Delhi District Court
State vs Irfaan on 8 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 558/2018)
FIR No. 121/2018
Police Station Sarai Rohilla
Charge-sheet filed under Sections 328/379/411/34 IPC
Charges framed against accused Sec. 328 IPC & Sec. 120B
persons. IPC & Sec. 379 IPC read
with Sec. 120 IPC.
State Versus 1. Irfan,
S/o Sh. Ahsan Khan,
R/o H. No. A-280, Gali No 25/5
Guru Nanak Nagar, Mustafabad
New Delhi.
2. Naim,
S/o Sh. Khuda Baksh Chaudhary,
R/o H. No. 189, Afghani Chowk,
Gali No. 9, Wazirabad Village,
Delhi.
3. Ram Narain @ Sanjay,
S/o Sh. Sant Ram,
R/o Gali No. 5, Sangam Vihar,
Wazirabad, Delhi.
...Accused Persons.
FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla,
State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 1 of 45
Date of Institution of case 03.08.2018
Date of Arguments 30.04.2026
Judgment reserved on 30.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on 08.05.2026
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Naim are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 328 IPC & Sec. 120B IPC & Sec. 379 IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on or before 21.03.2018 all the aforesaid three accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy to commit theft on passengers and in pursuance of abovesaid conspiracy, on 21.03.2018 at about 12:30 pm between Subzi Mandi Mortuary and Tis Hazari Circle, accused persons namely Irfan Khan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay voluntarily caused hurt to PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan by administering some poisonous or stupefying substance in his body through a drink. Further, on the abovesaid date after administering poisonous or stupefying substance to PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan, all the aforesaid three accused persons in pursuance of abovesaid conspiracy committed theft of bag of complainant containing clothes, three necklace sets, rings, coin of fifty grams of gold, cash in sum of Rs. 25,000/-, two mobile phones and some documents.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 2 of 45 case are that on 22.03.2018, on receipt of DD No. 60B, Ex. PW-14/A from GTB Hospital, regarding admission of a patient with alleged history of administering unknown substance by unknown person in autorickshaw near Sarai Rohilla Railway Station and finding of that person in semi-conscious state at Seemapuri Gol Chakkar, Dilashad Garden, PW-14 Inspector Vinod Kumar reached there and collected MLC of victim namely Masood Khan, Ex. PW-6/A, who was found unfit for his statement. Thereafter, on next day, victim Masood Khan came to PS Sarai Rohilla and lodged his complaint, Ex. PW-2/A regarding theft of his bag containing clothes, three necklace sets, rings, coin of fifty grams of gold, cash in sum of Rs. 25,000/-, two mobile phones and some documents by administering poisonous or stupefying substance to him. Thereafter, on the basis of complaint, Ex. PW-2/A, PW-14 Inspector Vinod Kumar prepared rukka, Ex. PW-14/B and got the present FIR registered at PS Sarai Rohilla. During investigation, IO also seized gastric lavage of complainant in sealed condition with sample seal vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-8/A. Thereafter further investigation of the present case was entrusted to PW-11 Inspector Sanjay Kaushik.
3. During investigation, it was learnt that accused persons namely Irfan, Naim and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay along with one more person namely Sheikh Sharabat Ali were arrested in case FIR No. 194/2018, PS Sarai Rohilla who also confessed their involvement in the present case. Thereafter, PW-11/IO Inspector FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 3 of 45 moved an application, Ex. PW-11/A for their interrogation and formal arrest before the Ld. MM which were allowed by the Ld. MM and thereafter, IO interrogated the accused persons namely Irfan, Naim & Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and formally arrested them vide arrest memos, Ex. PW-5/A to Ex. PW-5/C and recorded their disclosure statements, exhibited as Ex. PW-11/B to PW-11/C. During investigation, IO also moved application for TIP of accused persons but they refused to join the TIP proceedings. During investigation, complainant came to the PS Sarai Rohilla and handed over two envelops marked as PW-2/1 & Mark PW-2/2 which contained some documents i.e. cheque book in the name of wife of complainant namely Sanjeda Khan, PAN card, Aadhar Card of complainant etc. which were taken in possession by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B. During investigation, IO also moved application, Ex. PW-11/E for taking specimen handwriting of accused Irfan, which was allowed by Ld. Concerned Court and thereafter IO obtained specimen handwriting of accused Irfan exhibited as Ex. PW-11/F before the court. Thereafter, envelops mark PW-2/1 & Mark PW-2/2 along with specimen handwriting of accused Irfan were sent to FSL for comparison. During investigation, IO sent biological exhibit i.e. gastric lavage of complainant to FSL for expert opinion and recorded statements of witnesses. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO before the Court through the SHO. On receiving of FSL result, supplementary charge-sheet was also filed by the IO before the court.
FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 4 of 45
4. Vide order dated 2 8 . 0 7 . 2 0 1 8 , copy of the charge- sheet & C D o f e - c h a l l a n w e r e s u p p l i e d t o a c c u s e d p e r s o n s under Section 207 Cr.P.C and vide order dated 31.07.2018 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
5. Vide order dated 20.10.2018 the Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame charges under Sec. 328 IPC & Sec. 120B IPC & Sec. 379 read with Sec. 120B IPC against accused persons namely Irfan, Naim & Ram Narayan @ Sanjay to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
7. PW-1 Sh. Mubin Khan, was son of complainant/victim. He deposed that on 22.03.2018 at about 08:00 pm, his uncle Mr. Mansoor came to his house and informed him that his father Sh. Masood Khan who was coming to Delhi from Mumbai was lying in unconscious condition near Seemapuri roundabout. He further deposed that he along with his uncle went to Seemapuri roundabout where his father was found in unconscious condition and his belongings and luggage were not with him. He further deposed that he with the help of his uncle, he shifted his father to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi. In his cross- examination, he deposed that his father had not been taken to any FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 5 of 45 other doctor before going to GTB Hospital. He also deposed that police did not ask him to show the place where his father was found. He also deposed that he was not taken by the police anywhere for pointing out the place where his father was found nor any site plan was prepared at his instance.
8. PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan, was the complainant/victim in the present case. He deposed that on 21.03.2018 at about 12:30 pm, he came to Delhi from Mumbai and got down at Sarai Rohilla Railway Station and he went to New Rohtak Road to hire an auto-rickshaw near Pind Baluchi Restaurant and he stopped an auto-rickshaw for going to Seemapuri Depot. He further deposed that one person was already sitting at the rear seat of the auto- rickshaw and driver of auto-rickshaw moved via Pul Bangash. He further deposed that after reaching Pul Bangash, the person who was sitting at the rear seat of the auto-rickshaw alighted from auto-rickshaw to fetch cold drink and water. He further deposed that the said person was having currency note of Rs. 500/- so he could not purchase cold drink and water and thereafter they proceeded towards Seemapuri Depot. He further deposed that after reaching Subzi Mandi Mortuary, the said person alighted from the auto-rickshaw and brought cold drink (Maaza) and a water bottle and he offered cold drink in glasses to him and the driver. He further deposed that he remained conscious while reaching in front of Tis Hazari Circle but after that he became unconscious. He further deposed that when he regained consciousness, he found himself near Shahdara Masjid.
FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 6 of 45 He further deposed that his briefcase, mobile phone and other personal belongings had already been sotlen. He also deposed that he telephoned his brother Mansoor Khan with the help of public persons and his brother came there and shifted him to GTB Hospital. He further deposed that the said person along with driver of auto-rickshaw had stolen his briefcase in which three sets of necklace and two rings were kept apart from clothes. He further deposed that a coin of gold weighing fifty grams was missing from his pocket. He also deposed that his mobile phone along with cash of Rs. 25,000/- were also missing from his pocket. He further deposed that his PAN card, license, Aadhar card, ATM Cards of ICICI Bank and Union Bank and some other documents were also missing. He further deposed that after reaching hospital, he was not in position to give his statement and he regained his full consciousness later on 24.03.2018. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by Police, Ex. PW-2/A. He further deposed that on 13.06.2018, he had come to Tis Hazari courts and he saw that outside Court No. 272, IO was present along with four persons and he had identified the TSR driver as well as the person who had given cold drink to him and had robbed him. He further deposed that on inquiry, the name of abovesaid two persons were revealed as Irfan and Ram Narayan. He further deposed that he went to Police Station where IO had shown some papers, the PAN card of his wife Smt. Sanjeeda Khan and cheque book, which were seized by IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-2/B. This witness correctly identified accused Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay by their specific role during FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 7 of 45 his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not hand over any railway ticket to the police to show that he was travelling from Mumbai to Delhi. He also deposed that even police did not ask for the same to get it verified. He also deposed that there were several vacant auto- rickshaws available at Railway Station but nobody was agreeing for going to Seemapuri. He also deposed that accused persons were shown to him by the police before recording his testimony before the court in the present case. Voluntarily, he deposed that accused persons were shown to him at the time of their peshi. He denied the suggestion that police had asked him to identify the accused persons in the court at the time of his testimony. He also deposed that no statement of any public person was recorded by police at any of the places in his presence. He also deposed that no CCTV footage was taken by the IO. Voluntarily, he deposed that police tried to trace the footage but the shopkeepers refused for the same. He also deposed that no notice was served to those shopkeepers by the police for not providing CCTV footage. He also deposed that he had given the photocopies of the bills of his belongings like gold, necklace, mobile phone, ring, purchase of clothes etc. He also deposed that Police had neither verified his documents from the concerned authorities nor any inquiry was made by the police in this regard. He denied the suggestion that accused persons had never robbed him. He also denied the suggestion that he had identified accused persons in this case at instance of Police. This witness was re-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which he admitted that he had received an FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 8 of 45 envelop through two registered post. He deposed that both the envelops, Mark PW-2/1 & Mark PW-2/2 in which documents were kept and he handed over those documents to police and the police had seized the documents vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B. He denied the suggestion that Mark PW-2/1 & Mark PW-2/2 were manipulated and fabricated documents.
9. PW-3 ASI Brahm Pal, was Duty Officer at PS Sarai Rohilla. He proved copy of FIR, his endorsement on rukka and certificate under Sec. 65B of Indian Evidence Act exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A to Ex. PW-3/C. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he received rukka at about 06:15 or 06:20 pm. He also deposed that he recorded DD No. 37A about 06:15 pm in respect of registration of FIR. He denied the suggestion that FIR was ante-dated and ante-timed.
10. PW-4 Ex-Head Constable Harijesh Kumar, was MHC (M) at PS Sarai Rohilla. He proved entries in registrer no. 19 regarding deposit of case property exhibited as Ex. PW-4/A. He also deposed that on 24.07.2018, on direction of IO, he sent abovesaid parcel to FSL Rohini along with sample seal through Ct. Jagpal vide RC No. 125/21/18 and he had made an entry in this regard at point 'X' against entry, Ex. PW-4/A. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that no parcel was deposited with him. He also denied the suggestion that the case property was tampered with during his custody. He admitted that Ex. PW-4/A did not bear endorsement of SHO.
FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 9 of 45
11. PW-5 Ct. Dal Chand, deposed that on 29.05.2018, accused Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay, Naeem and Sheikh Sharabat Ali were produced before Ld. MM at Tis Hazari Courts by Police Officers of PS Sarai Rohilla. He further deposed that the abovesaid accused persons had been arrested in case FIR No. 194/2018, PS Sarai Rohilla. He further deposed that IO of the present case i.e. SI Sanjay Kaushik took permission from Ld. MM to interrogate the accused persons and all the accused persons were interrogated and arrested in the present case. He proved arrest memos of accused persons exhibited as Ex. PW-5/A to Ex. PW-5/D. He further deposed that all the accused persons made their disclosure statement. He also deposed that accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Naeem were sent to judicial custody, however, one day police custody remand of accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali was taken. He further deposed that accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali took the police party to his shop and got recovered some pieces of gold, which were seized by IO of case FIR No. 194/2018, PS Sarai Rohilla vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-5/E. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected in his presence at the instance of accused persons Irfan and Naeem. He deposed that he did not remember, if complainant or any of his family members were present in the court on that day or not. He also deposed that IO had recorded the statement of complainant in his presence at the spot i.e. in front of Sarai Rohilla Railway Station at New Rohtak Road, Delhi. He also deposed that IO FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 10 of 45 asked public persons to join the investigation but he did not ask any shopkeeper to join the investigation. He also deposed that no public person joined the investigation. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from any of the accused in his presence. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the behest of the senior officer to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present case.
12. PW-6 Dr. Shivani Agnihotri, DMS in Shri Jagannath Charitable Cancer Hospital, Duhai, Ghaziabad, UP. She deposed that on 22.05.2018, she was posted as Junior Resident at GTB Hospital in Accident & Emergency Ward. She further deposed that on that day, she had examined one injured namely Masood Khan, aged about 58 years vide MLC No. A/1094/09/18, exhibited as Ex. PW-6/A. She also deposed that after examination, she also collected gastric lavage of patient namely Masood Khan and handed over the same to duty constable. In her cross-examination, she deposed that the details entered in MLC including the name, address, age and mobile number of the injured were told by the injured as he was oriented and conscious at the that time. She also deposed that description/details at point C to C1 in Ex. PW-6/A was also told to her by the patient. She admitted that description/details at point C to C1 in Ex. PW-6/A was not medical opinion given by her.
13. PW-7 HC Jagpal, deposed that on 24.07.2018, on direction of IO he deposited a sealed parcel containing gastric lavage of FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 11 of 45 complainant at FSL, Rohini vide road certificate, Ex. PW-7/A. He also deposed that after deposit of same, he collected acknowledgment from FSL, Ex. PW-7/B and gave the photocopy of acknowledgment to the IO. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know the term 'gastric lavage' and he had no personal knowledge about the contents of the sealed parcel, however, it was told by the IO that same was gastric lavage.
14. PW-8 HC Karamveer, was Duty Constable at GTB Hospital. He deposed that on 22.03.2018, at around 10:00 pm, doctor called him and told him that one patient namely Masood Khan, S/o Mr. Isha Khan, R/o Dilshad Colony, Delhi was admitted by his son and brother in the hospital in unconscious state and doctor prepared his MLC No. A/1094/09/18. He further deposed that he gave the said information to PS Sarai Rohilla. He further deposed that doctor gave him sealed gastric lavage with sample seal and thereafter he handed over the same to IO which was seized by IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-8/A. In his cross- examination, he deposed that when he saw the injured Masood Khan, he was totally unconscious. He denied the suggestion that he was not present on 25.03.2018 at GTB Hospital. He also denied the suggestion that no gastric lavage handed over to him.
15. PW-9 SI Narender Singh, was the Investigating Officer in case FIR No. 194/2018, PS Sarai Rohilla. He deposed that in May, 2018, he was investigating case FIR No. 194/2018, PS Sarai Rohilla. He further deposed that during investigation, on FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 12 of 45 27.05.2018, he arrested accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Naim in case FIR No. 194/2018, PS Sarai Rohilla. He further deposed that they were found in possession of Ativan 2mg tablets, which were seized by the him vide seizure memo Mark-PW-9/A. He further deposed that accused persons had made disclosure statement regarding their involvement in various cases including the present case. He also deposed that the disclosure statements of accused persons recorded by him in this regard was marked as PW-9/B (colly). He further deposed that accused Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay led the police party to their houses and got recovered several stolen articles, which were seized by him vide seizure memo Mark. PW-9/C (colly). He further deposed that he also seized the TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RK-5333 which was used in commission of offence, vide seizure memo, Mark. PW-9/D. He further deposed that he also informed the concerned police stations with respect to disclosure made by the accused persons and their involvement as well as recovery of case property of concerned cases. In his cross-examination, he deposed that they got information regarding the arrival of the accused persons on 27.05.2018 at around 06:00 pm. He admitted that the area of Red Fort comes within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali. He also deposed that he did not give information in writing in the PS Kotwali with respect to raid for accused persons. He also deposed that they did not put barricades on the road to apprehend the accused persons. He admitted that he did not record statement of any public person nor he gave any notice to anyone. He also deposed that he had FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 13 of 45 not made staff of PP Red Fort as witness in the present matter. He admitted that house of accused Irfan came within jurisdiction of PS Wazirabad and they also did not made any DD entry in PS Wazirabad nor informed the police officials of Wazairabad. He denied the suggestion that they arrested accused persons from Tis Hazari Court when they come to attend their court hearing. He also denied the suggestion that they falsely implicated the accused persons in false and fabricated case.
16. PW-10 HC Krishan, deposed that in May, 2018 he joined the investigation of case FIR No. 194/2018, PS Sarai Rohilla along with SI Narender. He deposed identically on the lines of PW-9 SI Narender and narrated about arrest of accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay & Naim and recovery of Ativan 2mg tables from their possession. He also narrated about their disclosure statements regarding involvement in present case as well as seizure of TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RK-5333 which was used in the commission of offence. He also narrated about recovery of robbed items which were subject matter of different cases at instance of accused Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay from their houses and proved their seizure memos. This witness correctly identified accused persons as well as case properties during recording of his testimony before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that they chased the accused persons and accused persons were apprehended by the staff of Red Fort Chowki as SI Narender had shared the information with them. He also deposed that no statement was got recorded by the FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 14 of 45 IO of the police officials of Red Fort Chowki. He also deposed that no statement of any independent witness was recorded by the IO in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely or that he was not part of raiding party or that whatever he deposed on that was a false story.
17. PW-11 Inspector Sanjay Kaushik was the second IO in the present case. He deposed that on 29.05.2018, accused persons namely Irfan, Naim and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay were produced in muffled face by SI Narender, who was IO of case FIR No. 194/18, PS Sarai Rohilla. He further deposed that one more person namely Sheikh Sharabat Ali was also produced before the court of Ld. MM. He further deposed that he moved an application, Ex. PW-11/A for their interrogation and formal arrest before the Ld. MM which were allowed by the Ld. MM and thereafter, he interrogated the accused persons namely Irfan, Naim & Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and formally arrested them vide arrest memos, Ex. PW-5/A to Ex. PW-5/C and recorded their disclosure statements, exhibited as Ex. PW-11/B to PW-11/C. He further deposed that he also moved application for TIP of accused persons but they refused to join the TIP proceedings. He further deposed that complainant came to the PS Sarai Rohilla and handed over two envelops marked as Mark PW-2/1 & Mark PW-2/2 which contained some documents i.e. cheque book in the name of wife of complainant namely Sanjeda Khan, PAN card, Aadhar Card of complainant etc. which were taken in possession by vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B. He further deposed that on FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 15 of 45 the day of JC remand of accused persons was extended, complainant identified accused persons before the court room. He further deposed that he also moved application, Ex. PW-11/E for taking specimen handwriting of accused Irfan, which was allowed by Ld. Concerned Court and thereafter he obtained specimen handwriting of accused Irfan exhibited as Ex. PW-11/F. He further deposed that the envelops mark PW-2/1 & Mark PW-2/2 along with specimen handwriting of accused Irfan was sent to FSL for comparison. He further deposed that he sent biological exhibit i.e. gastric lavage of complainant to FSL for expert opinion and recorded statements of witnesses. This witness correctly identified all the three accused persons as well as case properties during his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had shown accused persons to the complainant in the PS. He deposed that he had not recovered anything from the accused persons qua the present FIR. He denied the suggestion that accused persons had been falsely implicated in the present case to work out the case.
18. PW-12 Sh. Satish Kumar, Ahlmad in the court of undersigned produced judicial file of case FIR No. 194/2018, PS Sarai Rohilla containing FIR, disclosure statement of accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay & Naim, seizure memo of Ativan tablets, recovery-cum-seizure memo of case property at instance of accused Irfan, seizure memo of TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RK-5333, recovery-cum-seizure memo of case properties at instance of accused Ram Narayan @ FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 16 of 45 Sanjay and arrest and personal search memos of accused persons. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not have any personal knowledge of any of the cases. He also admitted that he had given the statement on the basis of record i.e. case file pertaining to FIR No. 194/2018, PS Sarai Rohilla.
19. PW-13 Sh. Amit Rawat, Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL Rohini proved his detailed chemical report exhibited as Ex. PW-13/A. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
20. PW-14 Inspector Vinod Kumar, was the first IO in the present case. He deposed that on 22.03.2018, on receipt of DD No. 60B, Ex. PW-14/A from GTB Hospital, regarding bringing of a patient after the administering some substance, he reached there and collected MLC of victim namely Masood Khan, Ex. PW-6/A, who was found unfit for his statement. Thereafter, on next day, victim Masood Khan came to PS Sarai Rohilla and lodged his complaint, Ex. PW-2/A. He further deposed that he prepared rukka, Ex. PW-14/B and got the present FIR registered at PS Sarai Rohilla. He further deposed that he seized gastric lavage of complainant in sealed condition with sample seal vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-8/A and served notice under Sec. 91A Cr.PC to Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, New Rohtak Road for obtaining CCTV footage and applied for obtaining CDR of mobile phone of complainant. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not meet with the complainant as he was FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 17 of 45 unconscious. He also deposed that doctor told him that the complainant was unconscious. He also deposed that he did not remember exact time of preparing rukka. He deposed that he handed over the rukka to the Duty Officer. He also deposed that he could not tell at what time he handed over the said rukka. He also deposed that he could not tell the name of the DO and the DO made the entry of the rukka in the register. He also deposed that he did not remember if he prepared site plan or not. He also deposed that he did not record statement of any person at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he was not on duty on 22.03.2018 or that no call, Ex. PW-14/A was assigned to him or that he had not recorded complaint of Masood Khan or that he did not conduct investigation at any point of time.
21. PW-15 Dr. Suneet Kumar, Scientific Officer, FSL, Muradabad, UP. He deposed that on 17.07.2018, he was posted at FSL, Rohii, Delhi as Junior Forensic Assistant Chemical Examiner. He deposed that he examined all the exhibits and opined that the person who wrote the red enclosed writings stamped and marked S1 to S8 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 & Q2. He proved his detailed report in this regard exhibited as Ex. PW-15/A. He also proved the questioned documents i.e. Q1 & Q2, exhibited as PW-15/B & PW-15/C, specimen handwriting marked S1 to S8 exhibited as Ex. PW-11/F (colly) and forwarding letter, Ex. PW-15/D. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had only examined the exhibits and no counter examination of the same FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 18 of 45 was made by the senior officer. He denied the suggestion that he had not examined the documents and gave his opinion in mechanical manner.
22. PW-16 Dr. Kuldeep Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, UCMS & GTB Hospital, Delhi. He deposed that he had been posted in the hospital since year 2009 and had worked with Dr. Anand Parashar, Sr. Resident (Medicines). He further deposed that he had seen him writing and signing a number of medical documents and hence able to recognize his signature. He proved MLC of complainant bearing endorsement of Dr. Anant Parashar exhibited as Ex. PW-6/A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had no personal knowledge of MLC. He admitted that the remark at point 'X' shows that it was not certain that the patient had suffered poisoning rather it was based upon the outlook opinion at that time only. He also admitted that the same could be result of food poisoning.
23. During trial, accused persons namely Irfan, Naeem & Ram Narayan @ Sanjay admitted the genuineness of TIP proceedings and specimen signature/handwriting of accused Irfan exhibited as Ex. PX-1 & PW-11/F (colly) under Sec. 294 Cr.PC.
24. After closing of Prosecution Evidence, separate statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein they denied all the charges against them. Accused FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 19 of 45 persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Naim stated that they had been falsely implicated in the present case. They stated that time and again the Police Officials of PS Sarai Rohilla had falsely implicated them in their unsolved cases. Accused persons did not lead any defence evidence.
25. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Manish Sharma, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused Ram Narain @ Sanjay and Sh. M. N. Khan, Ld. Counsel for accused Irfan and Naim.
26. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan has narrated the entire incident in detail and he has identified accused persons namely Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay. He further argued that accused Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Irfan were identified by PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan outside the court room after they refused to participate in the TIP proceedings and there is no bar in law for such identification. He further argued that not finding of any poisonous substance in the gastric lavage of PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan does not affect the case of the prosecution as PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan was admitted to the hospital with such alleged history and he became fit for statement only on 24.03.2018 i.e. FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 20 of 45 after three days of incident due to the medical condition of PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan. He further argued that handwriting on the envelopes received by PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan through registered post has matched with the handwriting of accused Irfan. He further argued that PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan has also proved the proof of jewellery articles through the invoices. He further argued that accused persons and complainant were not known to each other and there is no question of false implication of accused persons in the present case. He further argued that none of the prosecution witness has turned hostile and the IO as well as the other police witnesses have proved the proceedings conducted by them during the investigation conducted in the present case. He also argued that since the prosecution has proved its case against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, they should be convicted for the offences under which charges have been framed against them.
27. Per contra Ld. Defence Counsels for accused persons argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate their point, they argued that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an arbitrary manner. They further argued that accused persons were shown to the PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan by the IO and hence the identity of accused persons has not been fixed in proper manner in the present case. They further argued that the PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan has not identified accused FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 21 of 45 Naim and he has not deposed anything against him. They further argued that no case property has been recovered in the present case. They also argued that no poisonous substance was found in the gastric lavage of PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan. They further argued that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are not of sterling quality. They further argued that no admissible evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution. They also argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt, accused persons should be acquitted under all the sections of law under which charges have been framed against them.
28. In the present case, charges under Sec. 328 IPC & Sec. 120B IPC & Sec. 379 IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC have been framed against accused persons. These Sections have been elaborated as under:-
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy:-
1. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
2. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 22 of 45 other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc. with intent to commit an offence.
Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Sec. 379 IPC Provides punishment for theft which has been defined under Sec. 378 IPC which reads as under:-
Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
29. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 23 of 45 Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Defence Counsels for accused persons.
30. PW-2 Complainant Sh. Masood Khan is the star witness of the prosecution as he is the victim as well as sole eye witness of the alleged incident. The testimony of PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan is to be appreciated as per established principles of law w.r.t appreciation of testimony of sole eye witness.
31. PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan deposed that on 21.03.2018 at about 12:30 PM, he came to Delhi from Mumbai and got down at Sarai Rohilla Railway Station. He further deposed that he went to New Rohtak Road to hire an auto rickshaw near Pind Bluchi restaurant and he stopped an auto rickshaw for going to Seemapuri Depot. He further deposed that one person was already sitting at the rear seat of auto rickshaw and the driver of auto rickshaw moved via Pul Bangash. There is complete consistency in the statement of PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan given in the Court and his statement Ex. PW2/A given by him to the police. The auto rickshaw bearing registration no. DL1RK 5333 has been seized by PW-9 SI Narender. Accused persons have failed to put any dent on the version of PW-2 Complainant Sh. Masood Khan w.r.t his reaching at Sarai Rohilla Railway Station and boarding the TSR for going to Seemapuri Depot.
32. PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan deposed that after FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 24 of 45 reaching Pul Bangash, the person who was sitting at the rear seat of auto rickshaw, alighted from auto rickshaw to fetch cold drink and water. He further deposed that the said person was having currency note of Rs. 500/- and hence he could not purchase cold drink and water and they proceeded towards Seemapuri Depot. He further deposed that after reaching Subzi Mandi mortuary, the said person alighted from auto rickshaw and brought cold drink (maaza) and a water bottle. He further deposed that the said person offered cold drink in glasses to him and driver. He also deposed that he remained conscious while reaching in front of Tis Hazari Circle but after that he became unconscious. He further deposed that he regained consciousness and found himself near Shahdara Masjid. He further deposed that his brief case, mobile phone and other personal belongings had already been stolen. There is complete consistency in the testimony of PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan recorded in the Court and his statement Ex. PW2/A recorded by the police w.r.t. purchasing of cold drink (maaza) and water bottle by one of the accused, drinking of the cold drink (maaza) by PW-2, becoming unconscious of PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan and finding missing of his articles after he regained consciousness. Accused persons have failed to create any doubt on the above-said version of PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan and the version of PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan is of sterling quality.
33. PW-2 Complainant Sh. Masood Khan deposed that the person sitting in the auto rickshaw alongwith the auto rickshaw driver had stolen his brief case which contained 03 sets of FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 25 of 45 necklace, 02 rings, a gold coin weighing 50 gms and clothes. He also deposed that his mobile phone and cash Rs. 25,000/- from his pocket were also stolen. He also deposed that his Pan Card, license, Aadhar card, ATM cards of ICICI Bank and Union Bank and some other documents were also missing. There is complete consistency in the testimony of PW-2 complainant Masood Khan recorded in the Court and his statement Ex. PW2/A recorded by the police w.r.t. details of the articles stolen from his possession. Moreover, PW-2 complainat Sh. Masood Khan has provided the bills/receipts of the jewellery articles and accused persons have failed to create any doubt w.r.t the genuineness of said bills/invoices of jewellery articles. Thus, from the testimony of PW-2 complainat Sh. Masood Khan, it has come on record that PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan was carrying the abovesaid articles when he hired the rickshaw and same were stolen by the driver of autorickshaw and the person who was sitting with him in the TSR on the rear seat as when he regained his consciousness, the said person and auto rickshaw driver were missing from the spot.
34. PW-2 complainat Sh. Masood Khan deposed that he made a call to his brother Mansoor Khan who came to the spot of incident and took him to Teg Bahadur hospital. PW-1 Sh. Mubin Khan (son of PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan) deposed that on 22.03.2018, at about 08:00 PM, his uncle Sh. Mansoor came to his house and told him that his father Sh. Masood Khan who was coming to Delhi from Mumbai was lying in an unconscious condition near Seemapuri roundabout. He further deposed that he FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 26 of 45 alongwith his uncle Mansoor went to Seemapuri roundabout where his father was found in unconscious condition and his belongings and luggage were not with him. He further deposed that he with the help of his uncle Mansoor shifted his father Sh. Masood Khan to Teg Bahadur hospital. As per MLC of Masood Khan Ex. PW6/A, Sh. Masood Khan was admitted by PW-1 Sh. Mubin on 22.03.2018 at about 10:00 PM with alleged history of giving unknown substance by unknown person in auto rickshaw near Sarai Rohilla Railway Station on 21.03.2018 and found in unconscious state at around 08:00 PM on 22.03.2018 at Seemapuri Gol Chakkar. Thus, prosecution has proved that PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan was found in an unconscious condition at Seemapuri Gol Chakkar and he was taken to hospital by PW-1 Sh. Mubin Khan with the help of Sh. Mansoor. Accused persons have failed to create any doubt w.r.t. the above- said facts.
35. Ld. Defence Counsel have argued that accused persons were shown to PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan and hence the identity of accused persons has not been fixed through PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan as per the established principles of law and hence benefit of the same should be given to the accused persons. PW-11 IO Insp. Sanjay Kaushik deposed that he moved application for the TIP of accused persons namely Ram Narayan, Irfan and Naim but they refused to join the TIP proceedings. Accused persons have admitted their TIP proceedings Ex. PX-1 in which it has been specifically mentioned by the Ld. MM that accused persons FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 27 of 45 refused to participate in the TIP proceedings dated 29.05.2018. PW-11 Insp. Sanjay Kaushik has specifically deposed that after refusal to join TIP proceedings by all the three accused persons, they were remanded to judicial custody. PW-11 IO Insp. Sanjay Kaushik also deposed that on the day on which JC remand of accused persons was extended i.e. 13.06.2018, complainant identified accused persons before the Court room. PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan specifically deposed that on 13.06.2018 i.e. after about 14 days of the refusal of accused persons for participating TIP proceedings, he came to Tis Hazari Courts in front of Court no. 272 and saw that IO was present alongwith four persons and he identified the TSR driver as well as the person who had given the cold drink to him and robbed him. He further deposed that on inquiry, the name of above-said two persons were revealed as Irfan and Ram Narayan. In his cross-examination, PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan deposed that accused persons were shown to him by the police before recording of his testimony in the Court and voluntarily he explained that accused persons were shown to him at the time of their peshi. The peshi (production of accused persons before the Court) of accused persons before the Court for the extension of judicial remand was on 13.06.2018 as specifically deposed by PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan and the relevant document pertaining to judicial custody of accused persons dated 13.06.2018 is also on record. Since, the accused persons had refused to participate in the TIP proceedings, an adverse inference can be drawn against them under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. The Ld. FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 28 of 45 MM while conducting the TIP proceedings Ex. PX-1 on 29.05.2018 had specifically warned the accused persons that adverse inference may be drawn against them during the trial if they refused to join the TIP proceedings but still, the accused persons decided not to join TIP proceeding. Since the accused persons had already refused to participate in the TIP proceedings on 29.05.2018, their identification by PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan in front of Court no. 272, Tis Hazari Courts is a proper identification and same is not barred by law as the accused persons were not shown to PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan before the date of their TIP proceeding i.e. 29.05.2018. The complainant PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan had correctly identified accused persons namely Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Irfan being the driver of auto rickshaw and the person sitting with him on the rear seat of the auto rickshaw on the date of incident. PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan had not identified accused Naim either on 13.06.2018 or on the date of recording of his testimony before the Court as he was aware only about the roles of two accused persons namely Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Irfan and if he had any intention to falsely implicate accused persons, he would have also identified accused Naim by assigning him some kinds of role. Since, PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan and accused persons were not known to each other prior to the date of incident and there was no enmity between them, there is no question of wrong identification of accused persons namely Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay by PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan. Moreover, PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan remained FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 29 of 45 with accused persons Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Irfan in their auto rickshaw for a long time i.e. about 30 minutes and he had also contacted with them, the identification of accused persons namely Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Irfan by PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan on 13.06.2018 in front of Court room no. 272, Tis Hazari and also in Court at the time of recording of his testimony does not seem to be doubtful at all. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of considered opinion that the identification of accused persons by PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan is proper and accused persons had failed to create any doubt on the prosecution story in this regard.
36. Ld. Defence Counsels have argued that in the FSL report Ex. PW13/A, no stupefying substance was found from the gastric lavage of complainant PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan and hence ingredients of Section 328 IPC have not been proved by the prosecution. As per the FSL report Ex. PW13/A, ethyl alkaloids, barbiturates and tranquilizers could not be detected in Ex. 1 i.e. gastric lavage of complainant PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan. As per the contents of DD no. 60 B dated 22.03.2018, Ex. PW14/A complainant PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan was administered some substance in auto rickshaw which was hired by him from the spot outside railway station and he was left at Gol Chakkar, Dilshad Garden and his relatives were tracing him and after he was found, he was taken to hospital by his son PW-1 Mubin Khan. PW-1 Sh. Mubin Khan has specifically deposed that on 22.03.2018, he alongwith his uncle went to Seemapuri FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 30 of 45 roundabout where his father was found in unconscious condition and he was taken to hospital. As per MLC of PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan, proved by PW-6 Dr. Shivani Agnihotri, Masood Khan was brought to hospital on 22.03.2018 around 10:00 PM with alleged history of giving unknown substance to him in auto rickshaw on 21.03.2018. As per the opinion given by Dr. Anant Parashar (Senior Resident Medicine) at point X in the MLC Ex. PW6/A of PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan, the nature of injury was suspected poisoning and the said opinion has been duly proved by PW-16 Dr. Kuldeep Kumar. PW-14 IO Insp. Vinod Kumar deposed that on 22.03.2018, on receiving DD no. 60 B Ex. PW14/A, he went to GTB hospital where he collected his MLC Ex. PW6/A but the patient was not fit for statement. Thus, due to intoxication caused to PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan on 21.03.2018 at about 12:30 PM, he was not fit for statement even on 23.03.2018 at about 09:58 AM as mentioned in his MLC and hence his statement was recorded only on 24.03.2018 which shows that PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan was under the influence of stupefying substance administered to him. PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan has specifically deposed that he regained his full consciousness on 24.03.2018 i.e. after 03 days of the incident. PW-9 SI Narender has specifically deposed that all the three accused persons were found in possession Ativan 2 mg tablets which were seized by him vide seizure memo Mark PW9/A. The Ativan tablet may be used for falling asleep as well as for treating anxiety. Accused persons have not explained the possession of said Ativan tablets FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 31 of 45 with them. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in judgment titled as 'Zuber & Ors. Vs. State, MANU/DE/0854/2015' has observed as under:-
"21. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for appellant that the gastric lavage of the complainant was not taken and in absence of the same, it cannot be said that any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug or other thing was administered to him. I, however, find no substance in this contention. The viscera would have necessary had the complainant being administered poison or any poisoness substance. Nothing could have been found in viscera on account of complainant taking stupefying substance mixed in a tea.
22. For the reasons stated hereinabove the conviction of appellant under Sec. 328 & 379 of IPC read with Sec. 34 thereof is confirmed."
37. In the present case, as per testimony of PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan, he became unconscious after consuming cold drink (Maaza) offered to him by accused Irfan. Thus, the stupefying substance was mixed in Maaza. PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan had consumed the said Maaza on 21.03.2018 at about 12:30 PM and he was admitted to the hospital on 22.03.2018 at about 10:00 PM i.e. after about after 33 hours of consuming maaza by him and after some time, his gastric lavage FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 32 of 45 was taken. Thus, the gastric lavage was collected by the Doctor after a long delay of about 35 hours and during such a long period, there is strong probability that the intoxicating/stupefying substance loses its effect and it comes out of the body of a human being through urine. Applying the reasoning as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'Zuber (supra)', this court is of considered opinion that nothing could have been found in the gastric lavage of PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan as the stupefying substance was administered to him after mixing it in the Maaza and the gastric lavage was collected after a long delay. In view of proving of fact that PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan was admitted to the hospital in semi- unconscious state and he regained his complete consciousness on 24.03.2018 and he was unfit for statement even after about 45 hours of consumption of such substance, specific version of PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan about the reason of his becoming unconscious and the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Zuber (supra), this court is of considered opinion that accused persons namely Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Irfan in pursuance of conspiracy entered into by them had administered some stupefying/intoxicating/unwholesome substance to PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan, due to which he became unconscious. Thus, prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 328 IPC and 120B IPC against accused persons namely Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay.
FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 33 of 45
38. PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan has specifically deposed that the driver and the person sitting with him in auto rickshaw i.e. accused persons namely Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Irfan had stolen his brief case in which three sets of necklace and two rings were kept apart from clothes. He also deposed that a coin of gold weighing 50 grams was also missing from his pocket. He also deposed that his mobile phone alongwith cash Rs. 25,000/- were also missing from his pocket. He also deposed that pan card, license, Aadhar Card, ATM cards of ICICI and Union Bank and some other documents were also found missing. PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan has specifically pointed out the role of accused persons namely Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Irfan in the commission of theft of his articles which was committed by the accused persons in pursuance of conspiracy entered into by them. Thus, the prosecution has proved ingredients of offences punishable under Section 379 IPC and 120B IPC against accused persons namely Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay.
39. PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan deposed that he had received two envelopes marked as PW2/1 and Mark PW2/2 through registered post in which documents were kept and he handed over those documents to the police and police has seized the said documents vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B. PW-11 IO Insp. Sanjay Kaushik deposed that complainant Sh. Masood Khan came to the PS and handed over two envelopes marked as Mark PW2/1 and Mark PW2/2 to him which contained some documents i.e. cheque book in name of Sanjeda Khan (wife of FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 34 of 45 PW-2 Masood Khan), Pan Card and Aadhar card of complainant and some other documents Ex. PX-1 which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B. These articles were stolen by the accused persons alongwith the other articles on 21.03.2018. The name and address of complainant was written by someone on the said envelopes (the exact same particulars i.e. name and address of PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan have been mentioned in Aadhar Card of Sh. Masood Khan which was received in above- said envelopes through registered posts). PW-11 Insp. Sanjay Kaushik deposed that he filed an application Ex. PW11/E for taking specimen writing of accused Irfan before the Court of Ld. MM which was allowed and he obtained the specimen handwriting of accused Irfan Ex. PW11/F which has been duly countersigned by the Ld. MM. Accused persons have admitted the genuineness of specimen signature/handwriting of accused Irfan Ex. PW11/F under Section 294 Cr.P.C. The specimen handwriting of accused and both the envelopes Mark PW2/1 and Mark PW2/2 were sent to FSL for comparison of handwriting of accused Irfan with the handwriting written on both the envelopes. PW-15 Dr. Suneet Kumar, Scientific Officer, FSL deposed that on 17.07.2018, he was posted at FSL, Rohini as Junior Forensic Assistant Chemical Examiner and on that day exhibits were received in FSL and same were examined by him. He proved his detailed report Ex. PW15/A alongwith question documents Ex. PW15/B and Ex. PW15/C and the forwarding letter Ex. PW15/D. As per the FSL result Ex. PW15/A, the person who wrote the read enclosed writing stamp and mark S1 to S8 also wrote the FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 35 of 45 read enclosed writing similarly stamped and marked Q1 and Q2. Thus, as per the FSL report Ex. PW15/A, the handwriting on the envelopes was of accused Irfan. In the envelopes, the documents stolen on 21.03.2018 were found. Accused Irfan has not taken any defence as to how his handwriting was found on the envelopes which were received by PW-2 complainant Sh. Masood Khan through registered post. Accused Irfan has also failed to create any doubt w.r.t. the examination conducted by PW-15 Dr. Suneet Kumar for reaching his conclusion in his FSL report Ex. PW15/A. Thus, through the scientific evidence led by the prosecution in form of FSL report Ex. PW15/A, prosecution has been successful to prove the role of accused Irfan in the commission of theft.
40. PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan is the injured in the present case. He has specifically deposed against the accused persons namely Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay with respect to the injuries caused on his person by intoxicating/stupefying substance administered to him by mixing it in maaza by abovesaid accused persons. There is complete consistency in his statement given to the police and his testimony recorded in the Court. The testimony of the injured witness is to be appreciated as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard.
41. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab cited as (2009) 9 SCC 719 while dealing with the evidentiary value of injured witness FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 36 of 45 has observed as under:-
"28. Darshan Singh (PW-4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the Doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa Vs. State of Karnataka, this Court has held that the deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
42. In 'State of U.P Vs. Kishan Chand', a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends supports to its testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan Vs. State of Haryana)."
FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 37 of 45
43. Nothing has been brought on record by the accused persons to put any dent on the version of PW-2 complainant /injured Sh. Masood Khan. Due to the act of accused persons, PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan became unconscious at 12:30 PM on 21.03.2018 and he was found in unconscious state at Seemapuri Gol chakkar at about 08:00 PM on 22.03.2018 and he regained his full consciousness on 24.03.2018 i.e. after 03 days of the incident and hence he was injured in the present case. PW-6 Dr. Shivani Agnihotri and PW-16 Dr. Kuldeep Kumar have proved MLC Ex. PW6/A of PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan alongwith the nature of injury and have opined that injury was due to suspected poisoning. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that PW-2 Sh. Masood Khan has named and identified wrong persons other than the persons who caused said injuries on his person by administering stupefying substance to him. Applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jarnail Singh & Ors. (Supra) & Kishan Chand (Supra), this Court is of considered opinion that the testimony of PW-2 complainant/injured Sh. Masood Khan cannot be discarded without any ground and hence the testimony of PW-2 complainant/injured Sh. Masood Khan being injured is reliable.
44. The basic purpose of recording of statement of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is to put in the incriminating evidence brought on record against him by the prosecution and to afford him an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him.
FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 38 of 45
45. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Neel Kumar Vs. State of Haryana cited as (2012) 5 SCC 766 has held that:-
it was the duty of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances proved against him while making statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation for such circumstance was an additional link in chain of circumstances to sustain charges against you.
46. Similary Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 1256 has held that:-
if the accused remains silent or in complete denial, the Court can take adverse intense against you.
47. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2010) 6 SCC 1 while convicting the accused and taking adverse inference against him with respect to the false answers given by him u/s 313 Cr.P.C observed as under:-
"130. This Court has time and again held that where an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 39 of 45 facts, the Court ought to draw an adverse inference qua him and such an inference shall become an additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case, the appellant Manu Sharma has inter alia has taken false pleas in reply to question no. 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 64, 65,67,72,75 and 201 put to him under Section 313 of the Code."
48. In the present case, the statements of all the accused persons under Sec. 313 Cr.PC were recorded and in reply to the most of the questions put to them, they have stated either 'it is incorrect' or 'I have no knowledge about it'. In answers, they have also stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case to solve unsolved cases. Accused persons have not taken any specific defence either in the cross examination of prosecution witnesses or in their statements recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. The answers given by the accused persons are evasive in nature and they have not explained as to why, the prosecution witnesses have deposed against them or as to why PW-2/complainant Sh. Masood Khan has named/identified accused persons namely Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Irfan. In these circumstances, applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Neel Kumar (supra), Phula Singh (Supra and Sidharth Vashisth (supra)' this court is of considred opinion that accused persons have not furnished any explanation for these circumstance hence these circumstances are additional link in the chain of circumstances evidence against them.
FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 40 of 45
49. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling quality.
50. In case titled as 'Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21', it is held that :
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 41 of 45 time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 42 of 45 that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
51. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 43 of 45 the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
52. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
53. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the considered opinion that PW-2 complainant/injued Sh. Masood Khan is a witness of sterling quality as his version is natural and he has also withstood the test of cross examination. This court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW-2 complainant/injured Sh. Masood Khan is clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and has been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses and corroborating evidence on record and the circumstances. Prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 328/120B IPC & 379/120B IPC against accused persons namely Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay beyond reasonable doubts. Prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients for the offence punishable under Sec. 328/120B IPC & 379/120B IPC against accused Naim as no incriminating/admissible evidence has been adduced against him as only disclosure statement of accused Naim does not have any evidentiary value.
FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 44 of 45
54. In view of aforesaid discussion, accused persons namely Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay are hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Section under Sec. 328/120B IPC & 379/120B IPC. Accused Naim is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 328/120B IPC & 379/120B IPC.
Digitally signed
VIRENDER by VIRENDER
Announced in the open court KUMAR KUMAR KHARTA
Date: 2026.05.08
KHARTA
on 8th day of May, 2026 13:54:40 +0530
(Virender Kumar Kharta)
ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI/08.05.2026
FIR No. 121/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla,
State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 45 of 45