Delhi District Court
State vs Akash@Yogesh on 1 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. AAKANKSHA, JMFC-03, NORTH-
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case No. 10416/2022
State v. Akash @ Yogesh
FIR No. 343/2022
PS Raj Park
JUDGMENT
(a) CNR No. DLNW020381192022
(b) Date of offence 19.03.2022
(c) Complainant Ram Karan, S/o Sh. Banwari Lal
(d) Accused person Akash @ Yogesh, S/o Sh. Jagdish
(e) Offences charged with Under Section 392/411/34 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty.
(g) Final Order ACQUITTAL
(h) Date of institution 17.09.2022
(i) Date of judgment 01.04.2026
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on March 19, 2022, at around 10.30 PM, in front of NDPL Office, Phase I, Mangolpuri, within jurisdiction of Raj Park, two offenders came towards the complainant who was on his foot, one of them restrained the complainant by pressing his neck while the other threatened him to hand over his belongings. The second person then forcibly took a green and black Vivo mobile phone and a Digitally signed by FIR No. 343/2022 State Vs. Akash @ Yogesh PS Raj Park Page 1 of 9 AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.01 16:53:05 +0530 wallet containing approximately 1,500 rupees and a photocopy of his driving license from his pocket. As the assailants fled, the complainant chased them while shouting for help and managed to catch accused Akash @ Yogesh a short distance away. A crowd gathered, and a patrolling police officer assisted in searching the boy, discovering the robbed mobile phone in his pocket. On the basis of the said information, the present FIR bearing number 343/2022 was registered under Section 392/411/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as IPC"].
2. Investigation was carried out and charge sheet was filed u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') in the Court on 21.09.2022 against accused Akash @ Yogesh whereas the second offender could not be traced. Cognizance of the offence under Section 392/411/34 IPC was taken on 21.09.2022 itself.
3. Upon compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charge was framed against the accused for offence punishable under Section 392/411/34 IPC IPC on 31.08.2023 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for the trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined total 02 witnesses i.e. (1) Complainant/Ram Karan and (2) SI Abhishek.
LIST OF WITNESSES-
Prosecution Witness No. Name of Witness Description 1 Ram Karan Complainant 2 SI Abhishek IO Digitally signed by FIR No. 343/2022 State Vs. Akash @ Yogesh PS Raj Park Page 2 of 9 AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.01 16:53:11 +0530 LIST OF DOCUMENTS-
Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit Proved by/ Attested by
Ex.PW1/A Statement of complain- PW1
ant
Ex.PW1/B Seizure Memo PW1
Ex.PW1/C Arrest Memo of ac- PW1, PW2
cused
Ex.PW1/D Personal search memo PW1, PW2
of accused
Ex.PW2/A Tehrir PW2
Ex.PW2/B Disclosure statement PW2
Ex.PW2/C Site plan PW2
Mark A Bill of recovered mo- PW1, PW2
bile phone
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS-
Material Object No. Description of the Ex- Proved by/ Attested by
hibit
Ex. P-1 Case property/mobile PW-1, PW-2
phone
5. In brief, the deposition of prosecution witnesses is reproduced as below:
5.1. PW-1/ Ram Karan/ complainant deposed that around 03 years ago, when he was going to his room after parking his car and reached at NDPL office, Mangolpuri, Phase I, Delhi, two boys came from behind and caught him through his neck and robbed him of his mobile phone make Vivo Green colour and his wallet containing Rs. 1,500/- and copy of his driving license. He did not see his faces due to darkness and left for his room. He got to know that some public persons with the help of police officials apprehended one of those boys and his mobile phone was recov-
Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA FIR No. 343/2022 State Vs. Akash @ Yogesh PS Raj Park Page 3 of 9 AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.01 16:53:21 +0530 ered. His statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded by IO. The witness correctly identified the case property Ex.P-1 (colly.) but failed to identify the accused before the Court. The witness was cross-ex- amined by the Ld. APP for the State but refused to identify his signature on the seizure memo or on the arrest and personal search memo. The witness was not cross-examined by accused despite opportunity 5.2. PW-2/SI Abhishek deposed that on 19.03.2022, he was pos-
ted at PS Raj Park as an SI. On that day, the accused and Ct. Sunny brought the accused to the police station. Subsequently, DD No. 94A was lodged and handed over to him. He then seized the recovered mobile phone vide Ex. PW-1/B. He recorded the statement of complainant Ram Karan vide Ex. PW-1/A, prepared the tehrir vide Ex. PW-2/A, and had the FIR lodged. The witness interrogated the accused vide Ex. PW-2/B. He arrested the ac- cused vide arrest memo Ex.PW-1/C and conducted a personal search vide Ex.PW-1/D. Thereafter, he went to the spot of the in- cident with the accused, the complainant, and Ct. Sunny and pre- pared the site plan vide Ex.PW-2/C. He checked for CCTV cam- eras nearby but could not find any. He searched for the co-ac- cused but could not find him as details were not available from the main accused. He returned to the police station and recorded the statements of the complainant and Ct. Sunny under Section 161 CrPC. On the following day, he produced the accused in court, where the accused was sent to judicial custody. He obtained and verified the bill for the recovered mobile phone from the complainant (Mark A). Upon completion of the proceedings, he prepared the charge sheet and filed it in court. He correctly identi-
Digitally signed by FIR No. 343/2022 State Vs. Akash @ Yogesh PS Raj Park Page 4 of 9 AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.01 16:53:28 +0530 fied the accused, Akash @ Yogesh, in court and was duly cross- examined.
5.3. Vide order dated 13.03.2026, Ld. Subt. APP for State submitted that complainant has failed to support the prosecution case and the remaining witness are merely formal witnesses. In view of the same, the Court declared that as the main witness did not support the prosecution story, further examination of formal witnesses would be a "futile exercise" and a waste of judicial time. Relying on the precedent set in Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admn. & Anr., which directs that court time should not be wasted when there is no prospect of conviction, the Court dropped the three remaining witnesses and closed Prosecution Evidence (PE).
Statement of Accused (SA) was dispensed with due to a lack of incriminating evidence. Accused also did not wish to lead DE and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
6. At the stage of final arguments, Ld. APP for State submitted that prosecution has been able to successfully prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of two witnesses, hence prayed that accused persons be convicted for the offences they are charged with.
7. Per contra, it was vehemently argued by Ld. defence counsel that complainant has failed to identify the accused and therefore, prayed to acquit the accused.
8. After hearing arguments and perusal of record, the appreciation of evidence and finding of this Court is as follows:
Digitally signed by FIR No. 343/2022 State Vs. Akash @ Yogesh PS Raj Park Page 5 of 9 AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.01 16:53:48 +0530
9. It is settled proposition of law that the prosecution has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused. In the present case, accused Akash @ Yogesh has been charged with commission of offence u/s 392/411/34 IPC.
10. Before appreciating evidence, it would be pertinent to mention the relevant provisions:
Section 392 IPC prescribes punishment for robbery, which is defined under Section 390 as:
"In all robbery there is either theft or extortion, When theft is robbery- Theft is robbery if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery- Extortion is robbery if, the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted."
Digitally signed by FIR No. 343/2022 State Vs. Akash @ Yogesh PS Raj Park Page 6 of 9 AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.01 16:53:55 +0530
11. In the present case, total two witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, of which the complainant i.e., PW1 is the star witness being the victim. It is deposed by PW-1/complainant/victim that whilst he was standing outside his parked car on the day of incident, he was caught by two persons who robbed him of his mobile phone, currency of Rs. 1,500/- and copy of his driving licence. However, the witness further stated that he could not see the faces of the offenders due to darkness at the spot and then, he left for his room and later got to know that some public persons with the help of police officials apprehended one of the accused and his phone was recovered. Despite being cross-examined on behalf of the State, the witness failed to identify the accused and deposed that he had not seen the accused on the date of incident while committing the alleged offence. The witness also refused to identify his signatures on the seizure memo or the arrest memo.
12. The other witness PW 2 SI Abhishek is the Investigating Officer who stated that on 19.03.2022, accused was brought to the police station by complainant and Ct. Sunny and thereafter, he recorded the statement of the complainant, prepared tehrir, got the FIR lodged, interrogated and arrested the accused, prepared site plan but no CCTV was found nor details of co-accused could be gathered and after completion of proceedings, filed chargesheet before the Court.
13. In view of the above testimony of PW1, it is clear that PW1 has failed to support the prosecution case. Thus complainant has Digitally signed by FIR No. 343/2022 State Vs. Akash @ Yogesh PS Raj Park Page 7 of 9 AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.01 16:54:00 +0530 turned hostile and has failed to support the prosecution case in its entirety. All the remaining witnesses whose names have been mentioned in the list of witnesses filed by prosecution were either police officials or formal witnesses, they were not ocular witnesses and could not have proved the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, no purpose would have been served by examining the remaining witnesses. Reliance need be placed upon case titled as Govind & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104 (2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that:
"...In cases where the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak for there is no prospect of the case and again conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion of a future date."
14. Similar view has also been taken in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & anr., 1996 JCC 507 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"In a case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date."
15. Thus, complainant having failed to support the prosecution case at all, it can be safely held that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
Digitally signed by FIR No. 343/2022 State Vs. Akash @ Yogesh PS Raj Park Page 8 of 9 AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.01 16:54:05 +0530
16. In criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty, and the burden of proving the guilt of accused solely rests upon the prosecution by leading positive evidence. The guilt of accused is not to be proved by mere preponderance of probabilities but it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot take the place of proof. In the present case, the evidence apparent on record is insufficient for bringing home the guilt of the accused and the prosecution story suffers from material infirmities, as already observed hereinabove.
17. In light of the above discussion, it can be safely said that Prosecution has remained unsuccessful in proving guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, benefit of doubt is hereby given to accused and accused Akash @ Yogesh S/o Sh. Jagdish is held 'not guilty' and thus acquitted for charges of commission of offence under Section 392/411/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Announced in open Court today, on 01st April, 2026. Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.01 16:54:11 +0530 [AAKANKSHA] Judicial Magistrate First Class-03(Northwest)/ Rohini/Delhi 01.04.2026 FIR No. 343/2022 State Vs. Akash @ Yogesh PS Raj Park Page 9 of 9