Delhi District Court
State vs Sumit @ Monu And Anr on 26 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02,
DWARKA COURTS, S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of: -
State Vs. 1. Sumit @ Monu
SHIVALI W/o Sh. Ishwar Singh
BANSAL R/o Village Mundhela Khurd,
Digitally signed by
PO Ujjwa, New Delhi.
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date: 2025.09.26
16:49:38 +0530
2. Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda
S/o Sh. Darshan Singh
R/o RZ-136, X-Block,
New Roshanpura Extension,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 707/23.
FIR No. 330/15.
PS Chhawla.
CNR No. DLSW01-010042-2023.
Charge-sheet filed U/s 392/397/482/411/34 IPC
and u/s 27/54/59 Arms Act.
Charge(s) framed against accused U/s 392/411/482/34 IPC and
Sumit @ Monu u/s 27 Arms Act.
Charge(s) framed against accused U/s 397/411/482/34 IPC
Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda
Date of institution of case 21.08.2015.
Date of case received to Sessions 16.10.2023.
Court
Date of arguments 22.09.2025.
Date of judgment 26.09.2025
Decision Conviction
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons are facing trial for the offence punishable u/s 392/397/411/482/34 IPC and u/s 27 Arms Act.
FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 1 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Bharat Bhushan (PW1) gave his complaint dated 07.06.2015 Ex.PW2/A, which is as under: -
"This is to inform you that I, Bharat Bhushan S/o Manpal Singh R/o Badli, Haryana. I am working at IGIA as ATC. SHIVALI I was coming to Badly my home from my office, when BANSAL reached near Nirmal-Dhaam, a white colour Swift car came from rear-side and forced me to stop my Swift-Dzire Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL 'Zdi' Regn. No. HR14J8572. Two occupants boarded Date: 2025.09.26 16:49:35 +0530 down from rear seat of that vehicle and shown me a pistol and snatched my car on gun-point (pistol) and run towards Chawla-Village. My Mob. Phone and my bag was in my car. My bag was containing My office I-card, My licence, My ATM-card, My office entry-pass and my all other important documents. Then i came to police station and informed police at around 12.15 am in night. Kindly consider my request to find-out my car. I'll be truly oblized. I can identified these persons who involved in the car-jacking. The original documents of this vehicle were also in My car like RC, Insurance etc."
3. On the aforesaid complaint, present FIR was got registered u/s 392/397/34 IPC and u/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
4. During investigations of the case, statement of witnesses were recorded. On the basis of investigation, accused persons were charge-sheeted for offences punishable u/s 392/397/482/411/34 IPC and u/s 27/54/59 Arms Act.
5. Vide order dated 06.05.2017, charge for offences punishable u/s 392/411/482/34 IPC and u/s 27 Arms Act was framed against accused Sumit @ Monu and charge for the offences punishable u/s 411/482/34 IPC was framed against accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, vide order dated 11.09.2024, additional charge for the offence punishable u/s 397 IPC was framed against accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, prosecution examined 8 witnesses.
FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 2 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
7. PW1 Bharat Bhushan deposed that he is working as Sr. Manager in ATC, Airport Authority of India, IGI Airport, and in the intervening night of 06-07.06.2015, he was coming back to home from his office after job in Swift Desire car SHIVALI bearing registration no. HR14J8572 and at about 11.15-11.30 BANSAL pm, when he reached near Nirmal Dham, near to Village Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 Chhawla, one Swift car came from back side, overtook him 16:49:39 +0530 and blocked his way. He further deposed that 2 boys were there in the said car and the person, who was driving Swift car, came down and pointed a pistol towards him (PW1) and threatened to come out from the car. The other person, who was also sitting in Swift car, also came out of the car and came in front of his car. PW1 came out from his car and the person, who pointing pistol towards him, sat on driver seat of his car. Thereafter, they both fled away from the spot. One drove car of PW1 and another drove their own car. He also deposed that the car in which the accused persons came at the spot was a white Swift car, however, now, he does not remember registration number of said car. He further deposed that he took lift from some public person and reached at PS Chhawla and gave his written complaint (already been exhibited during his earlier deposition before Ld. MM on 25.06.2018, as Ex.PW2/A) to SHO of PS Chhawla at around 12.15 am. Police assured to find out his car and the culprits. He had shown the spot of incident to police. He identified accused Sumit @ Monu and Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda in the Court and deposed that accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda pointed pistol FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 3 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
towards him. He identified his Swift Dezir car in photographs Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5.
8. PW2 Manpal Singh deposed that on 02.07.2015, he got released his vehicle i.e. Dezire car bearing registration no.
SHIVALI HR14J857 on superdari for a sum of Rs.5.50 lacs from the BANSAL Court. He proved superdiginama Ex.PW2/A of said car and Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 identified said car in photographs Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5.
16:49:39 +05309. PW3 SI (Retired) Mahaveer Singh deposed that on 19.06.2015, he was posted as ASI at Special Staff Dwarka Sector-16A, and at about 4.30 pm, a secret informer met and informed him that one person by the name of Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda alongwith his associate would go at around 6.00-6.30 pm from Najagrah-Bijwasan Road via ganda nala road to Dwarka in a looted Swift Dezire car on which a fake number plate bearing registration no. DL9CAD2641 would have been fixed, having arms and ammunitions in their possession. He forwarded said information to Inspector Ramesh Kumar and produced the informer before him. He further deposed that a raiding party was constituted consisting PW3, ASI Rambir, HC Pawan Kumar, HC Kuldeep, Const. Ashwani, Const. Praveen, Const. Dharmender, Const. Ashok and Const. Ravinder under supervision of Sl Naveen Kumar and they all were in civil dress and got issued arms and ammunitions from their office. He also deposed that they left their office at around 5.15 pm by using two vehicles, one was government gypsy and another was private car and at about 5.20 pm, they reached at Goyala Dairy Mor, where PW3 requested 6 public persons to FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 4 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
join the raiding party but none agreed and left without disclosing their names and addresses. Thereafter, they reached at ganda nala road at 5.50 pm and at 6.20 pm, one white colour Swift Dezire car was seen coming from SHIVALI Najafgarh-Bijwasan road going towards Dwarka and said car BANSAL was pointed out by the secret informer. He further deposed Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 that he (PW3) with the help of other staff members, got 16:49:36 +0530 stopped the car in which two persons were found traveling, and were apprehended and disclosed their names as Sumit @ Monu and Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda. He further deposed that when the vehicle was checked, same was found stolen/looted and a case FIR No. 330/15 of PS Chhawla was found registered and one pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Sumit @ Monu and one desi katta and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda. PW3 prepared rukka and got registered FIR No. 220/15 of PS Dwarka Sector-23. He also deposed that further investigation was carried out by IO ASI Dharaveer Singh and case property including car was taken into police possession. During investigation, IO prepared seizure memo Mark PW3/A of car without number plate along with key. The number plate was separately seized vide seizure memo Mak PW3/B. During recording of testimony of PW3, ld. defence counsel does not dispute identity of accused persons. PW3 identified the car in photographs Ex.P-l to Ex.P-5. He further deposed that sketch of weapon and ammunition as recovered from accused Sumit @ Monu marked PW-5/A is Ex.PW3/A (OSR); sketch of FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 5 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
weapon and ammunition as recovered from accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda is Ex.PW3/B (OSR); seizure memo of Swift Dzire car without number plate is Ex.PW3/C (OSR); seizure memo of desi katta and live round as recovered from SHIVALI accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda is Ex.PW3/D BANSAL (OSR); seizure memo of pistol and live round as recovered Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 from accused Sumit @ Monu is Ex.PW3/E (OSR); and 16:49:39 +0530 seizure memo of number plate is Ex.PW3/F (OSR).
10. PW4 HC (Retired) Balwan deposed that on 06.06.2015, he was posted as Constable at PS Chhawla and was on emergency duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. At 12.15 am, complainant Bharat Bhushan came to PS and Duty Officer referred complainant to him and IO ASI Ved Ram for investigation. He alongwith IO Ram and complainant reached near Nirmal Dham and complainant pointed out the spot, where incident had happened with him. IO prepared rukka and handed over to PW4 and on the basis of which, he got registered present FIR and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. They searched for accused persons and vehicle, be all efforts went in vain.
11. PW5 HC Dharmender deposed that on 19.06.2015, he was as Constable posted at Special Staff, South-West Staff and a secret informer came and informed to ASI Mahaveer that one person by the name of Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda alongwith his associate would go at around 6.00-6.30 pm from Najagrah-Bijwasan Road via ganda nala road to Dwarka in a looted Swift Dezire car on which a fake number plate FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 6 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
bearing registration no. DL9CAD2641 would have been fixed, having arms and ammunitions in their possession. ASI Mahaveer forwarded said information to senior officer and produced informer to Inspector Ramesh Kumar. He further SHIVALI deposed that a raiding party consisting of ASI Rambir, HC BANSAL Pawan Kumar, HC Kuldeep, Const. Ashwani, Const Praveen, Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 Const. Ashok, Const. Ravinder and PW5 was constituted 16:49:37 +0530 under the supervision of SI Naveen Kumar and all police officials were in civil dress and got issued arms and ammunitions from their office. He also deposed that they left office at around 5.15 pm by using two vehicles, one was government gypsy and another was private car and at about 5.20 pm, they reached at Goyala Dairy Mor, where PW5 requested 6 public persons to join raiding party but none agreed and left without disclosing their names and addresses. He further deposed that they reached at ganda nala road at 5.50 pm and at 6.20 pm, one white colour Swift Dezire car was seen coming from Najafgarh-Bijwasan road going towards Dwarka, which was pointed out by the secret informer and PW5 with the help of other staff members, got stopped said car in which two persons were found traveling, who were apprehended and disclosed their names as Sumit @ Monu and Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda. He further deposed that when the vehicle was checked, it was found stolen/looted and a case FIR No. 330/15 of PW Chhawla was found registered. One pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Sumit @ Monu and desi katta and two live cartridges were recovered from the FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 7 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
possession of accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda. He further deposed that IO prepared sketch Mark PW5/A of recovered pistol, magazine and live cartridges and PW5 signed the same, which were taken into police possession SHIVALI vide seizure memo Mark PW5/B. ASI Mahaveer Singh BANSAL prepared seizure memo Mark PW3/A of car without number Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 plate alongwith key. Number plate was separately seized 16:49:36 +0530 vide seizure memo Mark PW3/B. He also deposed that ASI Mahaveer prepared a rukka and got registered FIR No. 220/15 of PS Dwarka Sector-23. He further deposed that further investigation was carried out by IO ASI Dharamveer Singh, who recorded disclosure statement of accused Sumit @ Sonu Mark PW5/C and case property including car was taken to police possession. During recording of testimony of PW5, ld. defence counsel does not dispute identity of accused persons. He identified the car in photographs Ex.P-l to Ex.P-5. He further deposed that sketch of weapon and ammunition as recovered from accused Sumit @ Monu earlier marked as Mark PW5/A has been exhibited as Ex.PW3/A (OSR) and seizure memo of pistol and live round as recovered from accused Sumit @ Monu earlier marked as Mark PW5/B has been exhibited as Ex.PW3/E (OSR). He also deposed that accused Sumit @ Monu was arrested vide memo Ex.PW7/A (OSR) and accused Satender @ Sonu @ Bhinda was arrested vide memo Ex.PW7/B (OSR); personal search memos of accused persons Satender @ Sonu @ Bhinda and Sumit @ Monu are Ex.PW8/A3 and Ex.PW8/A4 respectively (OSR). During recording of testimony of PW5, FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 8 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
ld. defence counsel does not dispute identity of car, however, the manner of recovery of car was disputed.
12. PW6 ASI Jagdish Prasad deposed that on 07.06.2015, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Chhawla and his duty hours SHIVALI were from 12.00 night to 8.00 am. He received rukka from BANSAL Const. Balwan and on the basis of the same, he recorded Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 present FIR Ex.PW6/A (OSR) and he made endorsement 16:49:35 +0530 Ex.PW6/B on the rukka. He issued certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW6/C. Copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to Const. Balwan for further investigation. He further deposed that he recorded DD No. 4A at 12.45 am Ex.PW6/D (OSR).
13. PW7 SI Pawan Kumar deposed that on 19.06.2015, he was as HC posted at Special Staff, South West Staff and ASI Mahaveer had an information from secret information that one person by the name of Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda alongwith his associate would come at around 6.00-6.30 pm from Najafgarh-Bijwasan Road via ganda nala road to Dwarka in a robbed Swift Dezire car on which a fake number plate bearing registration no. DL9CAD2641 is fixed, having arms and ammunitions in their possession. He further deposed that ASI Mahaveer forwarded said information to senior officer and a raiding party consisting of ASI Rambir, HC Pawan Kumar, HC Kuldeep, Const. Ashwani, Const. Praveen, Const. Ashok, Const. Ravinder and ASI Mahaveer was constituted under the supervision of SI Naveen Kumar and they all were in civil dress and took arms and ammunition. He also deposed that they all left their office at FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 9 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
around 5.15 pm by using two vehicles and at about 5.20 pm, they reached at Goyala Dairy Mor, where ASI Mahaveer requested public persons to join raiding party but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and SHIVALI addresses. He further deposed that they reached at ganda nala BANSAL road at 5.50 pm and at 6.20 pm, one white colour Swift Dezire Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 car was seen coming from Najafgarh-Bijwasan road going 16:49:37 +0530 towards Dwarka, which was pointed out by the secret informer. Said vehicle was got stopped by them in which two persons were found traveling, who were apprehended while trying to flee and disclosed their names as Sumit @ Monu and Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda. He further deposed that when the vehicle was checked, it was found stolen/looted and a case FIR No. 330/15 of PW Chhawla was found registered. One pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Sumit @ Monu and one desi katta and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda. He also deposed that IO prepared sketch of recovered pistol, desi katta magazine and live cartridges, which were sealed and seized by the IO. ASI Mahaveer Singh seized the car after removing the fake number plate and the number plate was separately seized. He further deposed that ASI Mahaveer prepared a rukka and got registered FIR No. 220/15 of PS Dwarka Sector-23 and further investigation was carried out by ASI Dharamveer Singh, who came at the spot and accused persons and case property was handed over to him. ASI Dharamveer arrested accused persons and recorded their FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 10 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
disclosure statements. He further deposed that seizure memo of case property recovered from accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda is Ex.PW3/B; seizure memo of car Ex.PW3/C; seizure memo of desi katta and live rounds SHIVALI Ex.PW3/D; seizure memo of fake number plate Ex.PW3/F; BANSAL arrest memo of accused Sumit @ Monu and Satender Singh Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 @ Sonu @ Bhinda Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B respectively 16:49:35 +0530 and disclosure statement of accused Sumit @ Monu is Ex.PW7/C. He identified both the accused persons in the Court. He further deposed that disclosure statement and arrest memo of accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda bears signature of ASI Dharambir, who has since died.
14. PW8 SI Yaadram deposed that on 06.06.2015, he was posted as ASI at PS Chhawla and his duty hours were from 8 pm to 8 am with Const. Balwan and at about 12.30 midnight (07.06.2015) complainant Bharat Bhushan produced a written complainant to him at the PS. He further deposed that he alongwith complainant and Const. Balwan reached at the spot i.e. Near Nirmal Dham Road, Chhawla Village, which was inspected. He prepared rukka Ex.PW8/A on the written complainant of Bharat Bhushan and handed over the same to Const. Balwan for registration of FIR. He also deposed that he prepared site plan Ex.PW2/B at the instance of complainant. Const. Balwan came back to the spot with copy of FIR Ex.PW6/A and original rukka and handed over the same to him. He further deposed that he searched accused persons and case property in nearby areas and that he handed over copy of FIR to complainant. He further deposed that on FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 11 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
20.06.2015, he received information from Special Staff, South West that accused persons were arrested and case property has been recovered and that accused persons would be produced before the Court on next day. He also deposed SHIVALI that during investigation, he collected copies of documents BANSAL i.e. copy of FIR No. 220/15 of PS Dwarka Sector-23, two Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 copies of sketch of pistol, one seizure memo of car, seizure 16:49:39 +0530 memo of desi katta and live cartridge recovered from the possession of accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda, seizure memo of desi katta and live cartridge recovered from the possession of accused Sumit @ Monu; number plate recovered from the possession of accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda and Sumit; disclosure statements of accused Sumit @ Monu and Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda; arrest and personal search memos of accused Sumit @ Monu and Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda from Special Staff, South West related to the case and placed on record. He further deposed that sketch of weapon and ammunition as recovered from accused Sumit @ Monu is Ex.PW3/A (OSR); sketch of weapon and ammunition as recovered from accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda is Ex.PW3/B (OSR); seizure memo of Swift Dzire car without number plate is Ex.PW3/C (OSR); seizure memo of desi katta and live round as recovered from accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda Ex.PW3/D (OSR); seizure memo of pistol and live round as recovered from accused Sumit @ Monu is Ex.PW3/E (OSR); and seizure memo of number plate is Ex.PW3/F (OSR). He also deposed that disclosure statement of accused Sumit @ Monu FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 12 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
is Ex.PW8/A1 (OSR); disclosure statement of accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda is Ex.PW8/A2 (OSR); arrest memo of Sumit @ Monu Ex.PW7/A (OSR); arrest memo of Satender @ Sonu @ Bhinda Ex.PW7/B (OSR);
SHIVALI personal search of accused Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda BANSAL and Sumit @ Monu are Ex.PW8/A3 and Ex.PW8/A4, Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 respectively (OSR). He further depoed that on 23.06.2015, 16:49:35 +0530 after obtaining permission from the Court, he interrogated and arrested accused persons vide arrest memos Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C. He recorded disclosure statement of accused persons. He also deposed that on 24.06.2015, he moved an application for judicial TIP of accused persons. On 04.07.2015, TIP of accused persons was conducted and he collected copy of TIP proceedings, which are Ex.PW8/D (colly) (page no. 36 to 39). He further deposed that Swift Dezire car bearing registration no. HR14J8572 was released on superdari by the Court and he handed over the same to the complainant. He identified the accused persons. During recording of testimony of PW8, ld. defence counsel does not dispute identity of case property i.e. Swift Dezire car.
15. In their statement recorded u/s 330 BNSS (294 CrPC), accused persons namely Sumit @ Monu and Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda admitted TIP proceedings as Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2.
16. Statement u/s 313 CrPC (351 BNSS) of accused persons Sumit @ Monu and Satender Singh @ Sonu @ Bhinda were recorded, wherein accused persons were briefed on all the incriminating ocular and documentary evidence to which FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 13 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
they denied and further deposed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
17. Accused persons have not led any evidence in support of their defence.
SHIVALI 18. Final arguments were advanced by Mr. Parvez Alam, Ld. BANSAL Addl. PP for the State (substitute) and Sh. Ankit Mutreja, Ld. Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 Counsel for accused persons.
16:49:35 +053019. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that PW-1 Sh. Bharat Bhushan is the star witness and has completely supported the case of prosecution and have correctly identified the accused Satender @ Bhinda and accused Sumit @ Monu in the Court during trial. It is argued that accused Satender@ Bhinda have put gun on the temple of PW1 for the purpose of commission of robbery of complainant's car bearing no. HR-14 J-8572, and accused Sumit @ Monu has acted along with accused Satender @ Bhinda for the commission of the aforesaid robbery in furtherance of their common intention. It is also argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the car bearing no. HR-14 J-8572 was recovered from the possession of accused Satender@ Bhinda and accused Sumit@ Monu. The accused persons have used a fake number plate bearing no. DL9CAD2641 on the looted car, which was seized by seizure memo Ex. PW3/F. Thus, the accused persons Satender@ Bhinda and Sumit @ Monu should be convicted for the FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 14 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
offences u/s 397/411/482/34 IPC and u/s 392/411/482/34 read with 27 Arms Act, respectively.
20. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons have argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond SHIVALI reasonable doubt. To substantiate his point, he argued that the BANSAL judicial TIP for accused Satender @ Bhinda have failed, Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 therefore, no weight can be given to the dock identification, 16:49:36 +0530 without due corroboration. It is also stated that judicial TIP for accused Sumit @ Monu cannot be relied upon as the complainant had already seen the photographs of the accused Sumit @ Monu in the police station. It is also submitted that the recovery of the car bearing no. HR-14 J-8572 is planted by the police officials as no photographs/video was made, no finger print expert was called to take the finger prints of the accused persons from the recovered car. It is also stated that when the car was robbed it had the mobile phone, atm card, some documents belonging to the complainant. The complainant in his testimony has denied any transaction from the atm debit card etc. and therefore, it is argued that the recovery of car is planted. It is also argued that the presence of number of accused persons is also disputed, as the complainant in his complaint has stated that the the accused persons came out from rear seat, so there must be a driver of the vehicle, who is not arrested. He further argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts, accused should be acquitted under all sections of law under which charges has been framed against him.
FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 15 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
21. In the present case, charge under Sec. 397/392/411/482/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act has been framed against the accused. These Sections have been elaborated as under:-
"397-Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause grievous hurt:
SHIVALI If, at the time of committing robbery or BANSAL dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL person, so attempts to cause death or Date: 2025.09.26 16:49:38 +0530 grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
392- Punishment for robbery: Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
411- Dishonestly receiving stolen property Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
482- Punishment for using a false property mark Whoever uses any false property mark shall, unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or withboth.
34- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 16 of 30. PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
were done by him alone.
27. Punishment for using arms, etc.:
(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
SHIVALI (2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or BANSAL prohibited ammunition in contravention of Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL section 7 shall be punishable with Date: 2025.09.26 16:49:39 +0530 imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death."
22. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused.
23. The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 06-07.06.2015, the complainant was coming back from his office in his swift desire car bearing no. HR-14J-8572. At about 11:15-11:30 pm, when the complainant reached near Nirmal Dham, Village Chhawla, Delhi, one swift car blocked his way and two persons got out of the car. Out of the two persons one was identified as accused Satender @ Bhinda and other was identified as Sumit @ Monu. It is stated by the complainant that accused Satender @ Bhinda had put the gun on the temple of the complainant and asked him to get out of FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 17 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
the car. After the complainant got out of the car accused Satender @ Bhinda had taken away the car and the other accused Sumit @ Monu had drove the car in which the accused came. The complaint of the complainant is SHIVALI Ex.PW2/1. Ld. Counsel for accused person has argued that in BANSAL the complaint Ex. PW2/1, the complainant has stated that the Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 accused persons came out from the rear seat of the swift car 16:49:37 +0530 and in his cross-examination has also stated that the accused persons came out from rear seat. It is argued that if accused persons got out from the rear seat then there must be a third person who was driving swift car and the complainant has remained silent about such third person. It is also argued that a person namely Ajay @ Sikku was also arrested in the present FIR but was later discharged as judicial TIP failed. The said fact is corroborated by PW8 in his testimony recorded during his cross-examination. It is vehemently argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused person that since judicial TIP has failed for accused Satender @ Bhinda, the identification before the court is valueless. And, it is argued that accused Satender @ Bhinda was not present at the crime scene.
24. This court is of the considered opinion that the complainant/ PW1 was robbed at gunpoint by some unknown assailants, which as per complainant were two in number. There is indeed some discrepancy with respect to the sitting arrangement of accused person in swift car because as per the version of the complainant the accused person came out from the rear seats in his complaint and cross examination, FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 18 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
however, in his examination in chief the complainant has stated that the accused person Satender @ Bhinda got out from the front seat. Be that as it may be, the testimony of the complainant/PW1 is not reliable with respect to the number SHIVALI of accused persons present on the spot and about the exact BANSAL placement of accused person but that does not lead to an Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 automatic conclusion that complainant/PW1 was not 16:49:37 +0530 looted/robbed. The complainant/PW1 has remained consistent on the aspect of commission of robbery on gunpoint and there is no doubt about the same.
25. In the facts and circumstances of the case identification of the accused persons assumes importance as the accused persons were unknow to the complainant/PW1. On this aspect, the complainant/PW1 has identified accused Sumit @ Monu in judicial TIP as well as before court and the consequent recovery of the swift desire car bearing no. HR 14J 8572 with a false property mark from the possession of accused Sumit @ Monu, further corroborates that accused Sumit @ Monu has committed robbery and thereafter, retained the stolen property. Accused Sumit @ Monu has also used a false property mark i.e, false number plate bearing no. DL9CAD2641 seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/F. To, this extent the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond doubt against accused Sumit @ Monu for commission of offence u/s 392/411/482 read with 34 IPC.
26. It is a well-settled principle that a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is not substantive evidence, but it serves to corroborate the identification of an accused made in court. The Hon'ble FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 19 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
Supreme Court of India in Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar (AIR 2002 SC 3325) has held as under:
"Shri Prabha Shankar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of the appeals raised several points. It has been submitted that Deo Nandan (appellant No. 3) was not named in SHIVALI the first information report and neither known to the BANSAL informant nor to any of the prosecution witnesses and Digitally signed by although no test identification parade was held, he was SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 identified in court for the first time, as such no reliance 16:49:35 +0530 should have been placed upon such an identification more so when there was no exceptional circumstance to place reliance upon his identification for the first time made in Court without the same being corroborated by previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. Section 9 of the Evidence Act deals with relevancy of facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. U says, inter alia, facts which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, in so far as they are necessary for the purpose, are .relevant. So the evidence of identification is a relevant piece of evidence under Section 9 of the Evidence Act where the evidence consists of identification of the accused at his trial. The identification of an accused by a witness in court is substantive evidence whereas evidence of identification in test identification parade is though primary evidence but not substantive one and the same can be used only to corroborate identification of the accused by a witness in court. This Court has dealt with this question on several occasions. In the case of Vaikuntam Chandmppa and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (1960) SC 1340 which is a three Judge Bench decision of this Court, Wanchoo, J., with whom A.K. Sarkar and K. Subba Rao, JJ. agreed, speaking for. the Court, observed that the substantive evidence of a witness is his statement in court but the purpose of test identification is to test that evidence and the safe rule is that the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are stranger to the witnesses, generally speaking, requires corroboration which should be in the form of an earlier identification proceeding or any other evidence. The law laid down in the aforesaid decision has been reiterated in the cases of Budhsen and Anr. v. State of U.P., [1970] 2 SCC 128, Sheikh Hasib alias Tabarak v. The State of Bihar, [1972] 4 SCC 773, Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1991] 3 FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 20 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
SCC 434, Ronny alias Ronald James Alwaris and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, [1998] 3 SCC 625 and Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, [1999] 8 SCC
428. It is well settled that identification parades are held ordinarily at the instance of the investigating officer for the purpose of enabling the witnesses to identify either the properties which are the subject matter of alleged offence or the persons who are SHIVALI alleged to have been involved in the offence. Such BANSAL tests or parades, in ordinary course, belong to the Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL investigation stage and they serve to provide the Date: 2025.09.26 16:49:38 +0530 investigating authorities with material to assure themselves if the investigation is proceeding on right lines. In other words, it is through these identification parades that the investigating agency is required to ascertain whether the persons whom they suspect to have committed the offence were the real culprits. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions of this court in the cases of Budhsen, (supra), Sheikh Hasib (supra), Rameshwar Singh v.
State of Jammu & Kashmir [1972] l SCR 627 and Ravindra alias Ravi Bansi Gohar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [1998] 6 SCC 609.
It is also well settled that failure to hold test identification parade, which should be held with reasonable dispatch, does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible rather the same is very much admissible in law. Question is what is its probative value? Ordinarily identification of an accused for the first time in court by a witness should not be relied upon, the same being from its very nature, inherently of a weak character, unless it is corroborated by his previous Identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. The purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapitulate what a witness has seen earlier, strength or trustworthiness of the evidence of identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in court. If a witness identifies the accused in court for the first time, the probative value of such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal so much so that it becomes, as a rule of prudence and not law, unsafe to rely on such a piece of evidence. We are fortified in our view by catena of decisions of this Court in the cases of Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration, AIR (1958) SC 350, Vaikuntam Chandrappa (supra), Budhsen (supra), Kanan and Ors. v. State of Kerala, [1979] 3 SCC 319, Mohanlal FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 21 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra, [1982] l SCC 700, Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy (supra), State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh and Anr., [1992] 3 SCC 700, Jaspal Singh alias Pali v. State of Punjab, [1997] l SCC 510, Raju alias Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra, [1998] l SCC 169, Ronny alias Ronald James Alwaris, (supra), George and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., SHIVALI [1998] 4 SCC 605, Rajesh Govind Jagesha, BANSAL (supra), State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj and Anr., [2000] l Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL SCC 247 and Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and Ors. v.
Date: 2025.09.26 16:49:36 +0530State of Gujarat, [2000] l SCC 358.
Apart from the ordinary rule laid down in the aforesaid decisions, certain exceptions to the same have been carved out where identification of an accused for the first time in court without there being any corroboration whatsoever can form the sole basis for his conviction. In the case of Budhsen (supra) it was observed:-
"There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness, on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration."
In the case of State of Maharashtra (supra), it was laid down that if a witness had any particular reason to remember about the identity of an accused, in that event, the case can be brought under the exception and upon solitary evidence of identification of an accused in court for the first time, conviction can be based. In the case of Ronny alias Ronald James Alwaris and Ors. (supra), it has been laid down that where the witness had a chance to interact with the accused or that in a case where the witness had an opportunity to notice the distinctive features of the accused which lends assurance to his testimony in court, the evidence of identification in court for the first time by such a witness cannot be thrown away merely because no test Identification parade was held. In that case, the concerned accused had a talk with the identifying witnesses for about 7/8 minutes. In these circumstances, the conviction of the accused, on the basis of sworn testimony of witnesses identifying for the first time in court without the same being corroborated either by previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence, was upheld by this Court. In the case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha (supra), it was laid down that the absence of test identification parade may not be fatal if the accused is sufficiently described in the complaint FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 22 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
leaving no doubt in the mind of the court regarding his involvement or is arrested on the spot immediately after the occurrence and in either eventuality, the evidence of witnesses identifying the accused for the first time in court can form the basis for conviction without the same being corroborated by any other evidence and, accordingly, conviction of the accused was upheld by this Court. In the case of State of SHIVALI H.P. (supra), it was observed that "..test identification BANSAL is considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses Date: 2025.09.26 16:49:38 +0530 in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them. There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely without such or other corroboration." In that case, laying down the aforesaid law, acquittal of one of the accused by High Court was converted into conviction by this Court on the basis of identification by a witness for the first time in court without the same being corroborated by any other evidence. In the case of Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and Ors. (supra), it was observed "It, therefore, cannot be held, as tried to be submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, that in the absence of a test identification parade, the evidence of an eyewitness identifying the accused would become inadmissible or totally useless; whether the evidence deserves any credence or not would always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case." The Court further observed ".the fact remains that these eyewitnesses were seriously injured and they could have easily seen the faces of the persons assaulting them and their appearance and identity would well remain imprinted in their minds especially when they were assaulted in broad day light." In these circumstances, conviction of the accused was upheld on the basis of solitary evidence of identification by a witness for the first time in court."
27. In the present case, since Satender @ Bhinda was not identified during the TIP, his in-court identification stands on a weak footing, unless there is independent corroborative evidence. The complainant failed to identify Satender @ Bhinda during the TIP conducted soon after the arrest. The in- court identification came for the first time during trial, after a FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 23 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
substantial time gap. It is settled law, that in-court identification for the first time has little evidentiary value unless corroborated by other evidence. The prosecution has not brought on record any independent corroborative SHIVALI evidence such as presence of Satender @ Bhinda at or near BANSAL the scene of the crime, any forensic, CCTV or witness linking Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 him directly. In absence of such corroboration, the 16:49:34 +0530 prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/s 397 IPC against Satender @ Bhinda beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must, therefore, go to the accused. However, the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the stolen vehicle was recovered from Satender @ Bhinda with a false property mark, thus accused Satender @ Bhinda is liable for conviction u/s 411/482/34 IPC.
28. It is not out of place to mention, that prosecution has examined PW3 retd. SI Mahaveer Singh, PW5 HC Dharmender, PW7 SI Pawan Kumar and PW8 SI Yaadram, as recovery witnesses to prove recovery from the accused Satender@Bhinda and Sumit @ Monu.
29. Lastly, this court has to examine whether accused Sumit @ Monu is liable for commission of offence u/s 27 Arms Act. Offence u/s 27 Arms Act is committed when the accused uses the arms in contravention of the provisions of Arms Act. In the instant case the complainant has nowhere alleged that accused Sumit @ Monu had used the arm himself. Therefore, he cannot be held liable for the same.
30. As regards the contention of the Ld. Counsel for accused persons that the complainant/PW1 had seen the photographs FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 24 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
of accused Sumit @ Monu before TIP, remains unproved. Complainant/PW1 had withstood cross-examination on this aspect and the defence counsel has not led any evidence to prove the same. Also, the contention of Ld. Counsel for SHIVALI accused persons that the mobile and bag with documents like BANSAL atm debit card were not recovered which suggests recovery is Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 planted is without merit. Just because the mobile, debit card 16:49:38 +0530 etc was not recovered, it would not cast doubt on the prosecution story.
31. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The testimony of the complainant, in the instant case, is not only natural but also trustworthy and worth being relied upon. Having observed as above, in the instant case, the prosecution has also relied upon testimony of PW1 to prove commission of offence u/s 392/411/482/34.
32. The basic purpose of recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is to put in the incriminating evidence brought on record against him by the prosecution and to accord him an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him.
FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 25 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
33. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Neel Kumar Vs. State of Haryana cited as (2012) 5 SCC 766 has held that:-
"It was the duty of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances proved against him while making SHIVALI statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Keeping silent and not BANSAL furnishing any explanation for such circumstance was an additional link in chain of circumstances to sustain Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL charges against you."Date: 2025.09.26 16:49:36 +0530
34. Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 1256 has held that:-
"if the accused remains silent or in complete denial, the Court can take adverse intense against you."
35. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2010) 6 SCC 1 while convicting the accused and taking adverse inference against him with respect to the false answers given by him u/s 313 Cr.P.C observed as under:-
"130. This Court has time and again held that where an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved facts, the Court ought to draw an adverse inference qua him and such an inference shall become an additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case, the appellant Manu Sharma has inter alia has taken false pleas in reply to question no. 50, 54, 55, 56,57,64, 65,67,72,75 and 201 put to him under Section 313 of the Code."
36. In the present case, the statements of accused person u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded and in reply to the most of the questions put to him it is stated either 'I do not know' or 'it is incorrect'. The accused person have not taken any specific defence either in the cross examination of FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 26 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
prosecution witnesses or in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. The answers given by the accused person are evasive in nature and accused person has not explained as to why, they have been falsely implicated in the SHIVALI present case or as to why the prosecution witnesses have BANSAL deposed against them. In these circumstances, applying Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2025.09.26 the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 16:49:38 +0530 'Neel Kumar (supra), Phula Singh (Supra and Sidharth Vashisth (supra)'. This court is of considered opinion that accused persons have not furnished any explanation.
37. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be of sterling quality. In case titled as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2012) 8 SCC 21, it is held that :
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 27 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and SHIVALI every one of other supporting material such as BANSAL the recoveries made, the weapons used, the Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL manner of offence committed, the scientific Date: 2025.09.26 16:49:37 +0530 evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
38. In case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra cited as (2007) SCC 170, it is held that:
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 28 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
39. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witnesses should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution SHIVALI witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there BANSAL Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
Date: 2025.09.2616:49:37 +0530 40. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the considered opinion that PW1 Sh. Bharat Bhushan is the witness of sterling quality as his versions are natural and they have withstood the test of cross examination. This court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW1 Sh. Bharat Bhushan is clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and has been corroborated by the testimony of other prosecution witnesses.
41. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused person Satender @ Bhinda for commission of the offences punishable u/s 411/482 read with section 34 IPC and accused Sumit @ Monu for offence u/s 392/411/482 read with section 34 IPC.
42. Accordingly, accused person namely Satender @ Bhinda is convicted for commission of offences punishable u/s 411/482 read with section 34 IPC and accused Sumit @ Monu is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 392/411/482 read FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 29 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.
with section 34 IPC. Accused Satender @ Bhinda stands acquitted for offence u/s 397 IPC and accused Sumit @ Monu stands acquitted for offence punishable u/s 27 Arms Act.
SHIVALI BANSAL (SHIVALI BANSAL) Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Announced in the open ASJ-02, DWARKA COURTS, Date: 2025.09.26
16:49:36 +0530 Court on 26.09.2025. S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI FIR No. 330/15. Page No. 30 of 30.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sumit @ Monu & Another.