Delhi District Court
State vs Mukesh @ Manoj And Anr on 31 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:03,
SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 202/2022
CNR No. DLST01004475-2022
STATE Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul
FIR No. 690/2021
PS: Ambedkar Nagar
31.07.2025
ID No. : 202/2022
CNR No. DLST01004475-2022
Date of commission of offence : 11.12.2021
Date of institution of the case : 03.03.2022
Name of the complainant : Smt. Asha Sharma
W/o Sh. Sharad Sharma,
R/o:- F-100, Dakshinpuri,
Delhi.
Name of accused persons and : 1. Mukesh @ Manoj S/o
their addresses Janak Singh, R/o:- F-100,
Dakshinpuri, Delhi.
2. Rahul S/o Raj Kumar,
R/o:-G-159, Dakshinpuri,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 392/394/397/325/411
/34 IPC
Offence for which accused U/s 392/394/397/411/34
persons were charged IPC
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted
Date of judgment : 31.07.2025
State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 1
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2025.07.31
PANDEY 15:02:27 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.12.2021 at about 06.15 am near Shani Mandir, C-2nd Madangir, Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, both the accused persons Mukesh @ Manoj and Rahul in furtherance of their common intention had committed robbery of Rs. 2500/- from the complainant Smt. Asha Sharma while using criminal force and had also caused grievous hurt to her during the incident.
1.1 It is further alleged that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused Mukesh @ Manoj had caused grievous injuries in the eyes of the complainant by punching while committing the aforesaid robbery.
1.2 It is further alleged that on 12.12.2021 at about 05.00 pm at Bada Park near Raja Ram Marg, Village Madangir, New Delhi, the accused Mukesh @ Manoj was found in possession of part robbed money i.e. Rs. 700/- (i.e. one note of Rs. 500/- & two notes of Rs. 100/-) as well as PAN Card belonging to the complainant Smt. Asha Sharma and the same was recovered from him.
1.3 It is further alleged that on 12.12.2021 at about 08.00 pm near Khanpur T-Point, New Delhi, the accused Rahul was found in possession of part of robbed money i.e. Rs. 820/- (i.e. one note of Rs. 500/- and three notes of Rs. 100/- & one note of Rs. 20/-) belonging to the complainant Smt. Asha Sharma and the same was recovered from him.
1.4 It is further alleged that the statement of complainant Ex. PW1/A was recorded during the investigation and same was State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 2 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:02:36 +0530 marked to SI Rahul (PW-7) for necessary action.
2. On the basis of the statement of complainant Ex. PW1/A, the FIR bearing no. 690/2021 PS Ambedkar Nagar was registered U/s 392/394/397/325/411/34 IPC through Ct. Vinod and investigation of the case was assigned to SI Rahul.
3. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this Court.
4. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, the accused persons namely Mukesh @ Manoj and Rahul were charged in respect of offences punishable U/s 392/394/34 IPC vide order dated 21.03.2023 and accused Mukesh @ Manoj was additionally charged for commission of offence punishable U/s 397 IPC. The accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. The accused persons Mukesh @ Manoj and Rahul were additionally charged for commission of offence punishable U/s 411 IPC vide order dated 21.03.2023, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses namely PW1 Smt. Asha Sharma, PW2 Neeraj Sharma, PW3ASI Sunil Kumar, PW4 Ct. Vinod, PW5 Dr. Kamal Singh Sekhawat, PW6 HC Pankaj and PW7 SI Rahul, during the trial.
7. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of both the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, in which all the incriminating evidence which came on State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 3 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:02:45 +0530 the record, were put to both the accused persons. Both the accused persons had denied the same and claimed that they were innocent and they were falsely implicated in the present case. Both the accused persons had opted to lead evidence towards their defence and they got examined DW-1 Smt Sangeeta, DW-2 Smt. Shanti Devi, DW-3 Smt. Kamlesh and DW-4 Smt. Soni towards their defence.
8. I have heard Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Sh. Rajeev Jain, Ld. LAC for both the accused persons. I have also gone through the material available on record.
9. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are detailed as under:-
PUBLIC WITNESSES:-
10. PW1 Smt. Asha Sharma :- She is the complainant/victim in this case. She deposed that she has been working as house cook and on 11.12.2021 at about 06.15 am, she was going to her place of work and she was having a shoulder bag at that time and she was going towards BRT Road on foot and when she reached near police booth Madangir before Shani Mandir, then two boys who came from behind the bus were also standing there. She further deposed that one of the boy had caught hold her hands and he pulled her behind the bus. 10.1 She further deposed that the second boy had pulled her chain of gold from her neck. She further deposed that he had also pulled her one earring. She further deposed that then the State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 4 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2025.07.31
15:03:05 +0530
first boy had threatened her to remain silent otherwise they would kill her and then he took his hand in her shoulder bag and took out her purse which was containing cash of Rs. 2500/-. 10.2 She further deposed that the second boy had attempted to snatch her shoulder bag but she caught hold the same very tight and he could not snatch the same. She further deposed that one boy gave fist blow on her eye due to which blood started oozing and she fell down on the ground. She had correctly identified both the offenders during her examination in the Court.
10.3 She further deposed that she had pointed out the accused Mukesh @ Manoj as the accused who gave fist blow on her eye at the time of incident and stated that he had snatched her chain and one ear ring. The witness had also pointed out towards accused Rahul who had caught hold her hands and hair and took her behind the bus and gave beatings by legs and fist on her various body parts.
10.4 She further deposed that the police had recorded her statement regarding the incident as Ex. PW1/A. She further deposed that she was severely beaten up by the offenders and she had shown the place of incident to the police. 10.5 She further deposed that she was taken to the hospital by her son and there she was medically examined and during the investigation police had taken her to Tihar Jail and there she had identified both the accused persons before the Magistrate. She further deposed that she had identified accused Mukesh @ Manoj during the TIP proceedings and her statement in that regard as Ex. PW1/B was recorded.
10.6 She further deposed that she could not identified State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 5 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 15:03:15 +0530 accused Rahul correctly during the TIP proceeding because she was having pain on her head and she was not in proper state of mind and her statement in that regard was identified as Ex. PW1/C. The witness had correctly identified the accused Rahul. 10.7 She can identify her PAN Card which was robbed by the accused persons. She had identified the case property i.e. PAN Card and cash amount of Rs. 700/- as Ex. MO-1. She had correctly identified the cash amount of Rs. 800/- and Rs. 20/-. She further deposed that the said money was her and the same was robbed by the accused persons. The same are exhibited as Ex. MO-2.
10.8 During cross examination made on behalf of both the accused persons, she replied that she alongwith the IO had gone to Tihar Jail for the identification of accused persons after 2-3 days of the incident. She further replied that she cannot say whether she went to Tihar Jail for TIP proceedings on 5 th day of the incident. She replied that during the TIP proceedings, the first accused namely Rahul could not be identified by her for the reasons, she had mentioned above. She further replied that during the TIP proceedings of second accused which was conducted after half an hour, she had identified him correctly. 10.9 She replied that she did not took any medication during the period between first accused TIP proceedings and second accused TIP proceedings. She voluntarily replied that she was still not well at the time of TIP proceedings of the second accused.
10.10 She denied the suggestion that she had not identified the accused Rahul during the TIP proceedings in full conscious state of mind and she was not perturbed at that time.
State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 6 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:03:25 +0530 10.11 She further denied the suggestion that accused Mukesh @ Manoj had been shown to her in the Court premises at Saket Court Complex while accused was being produced before the concerned Magistrate. She further denied the suggestion that since accused Mukesh @ Manoj was shown to her for that reason she had identified accused Mukesh @ Manoj in the TIP proceedings.
10.12 She further replied that at the time of incident, she was working in four houses as cook including GK area where she was going at the time of incident.
10.13 She further replied that at the time of incident, she was alone and no public person was present at the spot at that time even no vehicle was crossing at that time near the spot. She replied that she could not raise any alarm because the accused persons put their hand on her mouth. She further replied that one accused kept on putting their hands on her mouth. She voluntarily replied that another accused kept beating her during the incident.
10.14 She further replied that the incident continued upto 0-15 minutes. She voluntarily replied that both the accused persons had brutally beaten her which cannot be explained by the words. She replied that during the entire incident, no vehicle was crossed near the place of incident.
10.15 She further replied that she did not hand over any document regarding the ownership of the gold chain and ear rings. She voluntarily replied that the same were purchased perhaps in the year 1990 and she was not having any document with regard to the same neither the same was asked by the IO. 10.16 She further replied that she did not disclose the State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 7 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 15:03:39 +0530 weight of the gold chain and the ear rings. She further replied that she had not informed to the police about the shop from which she had purchased the said gold chain and ear rings. 10.17 She further replied that the said gold chain and ear rings were not shown to her during the investigation. She denied the suggestion that no chain or ear rings had been robbed or that she had stated so before the police to make the case more strong. 10.18 She replied that she was carrying Rs. 2500/- on that day as a part of the salary received from one house where she was working and she usually used to carry the similar amount so as to purchase household articles to the persons where she used to work.
10.19 She denied the suggestion that she was not carrying Rs. 25,00/- on the day of incident or that no such amount had been robbed from her. She further denied the suggestion that accused persons were not the assailants. She denied the suggestion that they had not given her any beatings. 10.20 She further denied the suggestion that she had handed over her PAN Card to the police officials in order to falsely implicate the accused persons. She further denied the suggestion that she could not properly see the accused persons and only asking of police officials, she falsely implicated the accused persons in the case. She further denied the suggestion that many public persons were passing through the place of incident since there was a Shani Mandir nearby the place of incident. She denied the suggestion that she deposed falsely.
11. PW-2 Neeraj Sharma:- He deposed that on 11.12.2021, his mother Smt. Asha Sharma had left the home for her work at about 05.30-05.45 am and on that day in about 25 minutes when State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 8 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:03:48 +0530 his mother was crying on other side of the phone and she had informed him that two boys had robbed her gold chain and ear rings and money and they had also beaten her brutally. 11.1 He deposed that he immediately went towards the spot however, his mother met him near the place of incident at the distance of about 100 meters before the place of incident. 11.2 He deposed that he saw that his mother was bleeding from her face and she was sitting on the side of the road. He deposed that he requested one auto driver and he took his mother to the AIIMS Hospital where his mother got treatment. She deposed that his mother was continuously taking the name of Mukesh as one of the assailant as called by another assailant during the incident with his mother.
11.3 He deposed that he had called the police at 100 number from the hospital and police came at the hospital however, his mother was not in a position to gave any statement and her statement was recorded during the investigation by the police.
11.4 During cross examination made on behalf of the accused persons, he replied that the police had inquired him three times regarding the incident. He further replied that his statement was recorded twice by the police. He replied that his statement dated 11.12.2021 was recorded at his home by the police. He further replied that he had informed to the police in the hospital that his mother was taking the name of one Mukesh as assailant. 11.5 He further replied that police had inquired about the accused Mukesh during recording of his statement dated 11.12.2021 and he had informed to the police. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW2/D1.
State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 9 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2025.07.31 15:03:59 +0530 11.6 He further replied that the statement of his mother was recorded by the police at his home. He replied that he had not given the statement to the police that statement of mother was recorded in the AIIMS Hospital. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW2/D1, where it was so recorded. 11.7 He replied that his mother had covered the distance to the place where he had met with his mother on the date of incident after the incident. He further replied that when he met with his mother after the incident, 1-2 public persons were passing from that place. He voluntarily replied that it was little dark at that time as it was month of December. 11.8 He replied that police official namely Rahul had informed that one had glove of his mother and PAN Card of his mother was found at the spot. He replied that he never visited to the spot again after the incident with the police. He denied the suggestion that he had not taken his mother to the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely. POLICE WITNESSES
12. PW-3 ASI Sunil Kumar:- He deposed that on 11.12.2021, he was posted as ASI at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar and on that day, he was on duty as Duty Officer from 08.00 am to 08.00 pm. He further deposed that at around 03.53 pm, one rukka was placed before him by Ct. Vinod for registration of the FIR which was sent by SI Rahul. He further deposed that on the basis of said rukka, he had registered the present FIR and investigation was marked to SI Rahul. He had identified the copy of FIR as Ex.
PW3/P-1. He had also made endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW3/P-2. He further deposed that he had also issued the Certificate U/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW3/P-3.
State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 10 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2025.07.31 15:04:12 +0530
12.1 During cross examination made on behalf of the accused persons, he replied that Ct. Vinod had reached at police station Ambedkar Nagar at about 03.53 pm and he had left the spot after registration of FIR at about 04.30 pm.
13. PW-4 Ct. Vinod :- He deposed that in the intervening night of 10/11-12-2021, he was posted at police station Ambedkar Nagar as Constable. He further deposed that on that day, he was on Emergency Duty from 08.00 pm to 08.00 am. He further deposed that in the morning time, one DD No. 15-A was received and thereafter, he alongwith SI Rahul went to the spot at C-2nd, Madangir near police booth. He further deposed that at the spot neither any injured nor any witness was found present. He deposed that SI Rahul had contacted the PCR caller namely Rohit and he had informed the IO that injured had been shifted to the AIIMS Truama Center.
13.1 He further deposed that thereafter, they went to the AIIMS Trauma Center where patient/injured Ms. Asha was found admitted and was under treatment. He further deposed that SI Rahul had made inquiries from injured Asha but she refused to give any statement at that time being under treatment. He further deposed that they had returned to the police station. 13.2 He further deposed that after about 2-3 hours, he alongwith SI Rahul again went to the AIIMS Trauma Center and met the injured Ms. Asha. He further deposed that IO had recorded the statement of injured Asha and handed over him rukka for getting the FIR registered from police station. 13.3 He further deposed that he went to police station and got the FIR registered and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to IO SI Rahul and thereafter, he did not remember State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 11 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 15:04:20 +0530 what further investigation was conducted on that day. 13.4 He further deposed that they had also reached the spot on the same day and IO had prepared the site plan in the presence of injured Asha and PCR caller Rohit. He deposed that IO had also recorded his statement on that day in the Police Station.
13.5 He further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 12.12.2021, he was present in the police station and on that day SI Rahul had received secret information about availability of accused persons in Bada Park, Madangir, near Raja Ram Marg and then SI Rahul had organized a raiding team alongwith him and Ct. Pankaj and then they all including secret informer left the police station for search of accused persons at about 04.30 pm and then they had reached at Bada Park.
13.6 He further deposed that the secret informer had pointed out towards a person present there in the park that he was one of the accused who had committed crime in this case and then left. He deposed that SI Rahul had conducted the raid and apprehended the suspect pointed out by secret informer who had disclosed his name Mukesh @ Manoj and then SI Rahul had conducted his formal search and cash Rs. 700/- and one PAN Card in the name of the complainant Ms. Asha was recovered form his left pocket of his pajama.
13.7 He further deposed that accused Mukesh was interrogated and inquired about the said articles and accused Mukesh @ Manoj had disclosed that the PAN Card and the above cash were robbed from the complainant Ms. Asha on 11.12.2021 near Shani Mandir, C-2nd, Madangir, New Delhi. 13.8 He further deposed that SI Rahul had recorded the State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 12 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 15:04:35 +0530 disclosure statement of accused Mukesh as Ex. PW4/A and the above articles consisting of PAN Card of complainant and cash Rs.700/- were taken into police possession and memo Ex. PW4/B was prepared and thereafter, accused Mukesh was arrested and his personal search was conducted and memos Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D were prepared.
13.9 He further deposed that accused was further got joined in the investigation and he took the police party to the scene of crime and had pointed out the same stating that he alongwith his associate namely Rahul had robbed the complainant Smt. Asha. He further deposed that IO had prepared pointing out memo as Ex. PW4/E. 13.10 He further deposed that thereafter, the accused took the police party to get arrested his associate Rahul to Khanpur T point where he had pointed out towards a boy that was his other associate and then they got apprehended the said boy who had disclosed his name Rahul S/o Raj Kumar.
13.11 He further deposed that SI Rahul had conducted formal search of accused Rahul and cash Rs. 820/- were recovered from back pocket of his wearing pant. He further deposed that accused Rahul told that the said amount was robbed from the complainant alongwith his other associate Mukesh @ Manoj. He further deposed that the said amount was taken into police possession and memo as Ex. PW4/F was prepared. 13.12 He further deposed that the disclosure statement of accused Rahul as Ex PW4/G was recorded and then he was arrested and his personal search was also conducted and memos as Ex. PW4/H and as Ex. PW4/I were prepared. 13.13 He further deposed that accused Rahul was further State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 13 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 15:04:42 +0530 got joined investigation who had taken the police party to the spot and had pointed out the same. He further deposed that IO had prepared the pointing out memo to this effect as Ex. PW4/J. 13.14 He further deposed that both the accused persons were brought to the police station and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana and thereafter, the accused persons were taken to the hospital for their medical examination and after the medical examination, both the accused persons were send to the lock up.
13.15 He had correctly identified the accused Mukesh and Rahul during his examination in the Court. He had also correctly identified the case property i.e. PAN Card and cash amount of Rs. 700/- recovered from accused Mukesh @ Manoj as Ex. MO-1. He had also correctly identified the case property i.e. cash amount of Rs. 820/- recovered from accused Rahul as Ex. MO-2. 13.16 During cross examination made on behalf of both the accused persons, he replied that the recovered currency notes amounting to Rs. 700/- were consisting of one note of Rs. 500/- and two notes of Rs. 100/-. He further replied that the call regarding the incident vide DD No. 15-A was entrusted to SI Rahul in his presence.
13.17 He replied that they had left the police station for the spot at about 07.45 am and they had remained at the spot for about 15-20 minutes. He replied that they had made inquiries from 10-15 public persons passing over there but no one had given his statement and even had not disclosed their names and addresses.
13.18 He replied that they had left the spot for the hospital and no police official was left at the spot to safeguard the scene State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 14 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2025.07.31 15:04:53 +0530 of crime. He further replied that he did not remember if the doctor had advised that the complainant/injured Asha was not fit for her statement. He replied that he was not aware if the complainant was declared fit for statement when they had visited the hospital again and recorded her statement. 13.19 He further replied that he did not remember as to where he had returned original rukka alongwith copy of FIR to SI Rahul. He replied that it took about 1 ½ hours for getting the FIR registered after receiving the rukka from IO to him. 13.20 He replied that the complainant was discharged from the hospital on the same day. He replied that they had visited the house of complainant after her discharged from the hospital and she met there. He replied that it was evening time when they had visited the house of complainant.
13.21 He further replied that the distance between the house of complainant and police station might be about 700-800 meters. He replied that complainant alongwith her son had reached at the spot at their own and then pointed out the spot. He replied that IO had not recorded the statement of any independent public witnesses when the complainant had pointed out the spot. 13.22 He replied that the secret informer had given the description of accused persons while giving secret information.
He further replied that he did not remember if SI Rahul had lodged departure entry for conducting raid for apprehending the accused persons. He replied that SI Rahul had not prepared any document regarding description of the suspects/accused persons given by the secret informer.
13.23 He further replied that he did not remember if SI Rahul had informed any senior officer about organizing a raiding State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 15 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:05:03 +0530 team for apprehending the accused persons in the present case. He replied that there were three members in raiding team including him except secret informer. He further replied that there were public persons present in the Bada Park from where accused Mukesh @ Manoj was apprehended.
13.24 He replied that SI Rahul had asked public persons present in the park to join the investigation before conducting formal search of accused Mukesh @ Manoj but all had refused and even had not disclosed their names. He further replied that same was his reply when accused Rahul was apprehended from T-point Khanpur.
13.25 He denied the suggestion that he had not attended the call of the incident with SI Rahul. He further denied the suggestion that he had not accompanied SI Rahul to the AIIMS Hospital. He denied the suggestion that complainant Smt. Asha had not given any statement to SI Rahul. He further denied the suggestion that the above-said robbed articles were not recovered from any of the accused persons. 13.26 He further denied the suggestion that the accused persons had not made any disclosure statement in his presence. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons had not pointed out the scene of crime/spot in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that the accused persons had not been apprehended/arrested in the manner as he had deposed. 13.27 He denied the suggestion that the above robbed articles have been planted upon the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation of the present case at any moment of time. He further denied the suggestion that he had signed the above exhibited documents at State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 16 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:05:12 +0530 the instance of SI Rahul in the police station itself. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of the IO.
14. PW-6 HC Pankaj:- He deposed that on 12.12.2021, he was posted as Constable at Police Station Dr. Ambedkar Nagar and on that day, IO/SI Rahul had called him and Ct. Vinod to join the investigation of this case as he had received a secret information qua the offenders in the present case. He further deposed that they went to the place i.e. Bara Park near Raja Ram Marg, Madangir Village, there the secret informer had pointed towards one person and thereafter, the said person was apprehended and his name was disclosed as Mukesh @ Manoj.
14.1 He further deposed that SI Rahul had interrogated the accused Mukesh @ Manoj and during his search, Rs. 700/- were recovered from the pocket of his payjama besides one PAN Card in the name of Smt. Asha Sharma. He further deposed that the recovered amount and the PAN Card were sealed in the pullanda with the seal of SK and was seized and seizure memo as Ex. PW4/B was prepared.
14.2 He further deposed that accused Mukesh @ Manoj was arrested and his personal search was conducted and memos Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D were prepared. He further deposed that disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded and memo as Ex. PW4/A was also prepared.
14.3 He further deposed that accused Mukesh @ Manoj had also pointed out the place of incident and IO had prepared the pointing out memo in that regard as Ex. PW4/E. He further deposed that in pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused Mukesh @ Manoj, they went to Khanpur T point in search of co accused namely Rahul and at the T point, on the State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 17 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 15:05:22 +0530 pointing out by the accused Manoj, one person was apprehended whose name was disclosed as Rahul.
14.4 He further deposed that accused Rahul was also interrogated by the IO and he was arrested and memo as Ex. PW4/H was prepared. He further deposed that the personal search of accused was conducted and memo as Ex. PW4/I was prepared.
14.5 He further deposed that IO had also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Rahul and he had also pointed out the place of incident and memos as Ex. PW4/G and Ex. PW4/J were prepared.
14.6 He further deposed that during the personal search of the accused Rahul, Rs. 820/- were recovered from his pocket and IO had sealed the same in the pullanda with the seal of SK and seized the same and memo as Ex. PW4/F was prepared. 14.7 He had correctly identified both the accused persons during his examination in the Court. He further deposed that thereafter, they had returned to the police station and accused persons were sent to lock up by the IO and IO had also deposited the case property in the Malkhana. He had correctly identified the case property i.e. cash and the PAN Card as Ex. MO1 and Ex. MO2 and IO had recorded his statement.
14.8 During cross examination made on behalf of both the accused persons, he replied that the secret informer met him in the Bara Park. He further replied that the secret information was with the IO. He replied that they had reached at Bara park at about 05.00 pm, where the secret informer was found present when they had reached there. He replied that there were lots of public persons present in the said park at that time.
State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 18 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:05:33 +0530 14.9 He further replied that no DD entry was made by him qua secret information. He further replied that he did not know if any DD entry in respect of receipt of secret information were lodged by the IO. He replied that the secret informer did not disclose the information regarding whereabouts of the accused persons to the IO in his presence. 14.10 He further replied that no public person was joined in the arrest proceedings of the accused at Bara Park. He further replied that secret informer had pointed out towards the accused Mukesh immediately after they had reached in the park. He replied that the public persons were requested to join the further investigation after the apprehension of accused Mukesh but none had joined the investigation and had left the spot after giving reasonable excuses.
14.11 He further replied that the IO had not recorded their names and addresses nor had taken any action against those persons. He replied that IO had not made any inquiry as to which authority i.e. MCD or DDA etc. was maintaining the park nor the IO had made any inquiry regarding Caretaker, Chowkidar or security guard if any posted in the park. 14.12 He replied that it was down time when the disclosure statement of accused was recorded by the IO in natural light. He replied that he had no idea about the distance between the gate of the park and the place of the apprehension of the accused Mukesh. He again replied that it was 20-30 meters distance. 14.13 He replied that accused Mukesh was arrested at Bara Park and no family member of accused Mukesh was called at that time. He replied that the information of the accused Mukesh was given to his relative by the IO but he cannot tell to State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 19 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2025.07.31 15:05:57 +0530 whom the said information was given.
14.14 He replied that he had not seen the name of the person who was informed about the arrest of the accused Mukesh while signing the arrest memo.
14.15 He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from the accused Mukesh or that the same was planted upon him in the police station to falsely implicate him in the case. He further denied the suggestion that accused had not pointed out any place of incident nor he had given any disclosure statement. He replied that the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded after his search and recovery. 14.16 He further replied that the public persons were passing through the T point, Khanpur. He replied that IO had requested the public persons to join the proceedings but none had joined and had left the place without disclosing their names and addresses on justified excuses.
14.17 He replied that IO had not issued any notice to them for refusing the same. He denied the suggestion that accused Mukesh had not disclosed any disclosure statement about the whereabouts of the accused Rahul. He denied the suggestion that accused Rahul was called in the police station and the case property was planted upon him to falsely implicate him in the present case.
14.18 He further denied the suggestion that accused Rahul had not given any disclosure statement or that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of the accused Rahul. He denied the suggestion that he had signed all the memos while sitting in the police station at the instance of the IO.
He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 20 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:06:04 +0530 of the IO.
15. PW-7 SI Rahul:- He deposed that on 10.12.2021, he was posted as SI at Police Station Dr. Ambedkar Nagar and on that day, he was on night emergency duty from 08.00 pm to 08.00 am on the next day. He further deposed that on 11.12.2021 at about 07.30 am, DD No. 15-A was entrusted to him for proceedings. 15.1 He deposed that he alongwith Ct. Vinod went to the place of incident i.e. Block C-II, Madangir, near Shani Mandir, Delhi, however, neither caller nor any person in connection with the said call was found present. 15.2 He further deposed that he had called back the PCR caller who had disclosed his name as Rohit and further stated that his mother had sustained injury in the incident and they were present at AIIMS Trauma Center at that time. He deposed that he alongwith Ct. Vinod went to the AIIMS Trauma Center, where injured Smt. Asha Sharma was found under treatment vide MLC and the PCR caller was also present there. He further deposed that at that time, the statement of Smt. Asha Sharma could not be recorded as she refused to give the same because of pain and therefore, the call was kept pending. He deposed that no other eye witness was found present in the hospital. 15.3 He further deposed that they had returned to the spot and made local inquiries about the incident and the offenders and after sometime, they again went to the AIIMS Trauma Center and at that time, he had recorded the statement of victim/injured Smt. Asha Sharma regarding the injuries caused to her in an incident of robbery as Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that he had prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Vinod to get the FIR registered from the police station. He had identified the rukka as State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 21 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:06:11 +0530 Ex. PW3/P2.
15.4 He deposed that Ct. Vinod had returned in the hospital after getting the FIR registered and had handed over him the original rukka and copy of FIR. He further deposed that since the injured was under treatment, they had returned to the police station.
15.5 He further deposed that after sometime, on inquiry, they came to know that injured had reached to her house after being discharged from the hospital. He further deposed that they went to the house of injured in Dakshinpuri, New Delhi and from there at the instance of the injured, they alongwith her and her son went to the place of incident, where he had prepared the site plan Ex. PW7/P-1 at the instance of the victim. 15.6 He further deposed that he alongwith victim and her son and his accompanying police officials came back to the police station. He deposed that he had recorded the statement of victim and her son. He deposed that in the statement, the victim lady had disclosed that while committing the offence, one of the offender was calling the name of other offender as Manoj and thereafter, he circulated the name of the offender to the other search party members.
15.7 He deposed that on 12.12.2021, an information was received through secret informer that wanted accused Mukesh @ Manoj was present at Bada Park, Madangir Village on Raja Ram Marg, New Delhi. He further deposed that he alongwith Ct. Vinod and Ct. Pankaj and secret informer had reached at Bada Park, Madangir, New Delhi and on the pointing out and identification by secret informer, one person was apprehended. 15.8 He deposed that during interrogation, the said person State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 22 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:06:17 +0530 had disclosed his name as Manoj @ Mukesh. He further deposed that the accused had also admitted his involvement in the present case alongwith his associate Rahul during interrogation. He deposed that accused Manoj @ Mukesh was arrested and his personal search was also conducted and memos Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D were prepared.
15.9 He further deposed that during the personal search of accused Manoj @ Mukesh, a sum of Rs. 700/- were recovered in the denomination of Rs. 100 X2 and 500 X1 and a PAN Card of the complainant Smt Asha. He deposed that the recovered cash amount of Rs. 700/- was sealed in the transparent box with the seal of SK and the sealed pullanda of the cash and PAN Card were seized and seizure memo as Ex. PW4/B was prepared. 15.10 He deposed that he had also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery as Ex. PW7/P-2. He had correctly identified the accused Mukesh @ Manoj during his examination in the Court.
15.11 He further deposed that during investigation, accused had also pointed out the place of incident and he had prepared the memo Ex. PW4/E. He further deposed that accused Mukesh @ Manoj had also disclosed about the various places where his co-accused Rahul could be found present and could be apprehended and therefore, they alongwith him went to several places and lastly at Khanpur T point, New Delhi. He deposed that accused Manoj @ Mukesh had pointed out towards one person and had identified him as his co accused Rahul. 15.12 He deposed that accused Rahul was apprehended and he was interrogated during which he had admitted his involvement in the present case. He deposed that during personal State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 23 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:06:23 +0530 search of the accused Rahul, a sum of Rs. 820/- were recovered in the denomination of Rs. 100 X3, 500 X1 and 20 X1. 15.13 He further deposed that the recovered cash amount of Rs. 820/- was sealed in the transparent box with the seal of SK and the sealed pullanda of the cash was seized and seizure memo Ex. PW4/F was prepared. He deposed that he had also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery as Ex. PW7/P-3. 15.14 He had correctly identified both the accused persons during his examination in the Court. He further deposed that during investigation, accused Rahul had also pointed out the place of incident and he had prepared the memo in this regard as Ex. PW4/J. 15.15 He further deposed that thereafter, they had returned to the police station and in the police station, he had recorded the disclosure statement of the accused persons as Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/G. He further deposed that the seized case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused persons were got medically examined and were sent to lock up after providing meal.
15.16 He deposed that on the next day, the accused persons were produced before the Court concerned in muffled face. He further deposed that he had also moved an application before the Court for the judicial TIP of both the accused persons and the judicial TIP was fixed for 17.12.2021.
15.17 He further deposed that on 17.12.2021, the victim Smt. Asha was brought in the Tihar Jail for the judicial TIP of the accused persons and the judicial TIP of the accused persons were conducted during which the complainant had correctly identified the accused Mukesh @ Manoj whereas complainant had failed to State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 24 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2025.07.31 15:06:32 +0530 identified the accused Rahul during judicial TIP. He further deposed that he had moved an application for the copy of the judicial TIP proceedings and same was allowed. He deposed that he had collected the copy and placed on record. 15.18 He further deposed that he had recorded the statement of complainant/victim Smt. Asha wherein she had disclosed that due to temptation of judicial TIP proceedings in the jail, she could not identify the accused Rahul as the offender. 15.19 He deposed that during further investigation, he had also obtained the opinion on the nature of injury upon the victim, which was opined as grievous and blunt. He further deposed that he had also recorded the statement of the witnesses as and when they had took part in the investigation. He deposed that he had completed the file in all respect and had prepared the chargesheet against the accused persons and filed in the Court. 15.20 During cross examination made on behalf of both the accused persons, he replied that he alongwith Ct. Vinod had reached at the spot after fifteen minutes of receiving the DD entry 15-A and remained there for about 20 minutes. He further replied that nobody was left to safeguard the place of occurrence before they left for the hospital.
15.21 He further replied that at that time, he did not find any exhibits at the place of incident. He replied that it was a Covid Pandemic period and therefore, there was not much public persons, therefore, he could not make inquiry from any person.
He replied that he did not find even a single person at the spot at that time.
15.22 He replied that he had reached at the hospital at about 09.00-09.15 am. He replied that after reaching the AIIMS State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 25 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date:
PANDEY 2025.07.31 15:06:38 +0530 Hospital, he had collected the MLC of the injured Asha Sharma. He replied that he did not find any endorsement of the attending doctor, if the injured Asha was not fit for giving statement. He voluntarily replied that the injured herself denied to give the statement at that point of time due to pain. 15.23 He replied that he returned back to the spot again from the hospital at about 11.30 am. He further replied that at that time also, he did not find any public person. He replied that at that time, he stayed at the spot for about one hour. 15.24 He further replied that during those one hour, he had checked the CCTV footage from the nearby places, but he did not find any CCTV cameras installed there. He replied that due to covid period, he did not find any public person, therefore, no public person could be associated in the investigation at that time. He further replied that he had not visited the house of the victim at that time. He voluntarily replied that victim was in the hospital. He further replied that as the victim had stated, she alongwith his son was residing together. 15.25 He further replied that he again went to the hospital alongwith Ct. Vinod where the injured was admitted and then he recorded the statement of injured. He replied that the injured had not mentioned about the theft of her PAN Card in her complaint on the basis of which the present FIR was lodged. 15.26 He voluntarily replied that she had stated that her purse was robbed but she had not stated the contents of her purse.
She replied that she had not recorded her supplementary statement qua the robbed PAN Card.
15.27 He further denied the suggestion that PAN Card was planted upon the accused persons to implicate the accused State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 26 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:06:45 +0530 persons. He further denied the suggestion that nothing had been recovered from the possession or at the instance of the accused persons.
15.28 He further denied the suggestion that the accused persons were not arrested in the manner he had stated. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were lifted from the road near their house and subsequently they were implicated in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation of the present case in fair and proper manner. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely. MEDICAL WITNESS
16. PW-5 Dr. KAMAL SINGH SEKHAWAT:- He deposed that on 11.12.2021, he was working as Jr. Resident at AIIMS Trauma Center and on that day, one injured Smt. Asha Sharma, 55 years, Female was brought to the hospital for her medical examination with alleged history of assault by two robbers at Madangir Shani Mandir Road.
16.1 He further deposed that he had examined the injured and observed one bruise on the left eye of the injured and he had prepared the MLC as Ex. PW5/P-1 and he had also opined the nature of injury as grievous and the kind of weapon as blunt. 16.2 During cross examination made on behalf of both the accused persons, he had replied that he had referred the injured to the Department of Neurosurgery, Orthopaedics & Trauma Surgery. He further replied that he had not brought any document from the Department of Neurosurgery, Orthopaedics & Trauma Surgery which shows the injury as grievous. He replied that he can confirm the same after seeing the discharge summery. He further replied that he had not brought the discharge summary State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 27 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 15:06:53 +0530 in the Court.
16.3 He further replied that there was no wound mentioned in the MLC of the injured nor he had indicated any part of the body of the injured as suspected fracture. 16.4 He further denied the suggestion that he had wrongly opined the nature of injury as grievous under the influence of the present case. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
17. DW-1 Smt. Sangeeta:- She deposed that she know accused Mukesh @ Manoj who is her brother in law (devar). She further deposed that she want to say that he was not involved in any type of criminal activity as per her knowledge. She further deposed that he is doing a good work. She further deposed that she do not want to say anything else.
17.1 During cross examination made on behalf of the State by Ld. Substitute Additional PP for the State, she replied that the accused Mukesh @ Manoj was her neighbour and he does not reside with her. She further replied that she have come to depose before the court in favour of the accused Mukesh @ Manoj as he is her neighbour. She voluntarily replied that he is not her devar by relation, he used to call her bhabhi.
17.2 She further replied that she have cordial relationship with the accused Mukesh @ Manoj. She further replied that accused is doing the work of whitewash. She further replied that she is not aware about his duty timings and other details of his work. She replied that she did not know whether accused had any criminal record.
18. DW-2 Smt. Shanti Devi :- She deposed that accused Mukesh @ Manoj is her real son. She further deposed that Mukesh @ State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 28 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:07:00 +0530 Manoj is good and he used to go for work in the morning and used to come back in the evening. She deposed that he used to work as labour. She deposed that as he gets exhausted after his work, sometimes he used to take alcohol. She further deposed that he was never involved in quarrel with anyone. She further deposed that she do not want to say anything else.
18.1 During cross examination made on behalf of the State by Ld. Substitute Additional PP for the State, she denied the suggestion that she deposed falsely since the accused Mukesh @ Manoj is her real son.
19. DW-3 Smt. Kamlesh:- She deposed that she know accused Rahul as he is her neighbour. She further deposed that on 11 th of November, however, she did not remember the year, accused Rahul went to attend a marriage, she called Rahul on the asking of the police personnel who came near her residence. She further deposed that accused Rahul returned back and thereafter, police had arrested him in the present case. She further deposed that she do not want to say anything else.
19.1 During cross examination made on behalf of the State by Ld. Substitute Additional PP for the State, she replied that there was a marriage celebration of the grand son of her elder brother in law (jaith). She further replied that she had also attended the above said marriage for some time and returned back to her house. She further replied that the marriage was solemnised at Jaitpur, New Delhi. She further replied that she did not have any invitation card. She replied that she have very good relation with the accused Rahul. She further replied that she have come to depose to save accused Rahul as she have cordial relation with him.
20. DW-4 Smt. Soni:- She deposed that accused Rahul is her husband. She further deposed that they all went to attend a marriage State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 29 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:07:07 +0530 of her nephew (jaith ka ladka) at Jaitpur New Delhi on 11 th November, however, she did not remember the year. She further deposed that some police officials came near their house and accused Rahul was called at the house. She deposed that accused Rahul had returned to his house and was arrested by the police officials. She deposed that he used to work as labour. She further deposed that he is good and behaves well. She deposed that she do not want to say anything else.
20.1 She deposed that the date of arrest of the accused Rahul was 12.12.2021. She further deposed that due to lapse of time, she could not tell the correct date earlier. 20.2 During cross examination made on behalf of the State by Ld. Substitute Additional PP for the State, she replied that she is VIIIth Class passed. She denied the suggestion that she deposed falsely as accused Rahul is her husband.
20.3 She replied that she came to the Court to depose since the accused Rahul is her husband. She voluntarily deposed that Jo sach hai wo bola hai.
20.4 She further replied that she cannot recollect the time when the accused Rahul had gone to attend the marriage and when he returned back due to lapse of time. She denied the suggestion that she deposed falsely.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE THROUGH LD. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE
21. It is submitted on behalf of the State by Ld. Additional PP for the State that robbed articles were recovered from the possession of both the accused persons. It is further submitted that Rs. 700/- and PAN Card of the complainant were recovered from the possession of accused Mukesh @ Manoj during investigation of the case and Rs. 820/- were recovered from the State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 30 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:07:15 +0530 possession of accused Rahul during the investigation of the case.
22. It is further submitted that PW1/complainant Smt. Asha Sharma deposed the mode and manner in which the offence was committed and she had also correctly identified the accused persons and their respective role in the commission of offence against her during her examination in the Court.
23. It is further submitted that witness PW1 had specified the role of accused Mukesh and Rahul in the commission of offence which corroborates the case of prosecution. It is further submitted that accused namely Mukesh @ Manoj was also duly identified during the judicial TIP. It is further submitted that witness PW1 Smt. Asha Sharma had also identified the robbed articles during the judicial TIP.
24. It is further submitted that witness PW2 Neeraj Sharma was the son of the PW1/complainant and he had reached the spot soon after the incident and had taken his injured mother to the hospital. He deposed that her mother was taking the name of one of the attacker as Mukesh as one of the assailant as called by other assailant.
25. It is further submitted that the factum of the incident and injuries received in the incident were duly corroborated through witness PW5 Dr. Kamal Singh Sekhawat who had proved the MLC of victim as Ex PW5/P1. It is further submitted that as per the opinion on MLC of the victim, the nature of injury was grievous.
26. It is further submitted that rest of the witnesses are the police witnesses who were the part of the investigation. It is further submitted that both the accused persons were arrested by the police team from two different locations and these fact have State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 31 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2025.07.31 15:07:22 +0530 been duly proved through the testimony of police witnesses/PW6 and PW-7.
27. It is further submitted that during the defence evidence, no material fact came with respect to the defence of the accused persons. It is further submitted that case of prosecution against the accused persons is duly proved regarding the charge of commission of offence punishable U/s 392/394/34 IPC.
28. It is further submitted that accused Mukesh had also caused grievous injury to the victim during the incident of robbery against the victim and that fact has been duly proved, so accused Mukesh is also liable to be convicted for the charge of offence punishable U/s 397 IPC.
It is further submitted that the recoveries against both the accused persons were also duly proved. Hence, both the accused persons are also liable to be convicted for respective charges U/s 411 IPC.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS/ THROUGH THEIR LD. LEGAL AID COUNSEL SH RAJEEV JAIN
29. It is submitted on behalf of the accused persons by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused persons that recovery upon the accused persons, injuries as caused allegedly by accused persons to the victim and identification of the accused persons by the victim are highly doubtful and these facts were not duly proved against the accused persons during the trial.
30. It is further submitted that during cross examination of PW1, it came on record that at the time of alleged TIP of both the accused persons, the victim was not well and her State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 32 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:07:31 +0530 identification to the accused Mukesh is doubtful and it is not explained that what were the reasons on the basis of which she had identified the accused Mukesh and she did not identified the accused Rahul initially. It is further submitted that victim gave vague reply of her illness at the time of TIP proceeding. However, the same is not sufficient to accept her version regarding the judicial TIP proceedings.
31. It is further submitted that it is highly improbable that no public person came at the spot in 10 to 15 minutes of the alleged incident at the place of incident.
32. It is further submitted that PW1 deposed that accused persons had brutally beaten her is highly doubtful. It is further submitted that the injuries opined by the doctor in the MLC at the instance of the IO.
33. It is further submitted that the nature of injury as grievous has not been duly proved as no grievous injury has been detailed in the MLC or in the opinion given by the doctor in MLC Ex. PW5/P1.
34. It is further submitted that no detail has been given regarding the alleged robbed articles i.e. chain and ear ring neither any receipt regarding its ownership were handed over to the IO.
35. It is further submitted that the currency notes as recovered from the accused persons were planted upon the accused persons. It is further submitted that the case of prosecution is also doubtful as alleged arrest as narrated by the police is doubtful. It is further submitted that the recovery of PAN Card of victim from accused Mukesh @ Manoj is also doubtful as no such averment was made in the complaint of the State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 33 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 15:07:37 +0530 complainant regarding the robbery of PAN Card from her possession.
36. It is further submitted that PW2 Neeraj Sharma had stated that one hand gloves and PAN Card of his mother was found at the spot. Hence, the alleged recovery of PAN Card from possession of accused Mukesh is doubtful.
37. It is further submitted that the place of recording of statement of the victim is also doubtful and on the one hand PW2 had stated that his mother's statement was recorded at home. However, PW4 stated that the statement of injured was recorded in the hospital.
38. Heard the submissions of both the parties. Perused the record of chargesheet and documents as relied upon by the prosecution including the testimonies of witnesses of prosecution recorded during the trial.
THE REASON FOR DECISION
39. In order to prove the charges of offences punishable U/s 392/394/411/34 IPC against both the accused persons namely Mukesh @ Manoj and Rahul and in order to prove the charge of offence punishable U/s 397 IPC against the accused Mukesh @ Manoj, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of victim Mrs. Asha Sharma/PW1 and testimony of Neeraj Sharma/PW2 apart from the police officials who had participated in the investigation and the expert witness/doctor who had examined the victim after the incident.
40. As per the complaint Ex. PW1/A, on 11.12.2021 at around 06.25 am, when the victim Mrs. Asha Sharma was going from her house towards the BRT Road while she was carrying State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 34 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:07:45 +0530 her bag on her shoulder and when she reached near Shani Mandir, two boys came from behind and one boy forcibly took the victim behind the bus while holding her hand.
40.1 It is further averred in the complaint that in the meantime, another boy had snatched her chain which she was wearing and he had also snatched her ear ring/boonda. It is further averred in the complaint that the first boy had threatened the victim while saying to keep quite otherwise they would kill her and he also took out small purse containing Rs. 25,00/- from the shoulder bag of the victim.
40.2 It is further averred that the other boy had tried to snatch her shoulder bag to which the victim had resisted and upon that the other boy had punched on the eye of the victim. It is averred that victim fell down on the ground. It is also averred that both the boys were aged about 25-26 years. It is also averred that she could identify the said boys if they could come before her. It is also averred that both the said boys had fled away after committing the offence against the victim.
40.3 It is also averred in the complaint of the complainant that victim could not gave her statement earlier due to the pain and later on she lodged the complaint Ex. PW1/A with the police.
41. The victim Mrs. Asha Sharma had appeared before the Court and she was examined as PW1 and she had narrated the incident as mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW1/A and she had also identified her complaint as Ex. PW1/A. The victim PW1 Mrs. Asha Sharma had identified both the accused persons in the Court as the same who had committed offence against her. She had pointed out towards the accused Mukesh @ Manoj as the State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 35 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:07:50 +0530 accused who gave fist blow on her eye at the time of incident and stated that he had snatched her chain and one ear ring. The witness PW1 Mrs. Asha Sharma had also identified the accused Rahul and deposed that accused Rahul had caught hold her and hair and took her behind the bus and gave beatings to her by leg and fists on her various body parts.
42. The witness PW1 had also identified the record of the judicial TIP proceeding with respect to the accused Mukesh @ Manoj in which she had identified the accused Mukesh @ Manoj during judicial TIP proceeding. The victim deposed and explained that she could not identify the accused Rahul during the judicial TIP proceeding as she was having pain in her head at that time and she was not in the proper state of mind and she had identified her statement during the judicial TIP proceeding as Ex. PW1/C. The witness Mrs. Asha Sharma had identified the accused Rahul correctly in her examination in chief in the Court. The victim PW1 Mrs. Asha Sharma had also identified the currency notes which were in the denomination of Rs. 500/- (one note) and Rs. 200/-(Rs. 100/- note each), and her PAN Card and she had also identified the currency notes of Rs. 500/- and currency notes of Rs. 100/- ( three notes) and one currency note of Rs. 20/- as the same which were robbed by the accused persons at the time of incident.
43. The accused persons took the defence during the cross examination of witness PW1 Mrs. Asha Sharma and during the final arguments that victim was not in fit state of mind after the incident and she had not identified properly to the accused State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 36 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:07:56 +0530 Mukesh. The accused persons also took the defence that accused Mukesh was shown to the victim in the Court Complex and due to the same reason, she had identified the accused Mukesh @ Manoj during her examination. However, the victim Mrs. Asha Sharma/PW1 had denied the suggestion to the effect that she was shown to the accused Mukesh @ Manoj at the time of production of accused persons in the Court.
44. The accused persons also took the defence that no public person had rescued the victim or came at the spot at the time of incident. The accused persons also took the defence that victim had not disclosed about the ownership documents of the gold chain and ear ring which were allegedly robbed at the time of incident.
45. The accused persons also took the defence that victim was not having sum of Rs. 25,00/- at the time of alleged incident in her possession and due to the same reason, no robbery was committed against her, neither she was beaten up by the accused persons.
46. The accused persons also took the defence that case properties were planted against them by the police at the instance of the complainant/victim.
47. The defence as taken by the accused persons regarding their identity in the involvement of the commission of present case does not hold any merit as victim had duly identified both the accused persons during the trial of the case in the Court and she had also explained the reason for not identifying accused Rahul initially during the judicial TIP proceeding. The victim had also explained the role of both the accused persons in the State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 37 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:08:03 +0530 commission of offence against her and no material contradiction came on record during the cross examination of the witness on the point of identity of the accused persons in the involvement of commission of offence of the present case against the victim.
48. The victim had also explained about the reason for possession of the case properties at the time of alleged incident which were robbed by the accused persons and no material contradiction came on record during the cross examination of complainant Smt. Asha Sharma which rules out the possibility of false implication by the victim against the accused persons.
49. The prosecution has also corroborated the case through the examination of witness Neeraj Sharma @ Rohit as PW2. The witness Neeraj Sharma @ Rohit was the son of the victim Smt. Asha Sharma. He deposed that on 11.12.2021 her mother left the home for work at about 05.30 to 05.45 am and after about 25 minutes, he had received a phone call from his mother in which her mother was crying and she had informed that she was robbed by two boys and her gold chain, ear ring and money were robbed. She also informed that she was brutally beaten up by the accused persons. He deposed that he immediately went to the spot and her mother met him at the distance of about 100 meters from the place of incident and at that time her mother was bleeding from her face and she was sitting on the road. He deposed that he took his mother to the AIIMS Hospital through one auto and got her mother medically examined.
The witness PW2/ Neeraj Sharma had also deposed that her mother was taking the name of one of the attacker as State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 38 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:08:13 +0530 Mukesh as called by another attacker during the incident. He deposed that he had informed to the police at 100 number from the hospital and police came in the hospital. However, her mother was not in a position to give the statement. He deposed that his statement was recorded by the police during investigation of the case.
50. The accused persons took the defence that the witness/PW2 did not detailed the name of the accused Mukesh in his statement to the police recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC Ex. PW2/D1. However, the said defence of the accused persons does not hold any merit as photographic representation of the fact is not possible and no other material contradiction came on record during the cross examination of witness Neeraj Sharma @ Rohit.
51. The prosecution has corroborated the case regarding the injuries received by the victim in the incident through the witness PW5 Dr. Kamal Singh Sekhawat who had identified the MLC Ex. PW5/P1 as prepared by him on the time of examination of the victim Mrs. Asha Sharma on 11.12.2021. He also proved the fact that he had opined the nature of injury as grievous and the kind of weapon as used in the commission of offence against the victim as blunt.
52. The accused persons had took the defence that the document of further treatment in the Neurosurgery, Orthopedic and Trauma Department were not brought and proved during the trial. However, the said defence of the accused persons does not hold merit as specific opinion were given by the witness PW5 on the basis of examination of victim Mrs. Asha Sharma. The defence as taken by the accused persons is accordingly rejected.
State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 39 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:08:20 +0530
53. The prosecution has proved the registration of FIR Ex. PW3/P1 through the witness ASI Sunil Kumar/PW3 and he deposed that he had received one rukka on 11.12.2021 through Ct. Vinod and on the basis of said rukka, he had registered the FIR and investigation of the case was marked to the IO SI Rahul. He had also identified the said FIR and also identified the Certificate issued U/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW3/P3 and no material contradiction came on record during the trial of the case.
54. The prosecution has corroborated the case while examining witness PW4 Ct. Vinod who had joined the investigation with the IO/PW7 SI Rahul. He deposed that in the intervening night of 10/11-12-2021, he was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar and he was on emergency duty with the IO of the case and on receipt of the information of the incident through DD No. 15-A, he had accompanied the IO/PW7 to the spot. However, the injured or eye witness were not found at the spot and thereafter, IO had called to the PCR caller Rohit who had informed that injured had been shifted to AIIMS Trauma Center.
55. The prosecution has also proved the fact that after the incident, the victim was admitted in AIIMS Trauma Center and was under treatment there through the witness PW4 and witness PW7/IO. Both these witnesses deposed that initially the victim was not in a position to give the statement due to her medical condition. However, later on after sometime her statement was recorded by the IO. The recording of the statement of the victim by the IO has been proved by the prosecution through witness PW7 who had identified the complaint of the complainant as Ex. PW7/A and no material State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 40 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 15:08:26 +0530 contradiction came on record during the trial through the cross examination of the witness PW7.
56. The prosecution has also proved that after recording of statement of the complainant, the witness PW4 went to the police station with the complaint and got the FIR registered.
57. The prosecution has also duly proved through the witness PW7/IO that IO/PW7 had prepared the site plan of the place of incident as Ex. PW7/P1 at the instance of the complainant during the investigation of the case and no material contradiction came on record during the trial through the cross examination of the witness PW7 to that effect.
58. The prosecution has also corroborated the case through witness PW7/IO that victim had disclosed that at the time of commission of offence, one of the offender was calling the name of other offender as Manoj and the said name was circulated by the IO in different units of police/staff members of the police.
59. The prosecution has also duly proved the arrest of the accused Mukesh Kumar @ Manoj through the witness PW7/IO and witness PW6 HC Pankaj and both these witnesses have duly explained the mode and manner in which the accused Mukesh Kumar @ Manoj was arrested by them on 12.12.2021 from Bada Park, Madangir Village on Raja Ram Marg, New Delhi. Similarly, the prosecution has also proved the recovery of the part of the case property which was effected from the possession of the accused Mukesh @ Manoj on the date of his arrest on 12.12.2021. Both the prosecution witnesses PW6 HC Pankaj and PW7/IO SI Rahul had identified the accused Mukesh State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 41 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:08:34 +0530 @ Manoj during their examination in the Court and they had also identified the arrest related documents and case properties seized from the possession of the accused Mukesh @ Manoj and no material contradiction came on record during the trial through the cross examination of the witness PW7 to that effect.
60. The prosecution has also duly proved through witness PW7 SI Rahul and PW6 HC Pankaj regarding the arrest of the accused Rahul who was arrested from Khanpur T Point New Delhi on the pointing out of the accused Mukesh @ Manoj.
61. The prosecution has also duly proved the recoveries of the case properties effected from the possession of the accused Rahul and both the prosecution witnesses PW7 SI Rahul and PW6 HC Pankaj had identified the case properties as well as arrest related documents during their examination in the Court.
62. The prosecution has also duly proved the judicial TIP proceeding conducted with respect to both the accused persons through witness PW7/IO and complainant/victim PW1 Smt. Asha and in the said proceeding, the victim had identified the accused Mukesh @ Manoj and victim could not identified the accused Rahul and no material contradiction came on record during the trial through the cross examination of the witness PW7 and PW1 to that effect.
63. The witness PW7/IO and victim/PW1 Smt. Asha had explained the reason for initially not identifying the accused Rahul as offender during the judicial TIP proceeding.
64. The accused persons took the defence that prosecution had not produced and proved any CCTV footage of the place of incident or place of the arrest of the accused persons State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 42 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:08:40 +0530 during the trial to corroborate the case of prosecution regarding the incident or regarding the arrest proceedings. However, the said defence of the accused persons does not hold any merit as IO had duly explained the reason for not placing any CCTV footage due to its unavailability.
65. The accused persons also took the defence that victim did not disclosed about the details of the articles as robbed from her possession neither she had mentioned about the robbery of PAN Card in her complaint and the PAN Card and case properties were planted against the accused persons. However, the said defence is rejected as IO had explained during the cross examination that victim had mentioned about the robbery of her purse and she did not mentioned the contents of the purse. No material contradiction came on record during the cross examination of PW7/IO to that effect.
66. The accused persons also took the defence during their examination U/s 313 Cr.PC that victim deposed falsely about the specific role of the accused Mukesh @ Manoj and Rahul in the commission of offence against the victim. However, both the accused persons and victim were not known to each other prior to the incident and there is no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons by the victim.
67. The accused persons also took the defence that prosecution has not corroborated its case by examining any independent witness apart from the victim Smt. Asha/PW1 and her son/PW2 Neeraj Sharma. However, the legal position in this regard has been clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "S.N Pare Vs. State", AIR 1985, SC 6866, in which State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 43 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:08:46 +0530 it was held that "conviction on the testimony of solitary eye witness is legal, if he is wholly reliable".
68. In the present case during the incident, the victim had also received injuries as she was punched on her eye by the accused Mukesh @ Manoj and she was also beaten up by the accused Rahul and the prosecution has duly proved the injuries received to the victim through the MLC Ex. PW5/P1 and legal position regarding the relevancy of the sole eye witness/victim corroborated by medical evidence was settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Vahula Goshan Vs. State" AIR 1989 SC 236, in which it was held that " the accused can be convicted on the evidence of solitary eye witness corroborated by the medical evidence".
69. The accused persons also took the defence that the testimony of PW2 Neeraj Sharma @ Rohit regarding the fact that he got admitted his mother in the hospital after the incident and after the incident, he was informed by his mother about the incident cannot be taken into consideration for corroboration of the case of the prosecution as PW2 being son of the victim is a interested witness and his testimony cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration. However, the said defence does not hold any merit and legal position in this regard has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "
Kartik Vs. State" (1996) 1 SCC 614 , in which it was held that " a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animus or some other reason. Therefore, the ground that witness being a close relative State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 44 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 PANDEY 15:08:54 +0530 and consequently, being a partisan witness could not be relied upon, has no substance".
70. It was further held in case titled as " B. Subba Rao Vs. Public Prosecutor", AIR 1997 SC 3427, that "even the evidence of a eye witness who is a partisan by itself is no ground for discarding his evidence but his testimony requires thorough and careful scrutiny".
71. The accused persons also took the defence that nature of injury as grievous as mentioned in MLC of the victim was not duly proved as details of the injuries and reason for giving the opinion on the nature of injuries as grievous were not mentioned in the MLC Ex. PW5/P1 to prove the charge U/s 397 IPC against the accused Mukesh @ Manoj.
Section 397 IPC is reproduced as under:-
72. Section 397 IPC Robbery or Dacoity with attempt 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 such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
73. In the present case, as per the testimony of victim PW1 Smt. Asha Sharma, the accused Mukesh @ Manoj had caused injuries on the eye of the victim and the said fact was corroborated through the MLC Ex. PW5/P1. The opinion on the MLC was given by witness PW5 who himself proved his opinion on the MLC and he had also explained the reason for giving the opinion on MLC as grievous injury and no material infirmity was State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 45 Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2025.07.31 15:09:01 +0530 found in the testimony of Doctor/PW5 who gave opinion on the MLC regarding the nature of injury during the cross examination. Hence, the defence as taken by the accused Mukesh @ Manoj regarding the nature of injury does not hold any merit and is accordingly rejected.
74. The recovery of the part of the case properties i.e. part of the robbed money, PAN Card of the complainant from the possession of the accused Mukesh @ Manoj and recovery of part of the case property from the possession of the accused Rahul has been duly proved through the testimony of recovery witness/IO SI Rahul and through the testimony of recovery witness HC Pankaj and no material contradiction came on record during their cross examination to rule out the false implication of the accused persons. Hence, the defence of the accused persons that accused persons were falsely arrested or case properties were planted upon them does not hold any merit and accordingly rejected.
75. The victim Mrs. Asha Sharma/PW1 had duly identified the recovered articles during her examination in the Court and accused persons failed to bring on record anything contrary to the case of prosecution that recovered articles were not belonging to the complainant or were planted against the accused persons as argued on their behalf. Hence, the defence of the accused persons that the case properties as recovered from the accused persons were not the part of the robbed articles is also rejected.
76. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the considered view that prosecution has duly proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 11.12.2021, the accused persons State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 46 Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 15:09:10 +0530 Mukesh @ Manoj and Rahul had committed the robbery of sum of Rs. 2500/- alongwith other articles of the complainant while using the criminal force against the victim. The prosecution has also duly proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the said incident of robbery, the accused Mukesh @ Manoj had caused grievous injuries in the eye of the complainant while punching in her eyes. The prosecution has also duly proved that on 12.12.2021, the part of the robbed articles belonging to the complainant/victim were recovered from the possession of the accused persons Mukesh @ Manoj and Rahul.
77. Accordingly, accused Mukesh @ Manoj S/o Janak Singh and accused Rahul S/o Raj Kumar are held guilty and convicted for offence punishable U/s 392/34 IPC and they are also held guilty and convicted for offence punishable U/s 394/34 IPC. The accused Mukesh @ Manoj S/o Janak Singh is also held guilty and convicted for charge of offence punishable U/s 397 IPC. The accused Mukesh @ Manoj S/o Janak Singh is held guilty and convicted for offence punishable U/s 411 IPC. The accused Rahul S/o Raj Kumar is also held guilty and convicted for offence punishable U/s 411 IPC. Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Announced in the open Court, PANDEY Date: 2025.07.31 15:09:16 +0530 On 31st July, 2025. (Ravindra Kumar Pandey) ASJ:03/South/Saket Courts/New Delhi.
31.07.2025 State Vs. Mukesh @ Manoj & Rahul; FIR No. 690/2021, PS: Ambedkar Nagar; page no. 47