Delhi District Court
State vs Vikram @ Kishan on 30 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 376/2019
CNR No. DLST01-004062-2019
FIR No. 92/2019
PS Ambedkar Nagar
State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
U/s 394/411 IPC &
Section 25/54/59 Arms Act
ID No. : 376/2019
CNR No. DLST01-004062-2019
Date of commission of offence : 02.03.2019
Date of institution of the case : 29.04.2019
Name of the complainant : Mukesh Kumar Sahani
S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Sahni,
R/o H.No. 1608, Himmat
Garh, Asaf Ali Road,
Buniyadi Wali Gali, Central,
Delhi, New Delhi.
Name of accused : Vikram @ Kishan,
S/o Sh. Chander Pal
R/o H.No. G-Ist /230,
Madangir, New Delhi.
Offence complained of against : U/s 394/411 IPC &
the accused persons Section 25/54/59 Arms Act
Offence for which accused persons U/S 392/397 IPC and
were charged U/S 25/27 Arms Act
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 30.01.2025
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30
15:50:50 +0530
FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 1 of 33
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.03.2019
at about 12.20 am at the street of J Block near Aman Bhai
Park, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS
Ambedkar Nagar, the accused had committed robbery of
Rs. 1200/- from the possession of the complainant Mukesh
Kumar Shahni, who was driving his TSR No. DL 1 RU
9639 and while committing robbery, accused had also used
a buttondar knife to threat the complainant in order to
commit the robbery.
2. It is further the allegation that during investigation, near
the PS Ambedkar Nagar, the accused got recovered one
buttondar knife from under the seat of his TSR baring no.
DL 1RS 1944 and which he was keeping without any valid
license and in contravention of notification issued under
Arms Act by Government of NCT of Delhi.
3. The information regarding the incident was given to the
police vide DD no. 5-A dated 02.03.2019 and vide DD
No. 7-A dated 02.03.2019 and the FIR was lodged on the
basis of complaint Ex. PW 1/A lodged vide DD No. 21
dated 02.03.2019 PS Ambedkar Nagar Ex. PW 2/B. After
the completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed
before the Court.
4. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the case
committed to the Court of Sessions and during the trial the
Digitally signed SC No. 376/2019
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 2 of 33
Date: 2025.01.30
PANDEY 15:50:57 +0530
present case was assigned to this Court.
5. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, the
accused Vikram @ Kishan was charged vide order dated
07.09.2019 for the commission of offence punishable U/s
392/397 IPC and for commission of offence punishable
under Section 25/27 Arms Act. The accused had pleaded
not guilty and claimed for the trial.
6. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined eight
witnesses namely PW 1 Mukesh Kumar Sahni, PW 2
Retired ASI Mohd. Iftiqar Khan, PW 3 Vijay Kumar, PW 4
Retired ASI Raghu Nath Giri, PW 5 ASI Jagdish Prasad,
PW 6 HC Surajmal, PW 7 Sachin Pawar and PW 8 / IO SI
Manvir Singh during the trial.
7. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of
accused was U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein the accused Vikram
@ Kishan had opted not to lead any defence evidence.
8. I have heard the final arguments on behalf of the State and
the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. I have also gone
through the material available on record including the
testimonies of witnesses examined during trial and other
evidence as produced during the trial.
9. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of
both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief,
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during
trial. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are detailed
as under:-
SC No. 376/2019
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 3 of 33
Date: 2025.01.30
PANDEY 15:51:04 +0530
10. PUBLIC WITNESSES:-
11.PW 1: Mukesh Kumar Sahni:- He is the victim /
complainant in the present case. He deposed that on
02.03.2019 at around 12.20 am, he was going to drop the
passenger at J Block, Dakshin Puri in his auto no. DL 1RU
9639 from Press Club. The witness further deposed that
while he was in the street in Dakshin Puri, J-Block, one
auto came from opposite side and therefore, he had
stopped his auto on one side, however, the driver of the
said auto came to him after stopping his auto at a distance
and pointed a knife on his neck and took away his money
sum of Rs. 1200/- kept in his shirt pocket.
The witness further deposed that after committing
robbery, he went away in his auto no. 1944. Thereafter, he
had called at 100 number. The witness further deposed that
police arrived there and he along with the police went to
the police station. The witness further deposed that in the
police station, he had given a written complaint and the
witness had identified the same as Ex. PW 1/A. The
witness had identified the accused in the court correctly.
The witness further deposed that after sometime, the
police officials apprehended the accused and brought him
to the police station. The witness further deposed that
accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW 1/B. The witness
further deposed that one knife and his money were
recovered from his possession. The witness had identified
Digitally signed SC No. 376/2019
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 4 of 33
Date: 2025.01.30
PANDEY 15:51:13 +0530
the sketch and seizure memo of the knife as Ex. PW 1/C
and Ex. PW 1/D.
The witness further deposed that the recovered
money was also seized by the police vide Ex. PW 1/E. The
witness further deposed that the auto in which the accused
was traveling was also taken into possession by the police.
The witness further deposed that he had also visited the
place of incident with the police officials and he had
explained the spot to them.
The witness had identified the case property i.e., one
buttondar knife as per seizure/ sketch memo as Ex. PW
1/P1 and currency notes of 200, four currency note of Rs.
100/-, six currency notes of Rs. 50/-, five currency notes of
Rs. 20/- and twenty currency notes of Rs. 10/- as Ex. PW
1/P2 collectively.
12.During his cross examination on behalf of the accused, the
witness replied that he had stated in his complaint that he
had taken the passenger from Press Club, however the
witness was confronted in his complaint where it was not
so recorded. The witness further replied that he had started
plying auto on 01.03.2019 from 04.00 pm and he was not
having any money at that time. The witness further replied
that he did not remember as to from where he had picked
his first passenger on 01.03.2019 and dropped him.
The witness further replied that he also did not
remember as to how many passengers he had picked up
Digitally signed SC No. 376/2019
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 5 of 33
Date: 2025.01.30
PANDEY 15:51:22 +0530
and dropped before 12.00 am. The witness further replied
that he did not remember the fare he had collected from
last passenger on the said date.
The witness denied the suggestion that he was
intentionally not disclosing the fare he had collected from
the passengers on that day. The witness further replied that
the sum of Rs. 1200/- was the money, he had collected as
fare from the passengers. The witness denied the
suggestion that he was not having the money as alleged by
him and the same were used to implicate falsely against
the accused.
The witness had admitted that when the auto was
coming from the opposite side, the passenger with him at
that time had left his auto. The witness replied that he did
not remember the money paid by the passenger dropped at
the alleged place of incident. The witness further replied
that the money collected as fare from the passenger at the
place of incident was kept by him in his shirt’s right side
pocket.
The witness further admitted that at the time of
alleged incident, he was alone in his auto. The witness
further replied that he had seen the registration number of
the auto coming from the opposite side ie.. 1944. The
witness further replied that he did not remember the
complete number of the auto. The witness denied the
suggestion that the place of incident is a busy place even
Digitally signed SC No. 376/2019
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
KUMAR PANDEY FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 6 of 33
PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30
15:51:30 +0530
around midnight. The witness replied that he had called the
police at the same time of the incident.
The witness replied that he had given his written
complaint in the police station. The witness denied the
suggestion that the complaint was not given in the police
station soon after the incident. The witness replied that he
had alone reached at the police station Ambedkar Nagar at
12.20 am and made his written complaint. The witness
replied that the incident pertains to the intervening night of
1/2 .03.2019. The witness identified his compliant as Ex.
PW 1/A, however, he had stated that the same was not in
his handwriting.
The witness further deposed that the same might be
in the handwriting of the police official Manmeet Hooda.
The witness replied that he did not remember the
approximate kilometers, he plied auto from 04.00 pm to
12.20 am. The witness denied the suggestion that he was
making false statement. The witness denied the suggestion
that no recovery was effected in his presence. The witness
further denied the suggestion that his money was not
robbed or that he was deposing falsely.
13.PW 3: Vijay Kumar:- The witness was dealing clerk,
deputy secretary home, GNCT of Delhi at Delhi
Secretariat. The witness produced the copy of the
notification number 235 dated 29.10.1980 and identified
the same as Ex. PW 3/A and identified the signature on the
RAVINDRA
Digitally signed SC No. 376/2019
by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 7 of 33
15:51:59 +0530
document of Sh. Rajeev Kumar Tyagi. The witness further
deposed that as per the notification, keeping buttondar
knife is prohibited act and punishable as per law.
14.This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the
accused despite opportunity have been given.
15.PW 7 Sachin Pawar:- He is the public witness and he
deposed that in the intervening night of 1/2.03.2019 at
about 12.30-01.00 am, he was returning from Press Club
of India after finishing his duty by a TSR. The witness
further deposed that when he had reached at Dakshinpuri,
an another auto driver came from the front side with his
TSR and stopped his TSR in front of their TSR.
The witness further deposed that the said aforesaid
another TSR driver came out from his TSR and came to
their TSR and pointed out a knife towards the driver of
their TSR and threatened him that ‘chal paise nikal’ . The
witness further deposed that he had become frightened and
went away towards his house. The witness further deposed
that after about 10-15 minutes, the aforesaid driver of their
TSR called him from outside his house. After hearing his
voice, he came out from his house. The witness further
deposed that the said TSR driver informed him that the
robber had robbed Rs. 1,200/- from him.
The witness further deposed that he had informed
the registration number of the aforesaid TSR of the robber
as —-1944, thereafter, the victim / TSR driver made a call
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR
KUMAR State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30
FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 8 of 33
15:52:07 +0530
at 100 number in his presence. The witness further
deposed that after some time, police officials had reached
in front of his house. The witness further deposed that at
that time, he was a little bit in drunken state, so he went
inside his house.
The witness further deposed that on the next day, in
morning hours, IO of this case enquired him and recorded
his statement in this regard. The witness further deposed
that he could not identify the accused as at the time of
incident, due to fear he had fled away from the spot. The
witness further deposed that at that time, he was also in a
little bit drunken state.
16.The witness had admitted that he had informed the
complete registration number of the TSR of the robber as
DL 1R S 1944 to the IO. The witness further deposed that
he did not remember whether he had informed to the IO
the registration number of TSR of victim as DL 1R U
9639. The witness further admitted that due to lapse of
considerable time, he could not remember these facts.
17. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused
wherein the witness replied that he had hired the said auto
in front of Press Club of India in a sum of Rs. 150/-. The
witness further replied that he knew the victim/ driver prior
to the incident. The witness voluntarily deposed that
previously he had hired his auto three – four times. The
witness has admitted that when victim handed over Rs.
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
KUMAR PANDEY
FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 9 of 33
PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30
15:52:16 +0530
1,200/- to the accused, he was not present there. The
witness voluntarily deposed that Victim/ driver informed
about the said information.
The witness denied the suggestion that as he knew
victim/ driver prior to the present incident and due to that
reason he was deposing falsely in his favour. The witness
denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely
implicated by the victim in collusion with him. The
witness denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely
at the instance of victim. The witness denied the
suggestion that accused never shown the knife to the
victim or accused did not threaten him or accused did not
robbed anything.
POLICE WITNESSES/OFFICIAL WITNESSES
18.PW 2: Retired ASI Mohd. Iftiqar Khan:- He deposed that
on 02.03.2019, he was posted as ASI at PS Dr. Ambedkar
Nagar. The witness deposed that he was on duty from
04.00 pm to 12.00 midnight. The witness further deposed
that at around 09.40 pm, the rukka was placed before him
by the ASI Manvir for registration of the FIR. The witness
further deposed that on the basis of said rukka, he got the
FIR registered through computer operator and
investigation was handed over to SI Anurag. The witness
had identified the copy of FIR as Ex. PW 2/A.
The witness had identified the endorsement on the
RAVINDRA Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 10 of 33
PANDEY 15:52:24 +0530
rukka as Ex. PW 2/B. The witness further identified the
certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as
Ex. PW 2/C.
19.This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the
accused despite opportunity have been given.
20.PW 4: Retired ASI Raghu Nath Giri: The witness deposed
that on 02.03.2019, he was on duty as duty officer from
12.00 midnight to 08.00 am. The witness further deposed
that he had received the information of PCR call at about
12.30 am, which he had recorded at GD No. 5-A. He had
identified the GD No. 5-A as Ex. PW 4/P-1. The witness
further deposed that he had also recorded the similar
information received in PS vide GD No. 7-A and identified
the attested copy as Ex. PW 4/P-2.
21.This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the
accused despite opportunity have been given.
22. PW5 ASI Jagdish Prasad:- The witness deposed that in the
intervening night of 2/3.03.2019, he was posted as ASI at
PS Dr. Ambedkar Nagar and was on night emergency duty
from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. The witness further deposed
that while he was coming back to PS after attending a call,
one person met him at J-Block, Mother Dairy, Madangir
and disclosed that one suspect is roaming in the area in the
TSR bearing no. DL-1RS-1944 and he had apprehended
the said suspect in the TSR.
The witness further deposed that upon checking the
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
KUMAR PANDEY
FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 11 of 33
PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30
15:52:35 +0530
details of the TSR, it was found stolen from the area of PS
Nizamuddin. The witness further deposed that he had
interrogated the said person and his name was disclosed as
Vikram. The witness further deposed that during
interrogation, accused had disclosed about his involvement
in the incident of the present case, therefore, he had
informed the IO of the present case ASI Manvir over the
phone.
The witness further deposed that on the directions of
the IO, he had brought the aforesaid accused Vikram and
TSR in the police station and produced the accused before
the IO. The witness further deposed that the complainant
of this case was also present with the IO at that time. The
witness had identified the accused in the court correctly
who was stated to be the accused involved in the incident
of robbery of money by putting a knife on the neck of the
complainant.
23. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused
wherein the witness had admitted that his night emergency
duty was from 8.00 p.m. on 02.03.2019 till 8.00 a.m. on
03.03.2019. The witness further replied that he did not
remember the DD number of the call he had attended and
was coming back to the PS. The witness further admitted
that he had not asked the name, address, phone number or
any other detail of the person who met him at J-Block,
Mother Dairy, Madangir.
The witness replied that he did not ask the name,
address, phone number or any other detail of the person
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 12 of 33
15:52:46 +0530
met him at J-Block , Mother Dairy, Madangir as the person
was in a hurry and he had left just after giving the
information about the accused.
The witness further replied that he did not remember
the exact time, however, he had apprehended the accused
Vikram after midnight i.e. on 03.03.2019. The witness
denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in this
regard. The witness further replied that he did not know
the date and time of arrest of accused Vikram as the same
was done by the IO of the case. The witness further replied
that he had checked the details of the TSR at the place of
apprehension of accused Vikram. The witness further
replied that he could not tell the exact time but it was on
03.03.2019.
The witness further replied that he had stated in his
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the IO
regarding disclosure made by the accused about his
involvement in the present case. The witness replied the
suggestion that no such person met him, who had informed
about the presence of accused.
The witness further denied the suggestion that he
had neither apprehended the accused nor the TSR in which
he was stated to be present. The witness further denied the
suggestion that he had not interrogated the accused at the
time of his apprehension. The witness denied the
suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in the
present case to solve the blind case.
Digitally signed by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019 RAVINDRA KUMAR State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan KUMAR PANDEY FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 13 of 33 PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30 15:52:56 +0530
24. PW 6 HC Surajmal:- The witness deposed that on the
intervening night of 1/2.03.2019, he was posted as
Constable at PS Dr. Ambedkar Nagar and was on night
emergency duty from 08.00 p.m. to 08.00 a.m. with ASI
Manvir. The witness further deposed that on receiving a
call vide DD No.5A, he alongwith IO went to the spot i.e.
at J-Block, Main Road, Madangir where one person
namely Mukesh was found present.
The witness further deposed that Mukesh had
disclosed that he had been robbed by an Auto Driver and
he had left the spot without giving any complainant while
saying that he would return in the morning with his uncle.
The witness further deposed that on the next morning,
Mukesh had come in the police station. The witness
further deposed that IO ASI Manvir had taken the Mukesh
to the spot again and thereafter they returned to the police
station.
The witness further deposed that after their return,
ASI Jagdish produced one person whose name was
disclosed as Vikram @ Kishan and one TSR bearing
no…..1944. The witness further deposed that upon
checking the registration number of TSR found in
possession of the accused was also found to be stolen. The
witness had identified the seizure memo of stolen TSR as
Ex. PW 8/P-3.
The witness further deposed that one buttondar knife
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 14 of 33
15:53:04 +0530
was also recovered from the tool box kept under the seat of
the driver of the TSR which was in the possession of the
accused. The witness further deposed that the IO had
prepared the scaled sketch of the recovered knife as Ex.
PW 1/C. The witness further deposed that the recovered
knife was also sealed in the pullanda with the seal of MS
and identified the seizure memo as Ex. PW 1/D.
The witness had identified the accused in the court
correctly. The witness had identified the arrested and his
personal search memos as Ex. PW 1/B and Ex. PW 8/P-4
both bearing his signature at point C. The witness further
deposed that IO had also recorded the disclosure statement
given by the accused. The witness further identified the
case property i.e., one buttondar knife as Ex. PW 1/P-1.
The witness further identified the case property i.e.,
currency notes of different denomination as per seizure
memo and identified the same as already Ex. PW 1/P-2
collectively.
This witness was cross examined on behalf of the
accused wherein the witness replied that they had received
the DD about this incident at about 12.30 am and they had
reached the spot within ten minutes of receiving the same.
The witness further replied that at the spot, the
complainant Mukesh Sahni was present at the spot. The
witness further replied that one public person namely
Sachin was also present at the spot.
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
Date: 2025.01.30
PANDEY 15:53:14 +0530
FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 15 of 33
The witness further replied that he had no
knowledge if public person Sachin was heavily drunk at
that time. The witness further replied that he did not
remember if the IO had recorded the statement of the
Sachin at the spot itself.
The witness denied the suggestion that he had no
knowledge about the same since he had not visited the spot
with the IO as alleged by him. The witness further replied
that only IO could tell about their departure from the PS to
the spot after receiving the DD. The witness replied that
they had remained at the spot for about 30 minutes at that
time.
The witness further replied that the statement of the
complainant/ victim was not recorded at that time as he
had requested to the IO that he would come again with his
uncle. The witness further replied that the registration
number of the TSR was within their knowledge during the
night time itself. The witness further replied that IO had
not prepared the site plan in his presence.
The witness further replied that he did not remember
the exact denomination of the currency notes which were
seized by the IO during the investigation. The witness
admitted that no videography or photography was
conducted in relation to the recovery of TSR, knife and
currency notes. The witness denied the suggestion that the
case property was planted upon the accused to falsely
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
Date: 2025.01.30
PANDEY 15:53:21 +0530 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 16 of 33
implicate him in this case.
The witness further denied the suggestion that no
incident of robbery was committed by the accused at any
point of time. The witness further replied that IO had not
recorded the statement of independent public person in his
presence. The witness further replied that no CCTV
footage covering the incident was collected by the IO in
his presence. The witness further replied that the place of
incident was J-Block Main Road, Dakshinpuri.
The witness further stated that he inadvertently
stated the place of incident in Madangir instead of
Dakshinpuri in his examination in chief. The witness
further denied the suggestion that he had not gone to the
place of incident in J-Block, Dakshinpuri as stated by him.
The witness further denied the suggestion that he had not
visited any place in connection with this case with the IO
or that no recovery was effected from the accused. The
witness further denied the suggestion that he had signed all
the memos while sitting in the police station at the instance
of the IO at later stage.
25. PW 8 SI Manvir Singh:- He is the IO in the present case
and he deposed that in the intervening night of 1-
2.03.2019, he was posted as an ASI in PS Ambedkar
Nagar. The witness deposed that on that night, he was on
night emergency duty from 08.00 pm to 08.00 am. The
witness further deposed that on that night, after about
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
Date: 2025.01.30
PANDEY 15:53:32 +0530 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 17 of 33
12.30 am, he was marked DD No. 5-A exhibited as Ex.
PW 4/P-1 for necessary action.
The witness further deposed that thereafter, he
alongwith Ct. Surajmal reached to the spot i.e., J- Block
Street near park, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi where
complainant Mukesh Kumar Saini met them. The witness
further deposed that the complainant informed him that he
was robbed of Rs. 1,200/- on the point of knife by another
TSR driver whose registration number was DL-1R-S-1944.
The witness further deposed that he told him that he
would give his statement after consulting his uncle and
thereafter, he left the spot. The witness further deposed that
thereafter he along with Ct. Surajmal came back to the PS.
The witness further deposed that after some time,
complainant along with his uncle reached to the police
station Ambedkar Nagar. The witness further deposed that
the complainant had handed over him his written
complaint Ex. PW 1/A. The witness further deposed that
thereafter, he had prepared the rukka as Ex. PW 8/P-1.
The witness further deposed that the Rukka was
handed over to the duty officer who had got registered the
FIR of this case vide FIR No. 0092/2019 under Section
394 IPC. The witness further deposed that the Duty officer
had handed over to him the copy of the FIR exhibited as
Ex. PW 2/A and orginal rukka.
The witness further deposed that thereafter he along
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 18 of 33
15:53:40 +0530
with complainant and Ct. Surajmal had reached at the spot
where complainant had shown him the place of incident.
The witness further deposed that in between, ASI Jagdish
had called him and informed that he had already
apprehended a suspect with his TSR and he along with the
suspect were already present in the police station.
The witness further deposed that thereafter, he along
with complainant and Ct. Suraj Mal came back in the PS.
The witness further deposed that in the police station, he
found the TSR no. DL 1R S 1944 as parked there. The
witness further deposed that the complainant had identified
the said TSR and accused Vikram @ Kishan as the robber
who robbed Rs. 1,200/- on the point of knife from him.
The witness further deposed that he had interrogated the
accused Vikram @ Kishan and thereafter accused got
recovered Rs. 1,200/- from dashboard of his TSR. The
witness further deposed that the accused Vikram @ Kishan
also got recovered a buttondar knife from below the
driving seat of the said TSR. The witness further deposed
that he had kept the recovered Rs. 1,200/- in a pullanda
and sealed the same with the seal of MS and the said
pullanda was seized and he identified its seizure memo as
Ex. PW 1/E.
The witness further deposed that he had also
prepared the sketch of the recovered buttondar knife and
identified the same as Ex. PW 1/C. The witness further
deposed that the said knife was kept in another pullanda
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 19 of 33
15:53:54 +0530
and sealed the same with the seal of MS. The witness
further deposed that the said pullanda was seized vide
seizure memo Ex. PW 1/D. The witness further deposed
that he had recorded disclosure statement of the accused as
Ex. PW 8/P-2.
The witness further deposed that he had checked
from the Zipnet that TSR No. DL 1RS 1944 was stolen
property from the area of PS Nizamuddin. The witness
further deposed that he had seized the said TSR under
Section 102 Cr.PC and identified its memo as Ex. PW
8/P-3. The witness further deposed that thereafter, he had
arrested the accused Vikram @ Kishan and he prepared his
arrest memo as Ex. PW 1/B and also conducted his
personal search and prepared memo as Ex. PW 8/P-4.
The witness further deposed that thereafter, accused
led the police team to the place of incident where he
pointed towards the spot where he robbed Rs. 1,200/- from
the complainant on the knife point. The witness further
deposed that during the said process, Ct. Surajmal and
Complainant Mukesh Kumar Sahni were also present with
him. The witness further deposed that he had prepared the
pointing out memo in this regard and identified the memo
as Ex. PW 8/P-5.
The witness further deposed that thereafter, the
accused was produced before Ld MM from where he was
sent in judicial custody. The witness further deposed that
Digitally signed SC No. 376/2019
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 20 of 33
Date: 2025.01.30
PANDEY 15:54:06 +0530
during the course of investigation, he gave information in
PS Nizamuddin regarding the recovery of TSR No. DL 1
RS 1944. The witness had identified the accused in the
court correctly. The witness had identified the case
property i.e., TSR no. DL 1 RS 1944, knife already Ex.
PW 1/P-1 and currency notes already Ex. PW 1/P-2
collectively.
26. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused
wherein the witness replied that he himself had not made
the departure entry on that night prior to leaving the PS for
investigating this case. The witness voluntarily deposed
that the duty officer had made his departure entry. The
witness denied the suggestion that no departure entry was
made by the duty officer or he was deposing falsely in this
regard.
The witness further deposed that they had reached at
the spot at about 12.45 am in the night. The witness further
deposed that at the spot, complainant Mukesh Kumar
Sahni met him with his TSR.
The witness further deposed that the complainant
himself written the TSR number of the robber in his
complaint. The witness denied the suggestion that the
complaint Ex. PW 1/A was not written by complainant
Mukesh Kumar Sahni. The witness replied that on that
night, no police official namely Manmeet Hooda was on
duty in PS Ambedkar Nagar.
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 21 of 33
PANDEY 15:54:16 +0530
The witness replied that at the time of recovery at
the instance of accused Vikram @ Kishan, complainant
Mukesh Kumar Sahni was also present with him. The
witness further replied that no other public person except
the complainant was present at that time. The witness
further replied that no videography or photography was
done at the time of recovery at the instance of the accused.
The witness denied the suggestion that the alleged
recovery articles were planted on the accused by him or
that no such incident took place and due to that reason, he
had not prepared any site plan of the spot. The witness
denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated
in this case by him in collusion with the complainant
Mukesh Kumar Sahni.
Arguments on behalf of the State through Ld. Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State
27.It is submitted on behalf of the State by Ld. Additional
Public Prosecutor that on 02.03.2019, at about 12.20 am, at
the spot in street J-Block, near Aman Bhai Park,
Dakshinpuri, New Delhi, the complainant examined as PW
1 Mukesh Kumar was taking the passenger to his house in
his auto bearing no. DL 1RU 9639 and when reached at the
spot, accused Vikram @ Kishan came from the opposite
side of the street in an another auto bearing registration no.
DL 1RS 1944 and blocked the way.
It is further argued that thereafter, the accused came
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 22 of 33
15:54:24 +0530
to the complainant/ victim Mukesh Kumar who was at the
driver seat of the TSR and threatened him by showing
buttondar knife and robbed sum of Rs. 1200/- from his
possession.
It is further argued that the passenger Sachin Pawar
examined as PW 7 was present at the time of incident,
however, he had left the spot when the accused used the
knife to commit robbery. It is further argued that the TSR
used by the accused was found to be stolen property from
the area of PS Nizamuddin and the weapon of offence i.e.,
knife and the robbed money were also recovered from his
possession soon after the incident.
It is further argued that the complainant/ victim has
categorically and specifically given the details of the
incident and had also identified the accused and the robbed
money and the knife used in commission of offence during
his testimony in the court.
It is further argued that the passenger Sachin Pawar
examined as PW 7, had also corroborated the testimony of
the complainant/ victim and the incident itself. He had
further corroborated the fact that soon after the incident,
the complainant had called the PCR by dialing 100
number. It is further argued that the ASI Jagdish Prasad
was examined as PW 5, had also corroborated the
deposition of complainant and the passenger Sachin Pawar
since he had apprehended the accused along with the TSR
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 23 of 33
PANDEY 15:54:31 +0530
bearing no. DL 1 RS 1944 from the place near the spot
when he was coming back to the PS after attending another
call.
It is further argued that he had also deposed that on
enquiry, the aforesaid TSR was found to be stolen property
and the accused Vikram disclosed his involvement in the
present case and he had also informed the IO of the present
case and had identified the accused Vikram @ Kishan in
the present case.
It is further argued that PW 3 Vijay Kumar from the
office of deputy secretary, Home, GNCT Delhi and proved
the notification issued by the competent authority under
Arms Act in relation to the buttondar knife and has been
exhibited as Ex. PW 3/A and the same has not been
disputed by the accused.
It is further argued that the case property and the
weapon were duly identified by the witnesses during their
testimony before the court and have been duly proved
during the trial.
It is further argued that the relevant DDs and GDs
have been proved by the other police witnesses along with
other documents/ memos prepared by the IO during the
investigation. It is further argued that the IO and his
assisting police officials had proved the investigation and
the factum of recovery of stolen TSR, knife and currency
notes robbed from the complainant.
Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR SC No. 376/2019 KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 24 of 33 15:54:39 +0530
It is further argued that in the light of the deposition
of the complainant Mukesh Kumar examined as PW 1,
Sachin Pawar examined as PW 7 and ASI Jagdish Prasad
examined as PW 5, besides the investigation part, the
offence of committing robbery by using dangerous weapon
punishable under Section 392/397 IPC and possessing the
buttondar knife in contravention of the notification issued
by the competent authority under Arms Act and punishable
under Section 25/27 Arms act stands proved against the
accused Vikram beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he
is liable to be convicted for the offence he has been
charged.
28.ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE
ACCUSED/DEFENCE, THROUGH MS. BABITA
RAWAT.
29.It is argued on behalf of the accused that accused was
charged with respect to the offence punishable U/s 392/397 IPC
and U/s 25/27 Arms Act. It is further argued that the victim in
the present case is Mukesh Sahani and he was examined as
PW1.
It is further argued that as per the allegations, the date of
incident is the intervening night of 01 st of March and 02nd of
March, 2019 at about 12.20 am, the alleged incident took place
at around 12.20 am. It is further argued that in the first
information given to the police vide GD 5-A, the complainant
had alleged that one boy had snatched the money of the caller
near Sai Mandir. It is further argued that in the second GD 7-A,
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 25 of 33
PANDEY 15:54:48 +0530
the complainant had alleged that caller had snatched the money
and auto bearing no. is DL1RU-9649.
It is further argued that when police reached there,
complainant did not lodge any formal complaint and requested
the police to lodge his complaint in the morning when he
would visit to the police station. It is further argued that at
about 09.50 am, the complainant went to the PS alongwith his
uncle and he lodged his complaint Ex. PW1/A.
It is further argued that the said complaint was not
written by him as mentioned in his cross examination dated
25.07.2022 and one police official namely Manmeet Hooda
wrote the complaint of the complainant and he stated that it
might be in the handwriting of police official namely Manmeet
Hooda.
It is further argued that the IO of the case/PW-8 during
his cross examination replied that no police official namely
Manmeet Hooda was on duty in PS Ambedkar Nagar on the
relevant time. It is further argued that the accused had shown to
be arrested at around 01.00 pm on 02.03.2019.
It is further argued that as per the record of the FIR, the
said FIR was registered on the basis of rukka placed before
PW-2 at around 09.40 pm on 02.03.2019. It is further argued
that PW-5/ASI Jagdish Prasad was on duty from 08.00 pm of
02.03.2019 to 08.00 am on 03.03.2019 and he had apprehended
the accused with one TSR on the basis of suspicion, meaning
thereby the witness was not on duty at 01.00 pm when the
accused was shown to be arrested in the present case.
Digitally signed
It is further argued that the witness PW-5 did not
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30
FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 26 of 33
15:54:56 +0530
disclose the time of apprehension of the accused. It is further
argued that the PW-5 further deposed in cross examination that
he had apprehended the accused Vikram after midnight i.e. on
03.03.2019 which is contradictory to the averment of the IO.
It is further argued that the accused was falsely arrested
and shown to be arrested in the present case on 02.03.2019 at
around 01.00 pm, which is contrary to the averment of PW-5
who claimed that accused was apprehended by him on the basis
of suspicion on 03.03.2019.
It is further argued that the complainant in his complaint
had first time disclosed about the use of knife and he did not
disclose about the knife in his initial complaint lodged vide GD
No. 5-A and GD No. 7-A dated 02.03.2019. It is further argued
that there was no mentioning of the fact regarding snatching of
Rs. 1200/- from his pocket and while putting knife on his neck.
In his complaint, he only disclosed that the said person had
snatched Rs. 1200/- by showing knife.
It is further argued that the complainant did not disclose
about the denomination of currency notes allegedly snatched in
the incident nor he had disclosed about the currency note of Rs.
200/- which was allegedly recovered from the possession of the
accused during the investigation.
It is further argued that during cross examination, the
complainant had deposed that the alleged eye witness namely
Sachin was not sitting in the auto of the victim and he had left
the auto at the time when accused came with his auto from the
opposite side towards the victim.
It is further argued that the complainant did not
RAVINDRA
Digitally signed SC No. 376/2019
by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 27 of 33
PANDEY 15:55:04 +0530
remember the money paid by the said passenger. It is further
argued that the said passenger/eye witness Sachin Panwar did
not support the case of prosecution and he claimed that incident
took place in his presence. It is further argued that he did not
identify the accused during his examination in chief.
It is further argued that eye witness Sachin Panwar
claimed that victim was known to him prior to the incident and
in this manner, the witness PW-7 was an interested witness. It
is further argued that during cross examination, PW-7 admitted
that at the time of handing over of Rs. 1200/- by the victim to
the accused, he was not present there.
It is further required that the said uncle of the victim was
not associated as a witness in the present case. It is further
argued that no site plan or the sketch of place of incident were
prepared during the investigation. It is further argued that the
witness PW-1 had admitted that he was alone in the auto when
the incident took place.
It is further argued that the PW-1 deposed that he had
lodged the complaint soon after the incident, however, in his
statement recorded U/S 161 Cr.PC, he had lodged the
complaint later on while visiting to the PS with his uncle. It is
further argued that he had claimed that he went to the PS
Ambedkar Nagar alone at around 12.20 am and lodged his
complaint, however, as per the statement U/s 161 Cr.PC, he had
lodged the complaint lateron while visiting to the PS with his
uncle.
It is further argued that the PW-6 HC Surajmal deposed
that the place of incident was Madangir, but in his cross
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
Date: 2025.01.30
PANDEY 15:55:11 +0530 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 28 of 33
examination, he had replied that the incident pertains to
Dakshin Puri, Ambedkar Nagar.
It is further argued that the PW-8/IO gave contradictory
statement regarding the date and time of arrest qua the witness
PW-5 ASI Jagdish Prasad. It is further argued that no recovery
witness was associated and no videography or photography was
conducted at the time of recovery.
It is further argued that there are various contradictions
in the case of prosecution, so accused is entitled to acquitted. It
is further argued that the alleged recovered auto which was
claimed to be a stolen auto by the accused, the accused had
already been acquitted in FIR No. 7233/2019 PS Hazarat
Nizamuddin vide judgment dated 06.04.2023 by the Court of
Ld. MM:03 South-East, Saket. It is further argued that the
accused has been falsely implicated in the present case, so he is
entitled to be acquitted.
30.Heard the submission of both the parties. Perused the
record of the chargesheet including the statement of
witnesses and other material placed on record.
THE REASON FOR DECISION
31.In order to prove the charge for the offence punishable U/s
392/397 IPC and charge of offence punishable under
Section 25/27 of the Arms Act against the accused, the
prosecution has mainly relied upon the version of the
complainant / victim who was examined in the court as
PW 1. The police / investigating agency was informed by
the complainant on three occasions i.e., firstly vide GD
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 29 of 33
15:55:20 +0530
No. 5-A dated 02.03.2019 Ex. PW 4/P-1, vide GD No. 7-A
dated 02.03.2019 Ex. PW 4/P-2 and the complaint dated
02.03.2019 as Ex. PW 2/A. As per the case of the
prosecution, the FIR was registered on the basis of
complaint of the complainant Ex. PW 1/A which was
endorsed with the DD No. 21 dated 02.03.2019 Ex. PW
2/B by the duty officer. The FIR was registered at around
09.50 pm on 02.03.2019.
32. As per the content of GD No. 5-A, the information about
the incident was given on 02.03.2019 at around 00:31:01
hrs and in the said information, it was alleged that the
money of the complainant was snatched by some boy and
there is no mention in the said information that auto of the
complainant was snatched or knife was used in the
commission of offence against the complainant. Similarly,
in the second information, which was lodged vide GD No.
7-A dated 02.03.2019 at 00:37:51 hrs, the complainant has
alleged that one boy had snatched his money and auto
bearing no. DL 1 RU 9649.
33.As per the record of the file, the enquiry was marked to the
IO SI Manvir Singh who went to the spot and as per the
statement of the IO/ PW 8, the complainant had met them
and he informed about the offence of robbery committed
against him on the point of knife by another auto/ TSR
driver having registration no. DL 1 RS 1944. He also
requested to the IO that he would give his statement
lateron after consulting with his uncle. It is averred in the
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
Date: 2025.01.30
PANDEY 15:55:30 +0530 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 30 of 33
statement of PW 8, that after sometime, complainant came
in the police station Ambedkar Nagar and handed over a
written complaint Ex. PW 1/A and the FIR was lodged and
investigation was taken up by the IO. It is averred by the
IO that he along with complainant and Ct. Surajmal went
to the spot and complainant had shown the place of
incident to the IO.
34.It is a matter of record that no site plan of the place of the
incident has been proved or placed with the charge sheet
during the trial.
35.As per the version of the complainant PW 1, he went to the
police station along with his uncle and lodged his written
complaint which was allegedly written by some police
official namely Manmeet Hooda, however, it is a matter of
record that no police official in the name of Manmeet
Hooda was associated in the investigation of the present
case. It is also a matter of record that the said uncle of the
complainant who accompanied the complainant to the
police station in lodging the complaint was not associated
in the investigation of the present case.
36.As per the case of prosecution, the accused Vikram @
Kishan was apprehended by the PW 5 ASI Jagdish Prasad
and he apprehended the accused in the intervening night of
02.03.2019 to 03.03.2019 as he was on emergency duty on
the said date from 08.00 pm to 08.00 am. As per his
testimony, he apprehended the accused with the TSR
Digitally signed
SC No. 376/2019
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 31 of 33
PANDEY 15:55:38 +0530
bearing no. DL 1 RS 1944 on the basis of suspicion and on
checking the detail of the TSR, it was found to be a stolen
vehicle and he brought the accused and TSR in the police
station and he also informed to the IO of the present case
regarding the apprehension of the accused. During cross
examination of PW 5, he had specifically stated that he had
apprehended the accused Vikram @ Kishan after midnight
i.e., on 03.03.2019. He did not disclose the exact time of
apprehension of the accused Vikram @ Kishan.
37.On the other hand, as per the version of PW 8/ IO, he
received the custody of the accused Vikram @ Kishan in
the intervening night of the date of incident i.e.,
01.03.2019 to 02.03.2019. PW 8/IO had also stated that the
knife and robbed cash were recovered from the possession
of the accused and at his instance.
38.In view of the contradictory testimonies of the IO / PW 8
SI Manvir Singh and PW 5 ASI Jagdish Prasad regarding
the time of apprehension of the accused, time of arrest of
the accused, the mode and manner of the arrest of the
accused, recovery of the buttondar knife and recovery of
alleged robbed amount is doubtful. It is also admitted fact
that the accused has already been acquitted in the case
bearing E-FIR No. 007233/2019, PS Hazrat Nizamuddin
regarding the theft of the TSR bearing no. DL 1 RS 1944
on the basis of which, PW 5 ASI Jagdish Prasad had
initially apprehended him. It is also a matter of record that
the TSR of the complainant was never robbed and only
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA SC No. 376/2019
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan
Date: 2025.01.30 FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 32 of 33
PANDEY 15:55:46 +0530
amount of Rs. 1200/- was robbed and complainant gave
false information regarding the robbery of his TSR bearing
no. DL 1RU 9649 which was lodged vide GD No. 7-A
dated 02.03.2019.
39.In view of the above discussion the court is of the
considered view that the case of the prosecution against the
accused Vikram @ Kishan S/o Sh. Chander Pal regarding
the charge of offence punishable under Section 392/397
IPC and regarding the charge of offence punishable under
Section 25/27 Arms Act is not proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, accused Vikram @ Kishan S/o Sh.
Chander Pal is acquitted from the present case.
40. The accused Vikram @ Kishan is directed to furnish the
bail bond/ surety bond in terms of Section 481 of BNSS,
2023 for sum of Rs. 10,000/- . Bail bond/ Surety bond
furnished and accepted.
41.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA Announced in the open Court, KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.01.30 15:55:55 +0530 On 30th January, 2025 (Ravindra Kumar Pandey) ASJ:03/South/Saket Courts, New Delhi SC No. 376/2019 State Vs. Vikram @ Kishan FIR No. 92/2019; PS Ambedkar Nagar 30.01.2025 page no. 33 of 33