Delhi District Court
State vs Pardeep@Vishal on 8 May, 2026
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02( NORTH ):
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 554/2024)
FIR No. 328/2024
Police Station Jahangir Puri
Charge sheet filed Under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC
Charge framed Under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC
State V/s Pradeep @ Vishal
S/o Sh. Mukesh
R/o Jhuggi No.B-521, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
......Accused
Date of institution 02.09.2024
Arguments concluded on 29.04.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 08.05.2026
Decision Acquitted U/s 392/
397 IPC
Convicted U/s 411
IPC
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion are that on 29.05.2024, complainant Janak Dev came to PS and gave his statement regarding robbery committed with him SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Page No. 1 of 17 Digitally signed by VANDANA Date: VANDANA 2026.05.08 17:17:38 +0530 -:2:- on 24.05.2024.
After recording the statement of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC, by the IO.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 25.07.2025, charge under Section 392/397/ 411/34 IPC was found to be made out against accused. The formal charge as above was framed against the accused on the said date to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 03 witnesses in all.
Sl. No. Prosecution Name of witness Description witness No.
1. PW1 Sh.Janak Dev Complainant
2. PW2 HC Nityanand Police/Arrest Witness
3. PW3 SI Medha Lal Investigating Meena Officer PW1 is complainant Janak Dev. His deposition is as under:
" On 24.05.2024 at about 4:45 am, when I left my house to go to my work place and reached at 1500 wali gali, Jahangir Puri, I found some boys already standing there and all of them SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Digitally signed Page No. 2 of 17 by VANDANA Date:
VANDANA 2026.05.08
17:17:43
+0530
-:3:-
surrounded me by saying that I should hand over my belongings to them. Then one of them pointed knife towards me and snatched my bag. They took out my purse, ATM and I-Cards from my bag. They also asked my ATM PIN and threatened me by showing knife. Due to fear, I told them my ATM PIN number. They also took out my mobile phone make Oppo, colour sky blue, from my wearing pant. Thereafter they forcibly took me towards MCD flats on the bike. Other persons accompanied us on scooty. Thereafter they dropped me on the backside of the MCD Flats and left from there. Thereafter I took lift from someone and reached at my workplace i.e. Subhash Place Depot. Then I borrowed mobile phone of my friend and called on the customer care of my bank to block my ATM. I came to know that the remaining balance in my account was Rs.24, however there were Rs. 13600/- in my account prior to the incident. Thereafter, I went to my house and later on lodged complaint against the accused persons in the police station, which is now Ex.PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. I showed the spot of incident to the police. The site plan is Ex.PW1/B bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter police official checked the CCTV footage and asked me to leave the place. Later on police called me at some place and showed me one CCTV footage of the incident. The face of the accused persons was not visible in that CCTV footage as it was dark at that time. Thereafter I came back to my residence. After 2-3 days of the incident, I was called in the PS by the police and one person was shown to me. Police official asked me whether he is the same person who committed offence with me along with his SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Page No. 3 of 17 Digitally signed by VANDANA Date: VANDANA 2026.05.08 17:17:49 +0530 -:4:- associates. I identified him from his built but not from his face. Thereafter police told me that he is the same person who was present at the spot of incident at the time of incident, and took my signatures on some papers. At this stage, the MHCM has produced the case property i.e. one white cloth pullanda sealed with the seal of 'ML' which is clearly visible and not tampered. The seal is broken in the open court with the permission of the court and the pullanda is found containing one leather wallet. The leather wallet is found containing Voter ID card, Adhar Card and Driving License of the complainant and and 18 passport size photographs of the complainant and some other persons (his officer and his wife as stated by the complainant) and one ATM cover of Canera Bank ATM Card. Same are shown to the wintess and he correctly identified the same. The case property is now Ex.P1 (colly) ."
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State on resiling from his earlier statement.
" At this stage, the statement of the witness recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC is shown to him which is now marked as Mark-PW1/X. Witness stated that the facts mentioned in the said statement with respect to the arrest of the accused and recovery from him are not true and he did not tell anything to the police as mentioned in the said statement. At this stage, the attention of the witness is drawn towards the arrest memo, personal search memo and seizure memo of the purse, and witness correctly identified his signatures at point A on all the said memos which are now Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F respectively. Witness stated that he signed the above said SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Page No. 4 of 17 Digitally signed by VANDANA Date: VANDANA 2026.05.08 17:17:55 +0530 -:5:- documents on the direction of the police official without reading the same being layman.
It is wrong to suggest that when I along with police officials went to C-Block, 1700 wali gali, I saw that two persons were talking. It is wrong to suggest that after seeing them, I identified one person clearly who was involved in the commission of crime with me. It is wrong to suggest that other person ran away from there and one person was apprehended by police staff. It is wrong to suggest that I identified the person apprehended by the police that he was the same person who threatened me by showing knife and made me sit on his bike. It is wrong to suggest that on the interrogation of the police, his name revealed as Pradeep @ Vishal. It is wrong to suggest that during his personal search, my wallet was recovered from his pocket and police checked the same which was found containing my Adhar Card, Voter Card, passport size photo, and police handed over the same to me after preparing seizure memo. It is wrong to suggest that accused was arrested in my presence and I put my signatures on his arrest documents. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately hiding the truth with respect to the arrest of the accused and recovery from him to save him from the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused and that is why I am deposing falsely at his instance.
At this stage, the attention of the witness is drawn towards the accused who is present in the court today.
I could not see his face due to dark, that is why I cannot identify him. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not identifying the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely in SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Digitally signed Page No. 5 of 17 by VANDANA Date: VANDANA 2026.05.08 17:18:00 +0530 -:6:- this regard as I have been won over by the accused."
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
PW2 is HC Nityanand. He deposed that On 29.05.2024, he joined the investigation of the present case and he along with IO SI Medha Lal, HC Ravinder and complainant Janak Dev went to spot of incident i.e. 1500 Wali Gali, CD Park, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. Thereafter, all of them went to C Block 1700 Wali Gali, in search of accused, where two boys were standing and complainant identified one person from them by saying that he was the boy who committed the offence with him. Thereafter, he along with HC Ravinder apprehended him and IO interrogated him and his name revealed as Pradeep @ Vishal @ Vikas. Thereafter, IO conducted casual personal search of the accused and one wallet was recovered from the possession of accused Pradeep @ Vishal. The wallet was checked by the IO, which was found containing the ID proofs of the complainant i.e. Aadhar Card, Voter ID Card and Driving Licence along with his passport size photograph. He further deposed that complainant identified the same as his wallet and also told the IO that accused Pradeep had robbed his wallet by showing knife to him and accused Pradeep was the pillion rider on the bike along with his associate, who was driving the bike. IO interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C and personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/D. IO seized the SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Digitally signed by Page No. 6 of 17 VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.05.08 17:18:06 +0530 -:7:- wallet recovered from the possession of accused Pradeep @ Vishal vide memo Ex.PW1/F. IO also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW1/E and he revealed the name of his associates, which he cannot recollect right now. He further deposed that thereafter, accused was got medically examined and after his medical examination, he was put behind the lock up.
He identified the one leather wallet containing Voter ID card, Adhar Card and Driving License of the complainant and and 18 passport size photographs of the complainant and some other persons (his officer and his wife as stated by the complainant) and one ATM cover of Canera Bank ATM Card, as Ex.P1 (colly).
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
PW3 is IO SI Meda Lal Meena. He deposed that on 29.05.2024, complainant Janak Dev met him in the PS and he told him that on 24.05.2024 some boys committed robbery of his belongings. PW3 recorded his statement and prepared rukka Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter he alongwith HC Nityanand and HC Ravinder and complaint went to the spot of the incident. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/B at the instance of complainant.
Thereafter, they went to C-Block, where complainant was taken by the accused persons. In the market complainant pointed out towards the boy who was standing with another boy by saying that he was the one offender who robbed his belongings alongwith his associates. Thereafter, he apprehended him with SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Page No. 7 of 17 Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.05.08 17:18:11 +0530 -:8:- the help of his police staff and interrogated him. He conducted causal search of the accused and found the wallet of the complainant from the pocket of his pant and same was identified by the complainant. He checked the said wallet and found DL, Aadhar card and ID card of complainant of DTC alongwith some passport size photographs. He sealed the said wallet by keeping in the pullanda with the seal of ML and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F, arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively. He further deposed that he also recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/E. He also recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant and accused was taken to PS after getting done his medical examination. He recorded the statement of the police witnesses mentioned above under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
He further deposed that on the next day, the accused was produced before concerned court and he was sent to JC. After completion of the investigation, he filed the chargesheet.
He identified the one leather wallet containing Voter ID card, Adhar Card and Driving License of the complainant and and 18 passport size photographs of the complainant and some other persons (his officer and his wife as stated by the complainant) and one ATM cover of Canera Bank ATM Card, as Ex.P1 (colly).
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Page No. 8 of 17 Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.05.08 17:18:17 +0530 -:9:- Documents produced on behalf of prosecution Ex.PW1/A Complaint of the complainant Ex.PW1/B Site plan Ex.PW1/C Arrest memo of accused Ex.PW1/D Personal search memo of accused Ex.PW1/E Disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW1/F Seizure memo of purse Ex.PW3/A Rukka List of Material Objects Ex.P1 (colly) One leather wallet containing Voter ID card, Adhar Card and Driving License of the complainant and and 18 passport size photographs of the complainant and some other persons (his officer and his wife as stated by the complainant) and one ATM cover of Canera Bank ATM Card STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 294 CR.P.C.
4. Vide his separate statement dated 22.04.2026, accused has admitted endorsement on rukka Ex.A1, Copy of FIR Ex.A2 and Certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.A3.
5. The prime prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 complainant Sh.Janak Dev, on whose statement the entire prosecution case rests, had not supported the case of the prosecution and denied all the allegations levelled against the SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Digitally signed by Page No. 9 of 17 VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.05.08 17:18:21 +0530 -:10:- accused and since there was no incriminating evidence which had been brought forth against the accused, no formal police witness except PW2 HC Nityanand (Arrest witness) and PW3 SI Meda Lal Meena (Investigating Officer) was examined and PE was closed as well as statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with vide orders dated 22.04.2026.
6. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have heard Dr. Sarita Rani, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh.Lakshay Yadav, ld. Counsel for the accused.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
8. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for State that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature and the prosecution has proved its case from the testimony of witnesses.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelieved.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that accused has been falsely implicated. It is further SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Digitally Page No. 10 of 17 signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.05.08 17:18:27 +0530 -:11:- argued that prime prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and denied all the allegations levelled against the accused. It was further argued that prime prosecution witness i.e. complainant have failed to identify the accused during his testimony recorded in the court. It was further argued that recovery has been planted upon the accused and rather no recovery has been effected from accused. It was further argued that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused deserves acquittal.
10. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
11. Accused has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC.
12. The relevant Sections are reproduced as under :
SECTION 392 IPC "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".
SECTION 397 IPC "Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Digitally Page No. 11 of 17 signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.05.08 17:18:33 +0530 -:12:- to cause death or grievous hurt.--If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.".
SECTION 411 IPC "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."
SECTION 34 IPC "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 were done by him alone".
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
13. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Digitally Page No. 12 of 17 signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.05.08 17:18:38 +0530 -:13:- Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved. It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
14. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
MATERIAL WITNESS
15. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Digitally Page No. 13 of 17 signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.05.08 17:18:43 +0530 -:14:- testimony of i.e. PW1 complainant/eye witness Sh. Janak Dev but he completely turned hostile on the identity of the accused an and deposed that "I could not see his face due to dark, that is why I cannot identify him". The relevant part of his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State is as under:
"It is wrong to suggest that I identified the person apprehended by the police that he was the same person who threatened me by showing knife and made me sit on his bike. It is wrong to suggest that on the interrogation of the police, his name revealed as Pradeep @ Vishal. It is wrong to suggest that during his personal search, my wallet was recovered from his pocket and police checked the same which was found containing my Adhar Card, Voter Card, passport size photo, and police handed over the same to me after preparing seizure memo. It is wrong to suggest that accused was arrested in my presence and I put my signatures on his arrest documents. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately hiding the truth with respect to the arrest of the accused and recovery from him to save him from the present case".
PW1 complainant Sh.Janak Dev has completely turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
From the above, it is evident that the star/material witness has not supported the case of the prosecution.
Despite a lengthy cross examination by the Ld. Additional PP for the State, nothing could be culled out against the accused. Material/public witness resiled from his earlier statement and completely turned hostile and denied that accused SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Digitally Page No. 14 of 17 signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.05.08 17:18:47 +0530 -:15:- robbed him and his wallet had been recovered from his possession.
There is settled law as stated in Abdul Sayad Vs. State of M.P. 2010 AIR SCW 5701 and also in State of U.P. Vs. Naresh and Ors. (2011) 4SCC 324 the testimony of injured witness as his own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time of incident and it is unlikely that he would spare the actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone else. However, in the present case the complainant PW1 Sh.Janak Dev, who is the prime prosecution witness has denied that it was the accused who robbed him and has not supported the case of the prosecution and categorically denied that the accused robbed him and there are material contradictions in his testimony. There is no digital/technical evidence or any other incriminating evidence found against the accused. Hence, no offence under section 392/397 IPC is made out against accused.
16. Accused was also charged for the offence under section 411 IPC, having been found in possession of one wallet containing Voter ID Card, Aadhar Card and Driving Licence belonging to the complainant Janak Dev.
Now coming to the recovery of the wallet Ex.P1, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/F, recovered from the possession of accused. The seizure memo is duly signed by complainant Janak Dev, this means, the wallet was duly recovered from the possession of the accused and duly seized.
SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Digitally signed by Page No. 15 of 17 VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.05.08 17:18:53 +0530 -:16:- PW1 correctly identified the wallet Ex.P1 during his testimony recorded in the court.
Apropos the present discourse, this Court deems it further apposite to note that that superior courts have persistently impressed upon that for culpability under Section 411 IPC to attract, it is not necessary that an accused receives any stolen property with a culpable intention, knowledge or reason to believe, rather, even in the instance of retention of such stolen property with such mens rea or upon the failure of the accused to make enough inquires to comprehend the nature of good(s) procured by him, is sufficient. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Pyare Lal v. State, MANU/SC/0152/ 1962: AIR 1963 SC 1094.
Further, reference in this regard, is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar v. State of M.P., (2022) 9 SCC 676, in respect to the aforesaid, wherein the Hon'ble Court inter alia observed as under;
"16. To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, the "believe" factor of the person is of stellar import. For successful prosecution, it is not enough to prove that the accused was either negligent or that he had a cause to think that the property was stolen, or that he failed to make enough inquiries to comprehend the nature of the goods procured by him. The initial possession of the goods in question may not be illegal but retaining those with the knowledge that it was stolen property, makes it culpable."
SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Page No. 16 of 17 Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.05.08 17:18:58 +0530 -:17:-Accordingly, there are sufficient material on record, to prove the offence under Section 411 IPC qua accused.
CONCLUSION
17. Since the prime witness of the prosecution case namely PW1 Janak Dev, who is the victim/complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution on the point of identification of the accused and there is no technical/digital evidence on record in the form of any CCTV Footage and considering the overall evidence on record, especially the testimony of complainant Janak, who was examined as PW-1, I have no hesitation in holding that the incident has been duly proved on record beyond any reasonable doubt, however, there is no evidence on record to connect accused to the commission of the reported offence of robbery. The victim/ complainant Janak Dev has failed to identify him as assailant and there is no technical evidence on record to establish his identity as the assailant of the reported incident. Accordingly, accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 392/397 IPC on account of insufficiency of evidence. However, accused is convicted under Section 411 IPC as there are sufficient material available against him. Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Date:
2026.05.08 17:19:03 +0530 Dictated and announced (VANDANA) in the open Court on 08.05.2026 Addl. Session Judge-02 (running into 17 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 554/2024 FIR No. 328/2024, PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Pradeep @ Vishal Page No. 17 of 17