Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak @ Birju on 6 March, 2026
-:: 1 ::- Dated 06.03.2026 IN THE COURT OF MS.SHAGUN JMFC-06, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURT Cr. Case 90/2017 State Vs. Deepak @ Birju 1091/16 (Vijay Vihar) U/s 279/338 IPC JUDGMENT
1. Date of Commission of Offence 09.11.2016
2. Date of Institution 04.01.2017
3. Name of the complainant Om Prakash S/o Sh. Peeru Ram
4. Name & address of the accused Deepak @ Birju S/o Dal Chand R/o I-455, Mangol Puri, Delhi.
5. Offence complained of 392/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order Acquitted
8. Date of reserve for judgment 04.02.2026
9. Date of announcing of judgment 06.03.2026 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of accused pursuant to charge sheet filed by PS Vijay Vihar U/s 392/34 IPC subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR 1091/16 PS Vijay Vihar.
2. As per the prosecution, on 09.11.2026 at about 08:30 pm in DDA District Park, Avantika at Sector-01, Rohini, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS V.Vihar alongwith two other associates (not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of the purse containing driving licence, Aadhar card, ID proof, PAN card and Rs. 10,000/- in cash belonging to the complainant Sh.
Om Parkash after wrongfully restraining him and putting him in fear of instant hurt thereby committed robbery and thereby you committed an offence punishable u/s 392/34 IPC. Accordingly, after completing the formalities, FIR No. 1091/2016, PS Vijay Vihar Pagesigned Digitally : 1 of 4 by SHAGUN SHAGUN Date:
2026.03.06 17:43:55 +0530
-:: 1 ::- Dated 06.03.2026 investigation was carried out and charge sheet was filed against the accused persons in the Court.
3. On appearance of the accused, documents were supplied to him and thereafter notice under Section 392/34 IPC was framed against him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4.1 The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 04 witnesses in total, the details whereof are given as under:
S. No. Name of Documents Exhibited in Evidence. Dates of Dates of cross-
Prosecution examination-in- examination.
witnesses. chief.
PW-1 ASI Jitender 31.05.2023 31.05.2023
Prakash
PW-2 ASI Narender Rukka is Ex. PW2/A 03.11.2023 03.11.2023
Singh
PW-3 Retd. SI Prem Raj (i) Arrest Memo is Ex. PW3/A. 14.03.2024 14.03.2024
(ii) Personal Search Memo is Ex. PW3/B.
(iii) Discloser statement of accused vide memo is Ex. PW3/C
(iv) Site Plan is Ex. PW3/D. PW-4 HC Parmil Kumar 10.11.2025 10.11.2025 Vide separate statement of accused recorded on 20.09.2024, accused admitted that FIR Ex. A1 and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. A2 without admitting the contents of the same.
5. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION. 5.1 Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused have been heard. Evidences, judgments as relied upon and documents FIR No. 1091/2016, PS Vijay Vihar Page : 2 of 4 Digitally signed by SHAGUN SHAGUN Date:
2026.03.0617:44:01 +0530
-:: 1 ::- Dated 06.03.2026
on record have been perused carefully.
5.2 I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made
before me. Accused is indicted for the offences U/s 392/34 IPC .
a) Section 390 IPC provides that in all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery -- Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. When extortion is robbery -- Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person, so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
b) Section 392 IPC provides 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.
6. In the present case Sh. Om Parkash, who is the complainant could not served despite issuance of process through DCP concerted, accordingly, he was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, statement of police witnesses has been recorded. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused persons qua offences U/s 392/34 IPC. None of the witnesses are the eye witness of the incident. Their testimony is based upon the statement of the complainant who FIR No. 1091/2016, PS Vijay Vihar Page : 3 of 4 Digitally signed by SHAGUN Date: SHAGUN 2026.03.06 17:44:07
-:: 1 ::- Dated 06.03.2026 has not been examined as he remained unserved. The testimony of the remaining witnesses is hearsay and is not of much consequence. Further statement of PW1 shows that he heard noise and caught hold of one of the boys, however, the said witness has not seen the incidence and identified the accused on the basis of the identification of the complainant. The statement could have been relevant had the complainant been examined under Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act being part of the resgestae. However, in the absence of the same and also, considering that no recovery has been effected, the prosecution has failed to prove that allegedly that accused committed the offence there is no independent evidence in the form of CCTV etc. Further, due to absence of the complainant even the factum of theft amounting to robbery could not be proved before the Court.
7. In view of the above discussion, Court is of the opinion that guilt of accused has not been proved and thus, they are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Deepak @ Birju S/o Dal Chand is acquitted for offence under Section 392/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by SHAGUN Announced in the open SHAGUN Date: 2026.03.06 17:44:11 +0530 court on 06.03.2026 (SHAGUN) JMFC-06/North-West/RC Delhi/06.03.2026 Containing 04 pages all signed by the presiding officer. Digitally signed by SHAGUN SHAGUN Date: 2026.03.06 17:44:16 +0530 (SHAGUN) JMFC-06/North-West/RC Delhi/06.03.2026 FIR No. 1091/2016, PS Vijay Vihar Page : 4 of 4 Digitally signed by SHAGUN SHAGUN Date: 2026.03.06 17:44:20 +0530