Delhi District Court
State vs Afjal on 17 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPAKSHI RANA, JMFC-03
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KKD, COURT, DELHI
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No. 80/2021 PS Nand Nagri
[CR No. 5654/21]
b Date of the commission of the : 29.01.2021
offence
c Name of the Complainant : Preeti
d Name of Accused person and his : (1) Afjal
parentage and residence S/o Iqbal
R/o H. No. L-467, Gali No. 5, Sunder
Nagri, Delhi
(2) Sadab
S/o Sabir
R/o H. No. L-364, Gali no. 4, Sunder
Nagari, Delhi
E Offence complained of : 392/411/34 IPC
F Plea of the Accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
G Final Order : Acquitted
H Order reserved on : 17.12.2025
I Order pronounced on : 17.12.2025
1.Vide this judgment, the present FIR bearing No. 80/2021 registered with PS Nand Nagri on 29.01.2021 on the statement of complainant against accused persons shall be decided and disposed off.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION-:
2. A police report in the form of charge-sheet was put up against the accused persons by the State through Station House Officer of PS Nand Nagri on 22.10.2021 alleging that on 29.01.2021 at about 2:50 PM at near Gagan Cinema Mazar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS nand Nagri, accused persons namely Afzal and Sadab alongwith co accused person namely Anwar (since not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery upon the complainant namely Preeti by snatching her mobile phone make VIVO V plus 5 and said mobile FIR No. 80/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Afzal & Ors. 1/7 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.17 04:31:41 +0530 phone was recovered from the possession of accused persons namely Afzal and Sadab and thereby committed an offence U/s 392/411/34 IPC.
Trial proceedings:-
3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court on 22.10.2021 under section 392/411/34 IPC against the Accused persons whereby Cognizance was taken in this matter on the same day and accused persons were summoned to appear before the court to face trial. Upon the appearance of accused persons before the court, copy of challan and relevant documents were supplied to accused as per the provisions U/s 207 Cr.PC.
4. After hearing detailed arguments, charges under sections 392/411/34 IPC were framed upon the Accused persons on 12.10.2023, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, matter was taken up for recording prosecution evidence.
5 In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, Prosecution has examined 03 witnesses as follows:-
PW1 Preeti PW2 SI Krishna Kumar PW3 HC Rajeev Kumar It is pertinent to note that there were six other witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses including the DO, investigation/ arrest witnesses and MHCM.
Rest of the witnesses were dropped from list of witnesses on 01.02.2024 at the request of Ld. APP for the state as complainant had not supported the case of the prosecution.
It may be noted that the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 are formal in nature as they are the witnesses to investigation proceedings and the star witness to this FIR No. 80/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Afzal & Ors. 2/7 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.17 04:31:49 +0530 case is the complainant who has been examined as PW-1.
6. Before proceeding further, in order to support the evidence brought by prosecution on record, the list of exhibited documents is given in the following table:-
Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant
Ex.PW1/B Site plan prepared by IO
Ex.PW1/C Seizure memo of case property
Ex. PW1/D Superdarinama
Ex.PW1/E Copy of bill of mobile phone
ExPW1/F Panchnama
Ex.PW1/G Arrest memo of accused Sadab
ExPW1/H Arrest memo of accused Afjal
ExPW1/I Personal search memo of accused Sadab
Ex.PW1/J Personal search memo of accused Afjal
Ex.PW2/A Pointing out memo of place of occurrence
&
Ex.PW2/B
Ex.PW2/C Disclosure statement of accused persons & Ex.
PW2/D
7. On perusal of the record, as well as the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses including the public witness, sufficient evidence could not be found against the accused persons as one prime witness to this case i.e. the complainant, resiled from her previous statement given to the police. Nevertheless, on the basis of the evidence brought by the prosecution against the accused persons, their statement U/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded on 04.12.2025 wherein they denied all the allegations against them and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant. They further added that nothing was recovered from their possession. The untraced accused Anwar was the one who committed the offence if any. They were not present at the spot. Lastly, when questioned as to whether they wanted to lead evidence in their defence, they FIR No. 80/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Afzal & Ors. 3/7 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.17 04:31:59 +0530 answered in negative.
8. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for the hearing of final arguments, which were duly addressed by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused person. Submissions heard. Record perused.
9. Ld. APP for the State has pressed upon conviction of the accused stating that clear averments have come against the accused persons not only in the complaint filed by the complainant with the police but also in his testimony on oath of the IO concerned. Ld. APP for the State further argued that merely because complainant has turned hostile in this case, the entire case cannot be discarded as she has been won over by the accused persons outside the court. Ld. APP for the State also argued that even in case of hostile witnesses, the conviction of the accused can be sustained if credible evidence can be made out against them.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has pressed upon acquittal of the accused stating that one public witness who has deposed in this matter i.e. the complainant herself has turned hostile to the prosecution case and thus, no evidence warranting conviction of the accused have been brought on record by the prosecution. It was further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the duty of the prosecution is to prove the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts which the prosecution have failed to do in this case and therefore, accused deserves to be set at liberty from the charges leveled against them.
Brief reasons for the decision:-
10. At the outset, before proceeding further on to discussing the weight and relevancy of evidence led by the Prosecution, this court deems it appropriate to first highlight the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence, i.e. one, that the FIR No. 80/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Afzal & Ors. 4/7 Digitally signed DEEPAKSHI by DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.17 04:32:08 +0530 Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty and two, that the burden upon the Prosecution lies to the extent of proving the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Prosecution to prove all the ingredients which constitute the offence so that all reasonable doubts in the case of the Prosecution are removed. It may be noted that strongest of suspicion upon the Accused, does not lead to the guilt of the Accused. Thus, keeping in view the above stated aspects and principles of criminal jurisprudence this court shall proceed to decide upon the innocence or guilt of the Accused person.
11. Coming now to the facts of the case, the Prosecution has cited 09 witnesses in the list of witnesses annexed with the charge-sheet. As already mentioned above, out of the aforesaid 09 witnesses, one is public witness i.e. the complainant herself. Rest of the witnesses cited by the Prosecution are formal witnesses who might have played some part during investigation proceedings but are not witnesses to the incident as such and therefore their testimonies have not been able to throw any light on the occurrence of the incident. It is pertinent to note that out of the three witnesses examined in the court, two are police witnesses, however, they have only been able to depose with respect to the registration of FIR in this matter and other documents with respect to the investigation proceedings including arrest and personal search memo of accused person, site plan etc. Thus, the testimonies of police witnesses i.e. PW-2 and PW-3 have not been able to provide any substantial support to the prosecution case.
12. Moving further, it is vital to mention here that complainant is a prime public witness to this case. To the utter dismay of prosecution, the testimony of complainant has brought in several doubts in the prosecution case. 12.1 Complainant has been unable to divulge any substantial information with FIR No. 80/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Afzal & Ors. 5/7 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.17 04:32:17 +0530 respect to incident in question in her examination in chief. She failed to identify the accused persons in court and also denied the case proceedings in toto. Even after being cross examined by Ld. APP for the State, she could not lend much needed support to the dipping prosecution case. As complainant has not supported her case, no credibility can be attached to the statement of the complainant as she has completely turned aside the story put forward by the prosecution. 12.2 Moving further, it is pertinent to note that the police witness i.e. PW-3 HC Rajiv Kumar deposed that on 29.01.2021, he was posted at PS Nand Nagri as HC and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 8 AM to 8 PM. At around 3- 3:15 PM, he received a call regarding accused who was apprehended at the Gagan Cinema alongwith the mobile phone. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Parveen went to the spot where they met with Ct. Akshay, ASI Rajinder and complainant Preeti and thereafter formal proceedings followed. The incident did not occur before his eyes. Hence, his testimony is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. 12.3 From the above testimonies itself, the case of the prosecution is rendered questionable to the extent that it would be unjust to attach the culpability to the accused.
13. From the above held discussion and overview of the evidence brought by the prosecution, it can be said without any doubt that the prosecution has been unable to bring confirmation of the guilt of Accused persons in the present case. It is already settled in law that the burden upon the prosecution is to bring home the guilt of the accused on the basis of evidence collected during investigation and when the star witness to this case herself speak against the case of the prosecution, there remains no scope of doubt with respect to the lack of sufficient proof by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Moreover, as per the FIR No. 80/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Afzal & Ors. 6/7 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.17 04:32:27 +0530 tenets of criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt in the case of the prosecution goes to the accused persons.
Conclusion
14. Therefore, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that the Prosecution has failed to discharge the burden imposed upon it by law of proving the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, Accused Afjal and Sadab are held not guilty and hereby acquitted of the charge framed against them u/s 392/411/34 IPC in the Digitally signed present case. by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN RANA Date: 2025.12.17 COURT ON 17.12.2025 04:32:41 +0530 (Deepakshi Rana) JMFC-03, District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts/Delhi [This judgment has been directly typed on computer to dictation] [This judgment contains 07 signed pages] FIR No. 80/2021 PS Nand Nagri titled as State v. Afzal & Ors. 7/7