 Mohd. Afzal that all the documents
including his statement, the seizure memo, the arrest memo and site plan
etc. were prepared by the IO in the PS itself. He was declared hostile by
Ld. Addl. PP for the State, however, he had categorically denied all the
suggestions regarding the said documents, Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW3/B, Ex.
PW3/C and Ex. PW3/D being prepared by the IO at the spot itself. On
the contrary the IO PW6 ASI Sita Ram and IO PW4 ASI Naresh Kumar
had deposed that all the documents were prepared at the spot itself.
Therefore, a suspicion is created around the entire investigation and the
benefit of the said doubt must go to the accused persons.
23. It is submitted by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Imran that
there are inherent contradictions in the testimony of the complainant
PW3 Mohd. Arbaz himself. When he was first examined on 11.08.2017, Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:04:20
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 23/50
he had leveled the allegations against accused Imran of putting the
dagger/chhuri on his belly and he had also deposed that the said
dagger/chhuri was recovered from the possession of accused Imran. He
had specifically leveled the allegation of the assailant wielding the
weapon/dagger only against one of them and as per his testimony the
other assailant had caught hold of him from behind and had robbed his
mobile phone. However, when he had appeared in the witness box on
26.02.2019, after the supplementary chargesheet against co-accused
Arshad was filed, he had flipped the entire story and had leveled the
allegations of the weapon/dagger being used by the other assailant, and
not accused Imran. Therefore, the complainant PW3 Mohd. Arbaz is not
a sterling witness and his testimony cannot be relied upon to convict the
accused persons.
24. It is submitted by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Imran that as
per the testimony of the complainant PW3 Mohd. Arbaz himself, there
were public persons present near the spot, when the incident took place
and the said public persons had gathered there after he had raised the
alarm. He had initially deposed at the time of his examination-in-chief
that some one from the public had made a call to 100 number, however,
during his cross examination he had improved upon his testimony and
had named one Mohd. Afzal and one Babar to be amongst the public
persons and also deposed that the call on 100 number was made by the
said Mohd. Afzal, who was known to the complainant from earlier. The
said identity of the caller was a material improvement from his earlier
statement, Ex. PW3/A and it has also created doubts regarding the
ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 24/50 Date: 2025.01.24
12:04:27 +0530
veracity of the testimony of complainant.
25. It is submitted by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Imran that as
per the statement of the complainant, Ex. PW3/A, he had stated before
the IO that after committing the robbery, the assailants had forcefully
pushed him and he had suffered a fall and received the injuries.
However, when the complainant entered into the witness box as PW3, he
had made material improvements in his testimony and had deposed that
he was given fist blows on his chest and face by accused Imran. He was
duly confronted with his earlier statement, Ex. PW3/A, where the said
facts of being hit on his chest and face by the accused Imran were not
mentioned. This has further dented the credibility of the complainant as a
witness, since there were no injuries recorded in his MLC, Ex. PW2/A,
to show injuries on his chest and face, especially when it has come in the
testimony of PW2 Dr. Kunal Kishor that the said abrasions found on the
right side of the face of the complainant were possible to have been
sustained due to a fall received by him while running.
26. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused Arshad that the
accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and the mobile
phone, Ex. P-4 has been planted upon him by the IO. The complainant
Mohd. Arbaz never produced any documentary proof before the IO or at
the time of his testimony, to establish that the said mobile phone, Ex.
P-4, which was allegedly robbed from him on 09.11.2016, actually
belonged to him.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:04:33
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 25/50
27. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused Arshad that it has
come in the statement of the complainant PW3 Mohd. Arbaz, recorded
by the IO that at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, he
was using a mobile phone number 9582628578 in his mobile phone, Ex.
P-4, however, he never even tried to call on the said number during the
course of the investigation, as deposed by him during his cross
examination conducted on 26.02.2019. The said conduct of the
complainant is highly unbelievable and unnatural and no reasonable
prudent person would believe the same. Furthermore, the identity of the
mobile phone, Ex. P-4 and the same being owned or being in possession
of the complainant, could not be established in the present case as he had
categorically deposed during his cross examination that he had not given
any bill/invoice of the said mobile phone to the police.
28. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused Arshad that it has
categorically come in the testimony of PW3 Mohd. Arbaz, recorded on
26.02.2019, that he was not aware as to when the police official had
recovered the robbed mobile phone and from whom the said recovery
was effected. It has come in his testimony that it was in the month of
March 2017, when he had received a call from the police station,
whereby, he was informed that his mobile phone has been recovered by
the police officials. He had categorically denied the suggestions being
put to him by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that it was told to him that his
mobile phone was recovered from accused Arshad on 02.02.2017
officials.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:04:38
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 26/50
29. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused Arshad that it is not
the case of the prosecution that accused Arshad had taken part in the
alleged robbery, yet the Ld. Addl. PP for the State had given a suggestion
to the complainant after declaring him hostile, that accused Arshad had
also participated in the robbery or that he had robbed the mobile phone,
Ex. P-4 from the complainant. The said suggestion is not in line with the
prosecution version and it has created even further dent on the entire
prosecution case.
30. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused Arshad that there are
serious doubts regarding the entire recovery proceedings conducted by
the IO PW8 ASI Chander Pal, in presence of PW7 HC Adesh, since both
of them had categorically deposed in their cross examinations that
although public persons were present, the IO had not asked any public
person to join the investigation, at the time of alleged recovery of the
mobile phone from accused Arshad.
Relevant Law and Case Laws:
31. In the background of the above, before discussing the evidence
brought on record in the present case, it is pertinent to point out that the
accused person can be convicted on the basis of credible evidence
brought on record and the appreciation of the said evidence must be done
in correct and true perspective manner and in the natural course of
events, what would have been occurred. Appreciation of evidence
beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that it should be assessed Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 27/50 12:04:44
+0530
beyond any iota of doubt. Beyond Reasonable Doubt means that the
prosecution is required to place evidence at a higher degree of
preponderance of probabilities compared to what is degree of
preponderance of probability in civil cases. The theory of Beyond
Reasonable Doubt means expecting higher degree of preponderance of
probabilities and the natural conduct of human beings, as held by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in “State of Karnataka Vs Venkatesh
@ Venkappa & Anr” , Criminal Appeal No. 100492 of 2021, decided on
18.12.2023.
32. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines “evidence”. The
evidence can be broadly divided into oral and documentary. “Evidence”
under the Act can be said to include the means, factor or material,
lending a degree of probability through a logical inference to the
existence of a fact. It is an adjective law highlighting and aiding the
substantive law. Thus, it is neither wholly procedural nor substantive,
though trappings of both could be felt.
33. The definition of the word “proved” though gives an impression of a
mere interpretation, in effect, is the heart and soul of the entire Act. This
clause, consciously speaks of proving a fact by considering the “matters
before it”. The importance is attached to the degree of probability in
proving a fact through the consideration of the matters before the court.
What is required for a court to decipher is the existence of a fact and its
proof by a degree of probability, through a logical inference.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:04:50
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 28/50
34. Matters are necessary, concomitant material factors to prove a fact.
All “evidence” would be “matters” but not vice versa. In other words,
matters could be termed as a genus of which evidence would be a
species. Matters also adds strength to the evidence giving adequate
ammunition in the Court’s sojourn in deciphering the truth. Thus, the
definition of “matters” is exhaustive, and therefore, much wider than that
of “evidence”. However, there is a caveat, as the court is not supposed to
consider a matter which acquires the form of an evidence when it is
barred in law. Matters are required for a court to believe in the existence
of a fact.
35. Matters, do give more discretion and flexibility to the court in
deciding the existence of a fact. They also include all the classification of
evidence such as circumstantial evidence, corroborative evidence,
derivative evidence, direct evidence, documentary evidence, hearsay
evidence, indirect evidence, oral evidence, original evidence,
presumptive evidence, primary evidence, real evidence, secondary
evidence, substantive evidence, testimonial evidence, etc.
36. In addition, they supplement the evidence in proving the existence
of a fact by enhancing the degree of probability. As an exhaustive
interpretation has to be given to the word “matter”, and for that purpose,
the definition of the expression of the words “means and includes”,
meant to be applied for evidence, has to be imported to that of a “matter”
as well. Thus, a matter might include such of those which do not fall
within the definition of Section 3, in the absence of any express bar.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:04:55
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 29/50
37. What is important for the court is the conclusion on the basis of
existence of a fact by analyzing the matters before it on the degree of
probability. The entire enactment is meant to facilitate the court to come
to an appropriate conclusion in proving a fact. There are two methods by
which the court is expected to come to such a decision. The court can
come to a conclusion on the existence of a fact by merely considering the
matters before it, in forming an opinion that it does exist. This belief of
the court is based upon the assessment of the matters before it.
Alternatively, the court can consider the said existence as probable from
the perspective of a prudent man who might act on the supposition that it
exists. The question as to the choice of the options is best left to the court
to decide. The said decision might impinge upon the quality of the
matters before it.
38. The word “Prudent” has not been defined under the Act. When the
court wants to consider the second part of the definition clause instead of
believing the existence of a fact by itself, it is expected to take the role of
a prudent man. Such a prudent man has to be understood from the point
of view of a common man. Therefore, a judge has to transform into a
prudent man and assess the existence of a fact after considering the
matters through that lens instead of a judge. It is only after undertaking
the said exercise can he resume his role as a judge to proceed further in
the case.
39. The aforesaid provision also indicates that the court is concerned
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 30/50 12:05:01
+0530
with the existence of a fact both in issue and relevant, as against a whole
testimony. Thus, the concentration is on the proof of a fact for which a
witness is required. Therefore, a court can appreciate and accept the
testimony of a witness on a particular issue while rejecting it on others
since it focuses on an issue of fact to be proved. However, the evidence
of a witness as whole is a matter for the court to decide on the
probability of proving a fact which is inclusive of the credibility of the
witness. Whether an issue is concluded or not is also a court’s domaine.
40. While appreciating the evidence as aforesaid along with the matters
attached to it, evidence can be divided into three categories broadly
namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly
reliable nor wholly unreliable. If evidence, along with matters
surrounding it, makes the court believe it is wholly reliable qua an issue,
it can decide its existence on a degree of probability. Similar is the case
where evidence is not believable. When evidence produced is neither
wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, it might require corroboration, and
in such a case, court can also take note of the contradictions available in
other matters. The aforesaid principle of law has been enunciated in the
authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Vadivelu Thevar v.
State of Madras” , 1957 SCR 981 wherein it is held as under:
“In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding
that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist
upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134
of the Indian Evidence Act has categorically laid it down that “no
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:05:06
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 31/50 +0530
particular number of witnesses shall in any case, be required for the
proof of any fact”. The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872,
presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall
not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact to call any particular
number of witnesses. In England, both before and after the passing
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of
statutes as set out in Sarkar’s Law of Evidence — 9th Edn., at pp.
1100 and 1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single
witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any
such exceptions to the general rule recognized in s.134 quoted
above. The section enshrines the well-recognized maxim that
“Evidence has to be weighed and not counted”. Our Legislature has
given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice
may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be
insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in
the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which
are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt
depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were
to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a
single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would
go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge
comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the
circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the
single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or
rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely
reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.01.24
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 32/50 12:05:11 +0530
accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused
person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the
innocence of an accused person may be established on the
testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number
of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case
for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-
established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality
and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or
disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context
may be classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in
coming to its conclusion either way — it may convict or may
acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be
above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or
subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no
difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of
cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for
corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct
or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality
of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a
single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in
proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 33/50 Date: 2025.01.24
12:05:17 +0530
of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single
person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact.
The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if
it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints
which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes
its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many
precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the
testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There
are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual
offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases
in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being
that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such
exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to
convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is
entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act
upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable
evidence in support of the prosecution.”
41. Before proceeding ahead with appreciation of the evidence brought
on record, this court deems it fit to discuss section 397 IPC, 1860 which
is reproduced below:
“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 ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.01.24
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 34/5012:05:22 +0530
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.”
42. As per the ingredients of offence punishable u/s 397 IPC, 1860 an
act would fall within the mischief of the section if at the time of
committing the robbery/dacoity the offender:
(a) uses any deadly weapon; or
(b) causes grievous hurt to any person; or
(c) attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person.
Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay in “Shrawan Dashrath Datrange Vs. State of Maharastra”
(1997) 2 Crimes 47 (Bom).
43. As far as the interpretation of the word ” uses” for the purpose of
section 397 IPC, 1860 is concerned, what is essential to satisfy the word
“uses” is that the robbery being committed by an offender who was
armed with deadly weapon which was within the vision of the victim, so
as to be capable of creating a terror in the mind of victim and not that it
should be further shown to have been actually used for cutting, stabbing,
shooting, as the case may be. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Ashfaq Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) ” (2004) 3 SCC 116.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:05:28
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 35/50
Appreciation of Evidence:
44. In the background of the abovesaid decisions, I shall now appraise
the evidence brought on record. The prosecution has failed to prove the
genesis of its case, i.e. the call made on 100 number, since as per the
prosecution story the said call was made by a public person and no
attempt was made by the IO to trace the said caller. As per the DD No.
3A, Ex. PW1/A, the said call was made from mobile no. 9643972916
and as per the testimony of the complainant, PW3 Mohd. Arbaz, the said
call was made by one Mohd. Afzal, who was present at the spot.
However, no such person was interrogated by the IO and he was not
made a prosecution witness. Therefore, serious doubts have been created
around the registration of the said DD entry at PS New Usmanpur on
10.11.2016.
45. The PCR call allegedly recorded at CPCR, PHQ by B-52 Operator,
as recorded in DD No. 3A, Ex. PW1/A, however, the IO had made no
efforts to procure the attested copy of the said Form No. I and the same
was not filed alongwith the chargesheet. There is also no register entry
filed alongwith the chargesheet, to show as to who had reached the spot
from the PCR and as to what was found by the said PCR officials after
reaching the spot.
46. The entire prosecution story is hinging upon the shoulders of the
sole public witness, complainant Mohd. Arbaz. There are no other public
ATUL
witnesses who had allegedly seen the incident of robbery on 09.11.2016. AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.01.24
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 36/50 12:05:34 +0530
Although, as per the testimony of both PW6 IO ASI Sita Ram and PW5
ASI Pradeep there were public persons present, when they reached the
spot, yet no public person was made to join the investigation. It had
categorically come in the testimony of the complainant that amongst the
public persons who had reached the spot after he had raised the alarm, he
knew one Mohd. Afzal and one Babar, however, the said persons were
not interrogated by the IO and they were never made the prosecution
witnesses, especially when as per the testimony of the complainant, the
said Mohd. Afzal was not only present there when accused Imran was
arrested and the recoveries were effected from the accused, the said
Mohd. Afzal was also the informant who had called the police on 100
number and had also accompanied the complainant to the hospital.
47. The complainant, PW3 Mohd. Arbaz is far from being a witness
having sterling credibility. He had made material improvements from his
earlier recorded statements and there are also material contradictions in
his own testimony recorded at different point of time regarding the role
of the accused Imran and the other assailant who had allegedly robbed
him. As per the earlier statement, Ex. PW3/A, the complainant Mohd.
Arbaz had stated that on 09.11.2016, two persons had allegedly robbed
him. One of the accused person had held his neck from behind with his
hand and the other person had kept the chhuri/knife/dagger on his
abdomen/belly. As per the allegations, the person who had weilded the
said chhuri/knife had robbed the complainant of his wallet/purse and the
other assailant who had held his neck, had robbed his mobile phone.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:05:40
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 37/50
48. When PW3 Mohd. Arbaz entered into the witness box for the first
time on 11.08.2017, he had categorically deposed regarding accused
Imran being the said assailant who had used the chhuri/knife and having
robbed him of his wallet. Furthermore, he had also categorically deposed
that it was the other assailant, who had robbed his mobile phone made
HTC Desire 826, blue colour, had held his neck with his hand. There
was no allegation of the other assailant using any chhuri/knife and the
sole allegation of using the said weapon was leveled against accused
Imran. However, when the complainant was re-examined on 26.02.2019,
after the chargesheet qua co-accused Arshad was filed, he had flipped
the entire story regarding the role allegedly played by accused Imran and
the other assailant. Now, he had categorically deposed that it was the
other robber/assailant who had used the weapon/dagger during the
robbery, however, he was not in a position to identify the said robbers, as
he could not see him at the time of the commission of the offence and
that the said weapon was used upon him from behind. The said
testimony of the complainant is running counter to his own testimony
recorded on 11.08.2017, and his earlier statement, Ex. PW3/A, thereby
creating serious doubts regarding his credibility as a witness.
49. In the statement, Ex. PW3/A, the complainant had specifically stated
that he had received the injuries after he was pushed forcefully by the
assailants and due to the said fact, he had fallen down. However, when
he stepped into the witness box on 11.08.2017, he had improved upon
his testimony and had deposed that he had sustained injuries on his neck
and chest in the incident, since he was given fist blows on his chest and Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:05:47
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 38/50
face by accused Imran. He was duly confronted with his earlier
statement, where the said facts were not recorded. The said improved
testimony of the complainant was also running counter to the medical
evidence, i.e. the MLC, Ex. PW2/A, since there is no such injury
recorded on the chest or neck of the complainant.
50. Coming to the MLC, Ex. PW2/A is concerned, there is a material
discrepancy in the name of patient, who was allegedly treated by the
concerned doctor and also the parentage of the said person. As per the
said MLC, the concerned doctor had examined one ‘Mohd. Arwaz S/o
Mohd. Qiyam’ and the concerned doctor had deposed about the same
name, when he stepped into the witness box as PW2 on 22.05.2017.
There was no explanation offered from the prosecution regarding the
discrepancy in the name of the injured person, as recorded in the said
MLC, since both the name of the injured and his father’s name does not
match with the name of the complainant, i.e. Mohd. Arbaz S/o Mohd.
Kayyum.
51. The veracity of the entire investigation including the statement of
the complainant being recorded by the IO; handing over and arrest of
accused Imran; recovery of the alleged stolen property i.e. the
wallet/purse from accused Imran; recovery of the alleged weapon of the
offence i.e. knife/chhuri from accused Imran; the sketch of the recovered
weapon/knife; and the preparation of the site plan at the instance of the
complainant were all put under deep waters by the testimony of the
complainant, PW3 Mohd. Arbaz. As per the prosecution’s case, when Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:05:52
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 39/50
the first IO HC Sita Ram reached the spot alongwith HC Pradeep, the
statement of the complainant was recorded by the IO at the spot itself.
Furthermore, after the IO ASI Naresh Kumar had reached the spot, he
had allegedly prepared the seizure memo of purse, Ex. PW3/B, the
sketch of the knife/chhuri, Ex. PW3/C, the arrest memo, Ex.PW3/D and
the site plan, Ex. PW4/A. As per the prosecution’s case, all the said
documents were prepared by the IO at the spot itself. The IO even
recorded the alleged disclosure statement of accused Imran at the spot, in
the presence of HC Pardeep. However, when the complainant entered
into the witness box as PW3, he had categorically deposed that all the
said documents were prepared by the IO at the PS itself and the
proceedings pertaining to the chhuri and wallet were also carried out at
the PS. PW3 Mohd. Arbaz was declared hostile by the State and he had
denied all the suggestions being put to him by Ld. Addl. PP for the State
that the said documents including his statement were recorded at the
spot. He had categorically deposed in his voluntarily statements that his
statement, Ex. PW3/A was recorded at the PS. Similarly, he had
deposed that all the other documents were prepared at the PS itself. Qua
the site plan, he had deposed that although he had shown the place of
incident to the police, however, the site plan was not prepared in his
presence. Therefore, a serious shadow of doubt is created against the said
documents and the veracity of the contents therein. The said
circumstances coupled with the fact that no public person was made to
join the investigation, in spite of the fact that the public persons were
present there, as evidenced in the testimony of PW3 himself, the
possibility of the false implication and padding up of the incriminating Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:05:58
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 40/50
material upon accused Imran cannot be ruled out.
52. As per the case of the prosecution, the looted wallet/purse, Ex. P-2
(colly) was recovered from the possession of accused Imran and the
same was found to be containing Rs. 200/- in cash and the election I-card
of the complainant. The complainant PW3 Mohd. Arbaz and PW5 ASI
Pradeep had deposed about the said recovered wallet/purse containing
the voter I-card of the complainant, however, the first IO ASI Sita Ram,
who had recovered the said purse from the right side pocket of the
wearing pant of accused Imran had categorically deposed on 11.01.2018,
when he stepped into the witness box as PW6 that after the wallet was
found in the right pocket of the wearing pant of accused Imran, it was
checked by him and the same was found containing one Adhar Card and
Rs. 200/- in cash. Therefore, there has been a contradiction regarding the
alleged ID Card as to whether the wallet which was allegedly recovered
from the accused Imran, was found containing the Adhar Card of the
complainant or his election voter ID Card. The said discrepancy is also
not explained by the prosecution.
53. As per the testimony of the 2nd IO PW4 ASI Naresh Kumar, when he
reached the spot alongwith HC. Pradeep, he met the 1 st IO HC Sita Ram,
with accused Imran and complainant Mohd. Arbaz. He further deposed
that he had interrogated the complainant and the complainant identified
accused Imran before him and also informed the IO that accused Imran
was overpowered with the help of public persons. However, the said
testimony of the IO, regarding what was being told to him by the Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:06:04
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 41/50 +0530
complainant, is not in line with what the complainant had stated in his
statement, Ex. PW3/A, wherein, it was recorded that when both the
assailants were trying to run away from the spot, he chased them and
managed to catch accused Imran after overpowering him. When the
complainant entered into the witness box as PW3, he had similarly
deposed that he had managed to overpower accused Imran by catching
hold of his legs and he had not deposed that the accused Imran was
overpowered by him, with the help of public persons present on the spot.
54. The lapses in the investigation are further accentuated with the claim
made by the accused Imran that his name is not Imran and that his real
name is Kamran S/o Mohd. Rafiq. The said claim of the accused Imran
is further corroborated by the Criminal Dossier No. 140042, maintained
by the Delhi Police. The said document was filed alongwith the
chargesheet and it is purportedly being printed out on 02.06.2017 at
17:55:12. As per the said Criminal Dossier, the accused who was later
chargesheeted before this Court was named Kamran S/o Mohd. Rafiq
and he was not declared as a bad character. There were two cases
pending against him, the first being FIR no. 574/2014, PS Hari Nagar,
u/s 379 IPC, 1860 and the other being FIR no. 57B/2014, PS Seelampur,
u/s 41.1(D) Cr.PC, 1973. In the said Criminal Dossier, there are no
aliases being recorded so as to support the case of the prosecution that he
is also known as Imran S/o Mohd. Rafique. The said document filed
alongwith the chargesheet is also creating doubts upon the entire
prosecution case and is in fact supporting the defense of the accused
ATUL
Imran that he has been falsely implicated under a false identity. AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.01.24
12:06:11 +0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 42/50
55. As per the prosecution’s version, during the incident in question,
the mobile phone of the complainant, make HTC Desire 826, colour blue
with IMEI No. 35963206164701 was robbed. The details of the said
mobile phone were duly recorded in the statement of the complainant,
Ex. PW3/A and the chargesheet filed by the IO. It had categorically
come during the testimony of the complainant PW3 Mohd. Arbaz that he
had not given the bill of the said mobile phone to the IO, however, he
had only shown the bill and box to the IO. However, at the time of taking
mobile phone, Ex. P-4 on superdari, the complainant PW3 Mohd. Arbaz
had filed a copy of the retail invoice, to establish himself being the
owner of the said mobile phone. The said retail invoice clearly reflects
that the mobile phone HTC Desire 826, blue coloured was purchased
from one ‘International Value Retail Private Limited, CP-1 Store, D-27,
Connaught Place, Delhi’ on 21.02.2016 by one ‘Mohd. Quaiser’ and the
IMEI No. of the said mobile phone was ‘359632061564693’. The name
of the owner/purchaser and the IMEI No. of the said mobile phone are
not matching with the IMEI No. mentioned in Ex. PW3/A and the
seizure memo of the said mobile phone, Ex. PW7/A. Therefore, serious
doubts have been created as to whether the same mobile phone, which
was allegedly recovered from the accused Arshad was the mobile phone
which was earlier allegedly robbed from the complainant. The entire
recovery and seizure proceedings are thus shrouded under dark clouds
of suspicion.
56. To link accused Arshad with the alleged offence in question, the ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.01.24
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 43/50 12:06:17 +0530
prosecution has relied upon the call detail records of mobile number
9999164967, Ex. PX-1. The said document was admitted by the accused
persons vide their joint statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC on 25.01.2024.
The said mobile phone was allegedly being used by accused Arshad on
the mobile phone robbed from the complainant. The call detail records
are not accompanied with the Customer Application Form (CAF), to
establish whether the said sim card was issued in the name of accused
Arshad or not. Since, the CAF was not filed alongwith the chargesheet,
nor was it brought on record through the testimony of any prosecution
witness, the said CDR, Ex. PX-1 is also of no use to the case of the
prosecution.
57. As far as the prosecution’s case regarding the involvement of
accused Arshad is concerned, the IO had filed the chargesheet against
him only u/s 411 IPC, 1860 on the basis of his alleged disclosure
statement that he had purchased the mobile phone, Ex. P-4 from some
unknown person for Rs. 4,000/- and that he had knowingly received and
retained the same after having sufficient reasons to believe that the same
was a stolen/robbed property. It is not the case of the prosecution that
accused Arshad was involved in the alleged offence of robbery, yet the
IO for the reasons best known to him got the TIP of the accused Arshad
conducted before the Ld. MM. In the said TIP proceedings, the
complainant Mohd. Arbaz could not identify accused Arshad amongst
the other persons who had taken part in the TIP proceedings, as one of
the assailants who had committed the robbery upon him on 09.11.2016.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:06:23
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 44/50
58. When the complainant re-entered the witness box on 26.02.2019, he
had categorically deposed that on 18.02.2017, he was taken to Tihar Jail
by the IO to identify the robber. He had participated in the TIP
proceedings, however, he could not identify the said robber. There was
no case of the prosecution that accused Arshad had participated in the
offence of robbery, wherein, he had robbed the mobile phone belonging
to the complainant, since there is no such disclosure statement or any
other statement to this effect, yet the then Ld. Addl. PP for the State, in
his own wisdom chose to declare the complainant, PW3 Mohd. Arbaz as
a hostile witness, in spite of the fact that there was no earlier statement of
his to the contrary, wherein, he had identified accused Arshad as one of
the robbers. The buck did not stop there and the Ld. Addl. PP for the
State went on to introduce a totally different case for the prosecution
when he suggested to the witness that accused Mohd. Arshad had also
participated in the robbery or that he had robbed the mobile phone
belonging to the complainant. The said suggestion has done more harm
than good to the case of the prosecution. There was no question of the
complainant not supporting the prosecution case on the point of the
identity of the accused Arshad or that the said mobile phone, Ex. P-4 was
allegedly recovered from the possession of accused Arshad, especially
when the said recovery proceedings never took place in the presence of
the complainant.
Conclusion and Findings:
59. Therefore, the inherent contradictions, inconsistencies and material Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:06:29
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 45/50 +0530
improvements in the deposition of the PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz, coupled with
a highly suspicious and faulty investigation conducted by the police, is
further aggravated with the lapses on the part of the prosecution in not
proving the genesis of their case i.e. the 100 number call made to the
police, regarding the present incident in question has seriously dented the
case of the prosecution. In light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in “State of Rajasthan Vs. Abdul Manan ” (2011) 8 SCC
65, such discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
cannot be overlooked.
60. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the
circumstantial from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be
fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature.
Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be
no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances
must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
and totally inconsistent with his innocence, as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in “Hanuman Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of
MP” AIR 1952 SC 343, “Bodh Raj Vs. State of J&K” AIR 2002 SC
3164 and “Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” AIR
1984 SC 1622 and “C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of A.P. ” (1996)
10 SCC 193.
61. It is also settled law that accused has to only proboblize the defense
and he is presumed to be innocent, till he is proved to be guilty.
Suspicion, however, strong can never take place of proof. There is Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:06:35
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 46/50
indeed a long distance between accused ” May have committed the
offence” and “Must have committed the offence”, which must be
traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliable evidence. Emphasis is
supplied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
“Kailash Gaur Vs. State of Assam ” (2012) 2 SCC 34 and ” Padala Veera
Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh” AIR 1990 SC 79.
62. There is another golden thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases, is that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of
the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to
the accused should be adopted, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in “Kali Ram Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh” AIR 1973 SC 2773.
63. The improvements and the inherent contradictions in the testimony
of the prosecution witnesses had certainly raised doubts in the mind of
the Court and the effort of the Criminal Court is not to be prowl for
imaginative doubts, unless is doubt is of a reasonable dimension and is
what judicially conscientious mind entertains with some objectivity,
otherwise no benefit can be claimed by the accused. In the present case
the doubts raised from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses cannot
be set to be merely imaginative and the same has been borne from the
record of the present case. The said doubts are not merely imaginary or
trivial in nature and it has dented the entire case of the prosecution. The
burden of proof cast upon the accused persons is governed by the
principle of “preponderance of probabilities” and in light of the Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:06:41
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 47/50
discussion above, the accused persons in the present case have been able
to raise reasonable doubts against the prosecution version of events and
the hypothesis as propounded by the accused Imran and Arshad that they
have been falsely implicated in the present case and the case properties
i.e. the mobile phone Ex. P-4 and the wallet, Ex. P-2 (colly) were planted
upon them, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, with the evidence brought on
record, it cannot be said that the chain of prosecution witnesses and the
evidence brought on record was so complete, so as to not leave any
reasonable ground consistent with the innocence of the accused persons.
64. When the entire evidence of the present case is cumulatively read
and appreciated in the background of the settled principle of law and in
the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is of the
view that the evidence brought on record is not worthy of acceptance and
there is a serious shadow of doubt cast upon it. Firstly, the testimony of
PW-3 Mohd. Arbaz, considering the material contradictions and
improvements from his earlier statements, wherein he had leveled
contradictory allegations regarding the role of the accused Imran and the
material improvements regarding the nature of the injury received by
him and the role played by the accused person in the infliction of the said
injuries, has rendered his testimony not worthy of inspiring any
confidence; Secondly, the faulty investigation, wherein, the material
public witnesses were not joined in the investigation; Thirdly, the
discrepancy in the name of the person who was injured and examined by
PW2 Dr. Kunal Kishor, since the name and parentage of the said injured
person was not matching with the name of the complainant and the Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:06:47
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 48/50
prosecution failed to explain the said discrepancy; Fourthly, the
caller/informant not being made a prosecution witness; Fifthly, the IO
not procuring the CAF of the mobile phone being allegedly used by the
accused Arshad; Sixthly, the IMEI number of the alleged phone that was
recovered from the possession of accused Arshad was not matching from
the IMEI number mentioned in the statement of the complainant;
Seventhly, the invoice submitted by the complainant at the time of taking
the said mobile phone on superdari was not matching the IMEI No. and
the ownership details pertained to some other person and not the
complainant; and Lastly, the Criminal Dossier of accused Imran filed
alongwith the chargesheet, not mentioning his name as Imran and no
explanation being offered by the prosecution regarding the discrepancy
in the name and alias of accused Imran, has cumulatively struck at the
very root of the prosecution story rendering it to be improbable and
unbelievable. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there is no doubt
that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and hence, accused Imran is acquitted of the charges
for committing the offences punishable u/s 394/397 r/w section 34 IPC,
1860 and accused Arshad is acquitted of the charges for committing the
offences punishable u/s 411 IPC, 1860. Hence, they shall be set at
liberty.
65. The case property, if any, be released to the rightful owner as per the
law and the applicable rules.
66. The accused persons have already furnished their bail bonds u/s 437- Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:06:55
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 49/50
A Cr.P.C 1973. All the previous bail bonds/surety bonds except for bail
bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C 1973 are hereby canceled and the surety(s)
stands discharged. The documents furnished by the surety(s) shall be
released to them as per rules. The bail bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C 1973
shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
67. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 24.01.2025.
This judgment consists of 50 pages and all
of them have been digitally signed by me.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.01.24
12:07:11
+0530
(ATUL AHLAWAT)
ASJ (FTC)/North-
East/KKD Courts/
Delhi/24.01.2025.
CNR No. DLNE01- 005913-2016 State Vs. Imran & Anr. FIR No. 862/2016 Page no. 50/50
