Delhi District Court
State vs Rizwan Ahmad on 7 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. TANYA BAMNIYAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NORTH
EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
FIR No. 253/2022
Unique Case ID No. 1474/2023
Police Station Crime Branch NE Delhi
Title State Vs. Rizwan Ahamd
Name of complainant HC Surjeet
Name of accused 1. Rizwan Ahmed
S/o Sh. Israr
R/o H.No. L-252, Gali No. 06,
Gautam Vihar, Khadde Wali
Masjid, 4th Pushta, Kartar
Nagar, Delhi.
Date of institution of challan 18.03.2025
Date of final arguments 07.02.2026
Date of pronouncement 07.03.2026
Date of commission of offence 02.11.2022
Offence complained of U/s 224 IPC
Offence charged with U/s. 224 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Convicted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS:-
01. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 02.11.2022 at 06:30 AM at Old PS Welcome, ER-III, Crime Branch, Delhi, the accused had intentionally escaped from custody in which FIR No. 253/2022 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Page 1 of 11 Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2026.03.07 15:35:12 +0530 the accused was lawfully detained for an offence. Accordingly the FIR u/s 224 IPC was registered against the accused.
NOTICE:
02. Notice U/s. 224 IPC was framed against the accused on 07.02.2024 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
03. The prosecution examined 04 witnesses in total to prove its case.
04. PW1 HC Surjeet deposed that on 01.11.2022, he was posted at ER-IIIrd, Welcome as HC. On that day, accused was arrested in e-FIR No. 028975, U/S 379 IPC, PS e-Police Station Bhajanpura and was kept in IO's room for enquiry. In the next morning, at about 6:30 AM, the accused complained about the stomach pain and told that he wished to go to toilet. PW1 had taken the accused to toilet at 2nd floor and dropped in the toilet, however, the accused pushed him due to which, he fell on the ground and thereafter, the accused ran away from there. He made hue and cry to apprehend the accused but the accused succeeded in fleeing away from there. He made efforts to find the accused nearby but the accused was not found. Thereafter, he informed to his senior about the incident. IO recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. IO prepared the site plan which is Ex.FIR No. 253/2022 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Page 2 of 11 Digitally signed by TANYA
TANYA BAMNIYAL
BAMNIYAL Date:
2026.03.07
15:35:15 +0530
PW1/B. Thereafter, on 03.11.2022, at about 4:30 PM, the accused was arrested from Gade Wali Masjid nar Kalindi Kunj Metro Station vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C. alongwith a personal search was also conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/D and disclosure statement was recorded Ex. PW1/E. The witness has correctly identified the accused.
05. PW2 HC Vikas Tomar deposed on 01.11.2022. He was posted at PS ER III Welcome as HC. On that day, he along with ASI Praveen, HC Deepak and HC Praveen were present in the area of New Usmanpur. On that day, the accused was found with one stolen motorcycle make Splendor Pro. Thereafter the accused was arrested u/S 41 1 (d) Cr.P.C. and he was taken to office in welcome. He prepared kalandara which is Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, he had fled away from there from the custody of HC Deepak and him in the morning of 02.11.2022. They tried to search the accused but the accused was not found. On 03.11.2022, the accused was arrested and FIR No. 253/2022 under section 224 IPC was lodged against the accused. The witness correctly identified the accused.
06. PW3 SI Praveen Kumar deposed on 02.11.2022, he was posted at PS ER III Welcome, Crime Branch as ASI and on that day, one case was marked to him for further action. He had recorded the statement of HC Surjeet in which he had stated that vide DD No. 165 A kalandara dated 01.11.2022, the accused was apprehended by HC Vikas in a case related to recovery of stolen bikes. He was under FIR No. 253/2022 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Page 3 of 11 Digitally signed by TANYA
TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2026.03.07 15:35:19 +0530 the custody of HC Deepak and HC Surjeet at ER-II PS Welcome office 2nd Floor, Delhi. He had also informed that at about 06:30 AM, the accused told them that the accused was having stomach pain and had to go to toilet and on the way to the toilet, the accused pushed HC Surjeet and absconded from the custody. HC Deepak and HC Surjeet made efforts to trace the accused but he could not be found despite best efforts. Thereafter, the said statement of HC surjeet is already Ex. PW1/A. He had made endorsement on the said complaint and prepared the rukka which is now Ex. PW3/A. After that, an FIR got registered and the said FIR along with certificate u/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act are now Ex. PW3/B (colly). After that, he prepared the site plan at the instance of HC surjeet the same is already Ex. PW1/B. On 03.11.2022, he was informed by secret informer that accused's brother in law has a family function and so the accused can be apprehended there after which he had prepared one raiding team consisting of HC Praveen, HC Deepak, HC Surjeet and another police officials including him. After that they made departure entry, however, he does not remember the exact DD entry. After that we had gone to the spot of incident of incident i.e. near border of Kalandikukj, Madanpur, Khadar, Delhi. After reaching there they had apprehened the accused. He correctly identified the accused.
07. PW4 HC Deepak deposed on 02.11.2022, he was posted at PS ER III, Crime Branch Welcome as HC and he was present at his office i.e. IO's room, 2 nd Floor. Accused was in the FIR No. 253/2022 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Page 4 of 11 Digitally signed by TANYA BAMNIYAL TANYA Date: BAMNIYAL 2026.03.07 15:35:24 +0530 custody of HC Surjeet and he was also present there and when HC Surjeet took the accused for toilet, then he heard the noise of Bhagya Bhagya. He rushed towards toilet where HC Surjeet told him that the accused fled from his custody as he was going with the accused as he wanted to fresh himself and the accused pushed HC Surjeet and flee from corridor. Thereafter, he along with HC Surjeet came down through stairs and came at main gate of the office, but he did not see the accused. Thereafter, HC Surjeet informed other staff and senior police officials on phone and they also searched the accused at your friends and relatives house and also possible hideouts, but the accused could not found by them. On the next day when they reached at Vijay Park where secret informer met them and told them that the person who escaped from custody of police on 02.11.2022 will come at Madanpur Khadr. Thereafter they reached at Madanpur Khadar and took our position. After sometime, at about 04:15 PM, the accused came and accused was apprehended by police team by us. Thereafter, the accused was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW1/C and personal search was also got conducted vide memo already Ex. PW1/D. Disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex. PW1/E. the accused was arrested in E-FIR No. 28975 u/S 379 IPC of PS E-Police Station Bhajapura.
The correctly identified the accused
08. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 05.12.2025 Statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C (351 of BNSS, 2023). Accused Rizwan Ahamd opted not to lead evidence in FIR No. 253/2022 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Page 5 of 11 Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2026.03.07 15:35:29 +0530 his defence and hence, DE was closed. Final arguments were heard from both the sides.
Admitted Documents Under Section 294 CR.P.C
09. Statement of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C./330 BNSS was recorded on 26.11.2025 where he admitted the factum of registration of FIR and Certificate under Section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act and the same are Ex. A1 and Ex. A-2, respectively.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
10. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt thereby forming a consistent and compelling chain of evidence against the accused.
11. Per Contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case as there is nothing on record to show that the accused escaped from custody. There are no public witnesses to substantiate the commission of the offence, and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
12. The accused has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code. The gravamen of the allegation is that on 02.11.2022 at about 06:30 AM FIR No. 253/2022 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Page 6 of 11 Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2026.03.07 15:35:36 +0530 at ER-III, Crime Branch Office, Welcome, Delhi, while being in lawful custody in connection with e-FIR No. 028975 U/s 379 IPC of PS E-Police Station Bhajanpura, the accused escaped from such custody by pushing HC Surjeet. The burden lies upon the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
13. Section 224 IPC provides punishment for resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension, or for escape or attempt to escape from lawful custody. To bring home guilt under Section 224 IPC, the prosecution must establish:
1. That the accused was in lawful custody;
2. That such custody was in connection with a lawful apprehension;
3. That the accused voluntarily escaped or attempted to escape from such custody.
14. The expression "lawful custody" implies detention under authority of law. It is not necessary that such custody must be pursuant to a judicial remand; even police custody pursuant to a lawful arrest satisfies the requirement. The term "escape" connotes voluntary evasion or departure from such custody without lawful authority.
15. The prosecution has examined PW-1 HC Surjeet, PW-2 HC Vikas Tomar and PW-4 HC Deepak, who have consistently deposed that the accused had been apprehended in connection with FIR No. 253/2022 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Page 7 of 11 Digitally signed by TANYA BAMNIYAL TANYA BAMNIYAL Date:
2026.03.07 15:35:40 +0530 recovery of a stolen motorcycle and proceedings under Section 41(1)(d) Cr.P.C. were initiated. PW-2 proved the kalandra (Ex. PW2/A). It has come on record that the accused was brought to ER- III Office and remained under custody of police officials.
16. The defence has not seriously disputed the factum of custody. No suggestion was put that the custody itself was illegal or unauthorized. There is no material on record to indicate that the detention of the accused was in contravention of law. In view of the unrebutted testimonies of prosecution witnesses and documentary record, this Court is satisfied that the accused was in lawful police custody on the intervening night of 01/02.11.2022.
17. PW-1 HC Surjeet has deposed that at about 06:30 AM, the accused complained of stomach pain and requested to go to the toilet. He took the accused to the toilet situated on the 2nd floor. After using the toilet, the accused suddenly pushed PW-1, causing him to fall, and fled from the corridor. PW-1 raised alarm but the accused succeeded in escaping.
18. PW-4 HC Deepak corroborated this version. He deposed that upon hearing shouts of "bhag gaya bhag gaya", he rushed towards the toilet area where PW-1 informed him that the accused had fled after pushing him. Both officials searched for the accused immediately but could not apprehend him.
Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL
BAMNIYAL Date:
2026.03.07
15:35:43 +0530
FIR No. 253/2022 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Page 8 of 11
19. The testimony of PW-1 is direct evidence of the act of escape. His presence at the spot is natural and admitted. Nothing material has been elicited in cross-examination to discredit his core version. The minor inconsistencies regarding exact timings or non- mention of certain facts in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement do not go to the root of the prosecution case.
20. It is well settled that omissions which are not material contradictions do not render testimony unreliable. Human memory is fallible with respect to peripheral details, especially when witnesses depose after considerable lapse of time. The defence has emphasized absence of CCTV footage. However, it has come on record that there were no CCTV cameras installed inside the Crime Branch office at the relevant time. The absence of electronic evidence cannot outweigh credible ocular testimony. Law does not mandate corroboration of trustworthy eye witness account by CCTV footage.
21. Further, no motive has been suggested as to why police officials would falsely implicate the accused in an offence under Section 224 IPC. False implication in such circumstances would expose officials themselves to departmental consequences, which renders such suggestion inherently improbable. The act attributed to the accused is not accidental or involuntary. The prosecution evidence establishes that the accused intentionally pushed PW-1 and ran away from the corridor. Such conduct clearly manifests mens FIR No. 253/2022 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Page 9 of 11 Digitally signed by TANYA BAMNIYAL TANYA Date: BAMNIYAL 2026.03.07 15:35:46 +0530 rea to evade custody. Moreover, Section 224 IPC does not require elaborate preparation; even sudden flight from custody constitutes escape if it is voluntary. The fact that the accused remained absconding until 03.11.2022 further fortifies the inference of intentional escape.
22. PW-3 SI Praveen Kumar and PW-4 have deposed regarding re-arrest of the accused on 03.11.2022. Arrest memo and personal search memo have been proved. The fact that the accused had to be re-apprehended supports the prosecution version that he had indeed absconded from lawful custody. The defence has attempted to point out certain procedural lapses such as non-joining of public witnesses and non-preparation of site plan at the place of re-arrest. Even if assumed, such lapses do not demolish the prosecution case relating to the core incident of escape.
23. It is a settled principle that defects in investigation cannot enure to the benefit of the accused unless prejudice is shown. No such prejudice has been demonstrated. The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4 are consistent, cogent and inspire confidence. Their cross- examination does not reveal any material contradiction affecting the substratum of the prosecution case. Merely because the witnesses are police officials does not render their testimony unreliable. In absence of animus, their evidence cannot be discarded solely on the ground of official status.
Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date: 2026.03.07 15:35:50 +0530 FIR No. 253/2022 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Page 10 of 11
24. From the cumulative appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, this Court finds:
(i) The accused was in lawful police custody.
(ii) He voluntarily pushed the escorting officer and fled from custody.
(iii) The prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of Section 224 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
25. The defence has failed to create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. Accordingly, the offence under Section 224 IPC stands proved against the accused Rizwan Ahmad. Therefore, the accused Rizwan Ahmad convicted for the offence punishable u/s 224 IPC.
Let the parties be heard on the quantum of sentence. Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the parties.
Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL
BAMNIYAL Date:
Announced in the open Court, 2026.03.07
15:35:53 +0530
on 07.03.2026
(TANYA BAMNIYAL)
Chief Judicial Magistrate
North-East/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi This judgement contains 11 pages and each page bears my signature.
FIR No. 253/2022 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Page 11 of 11