Delhi District Court
State vs Irfan on 25 April, 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. 557/2018)
FIR No. 194/2018
Police Station Sarai Rohilla
Charge-sheet filed under Sections 365/328/379/411/34 IPC
Charges framed against accused Sec. 328 & Sec. 120B IPC
persons namely Irfan, Ram & Sec. 379 IPC read with
Narayan @ Sanjay & Naim. Sec. 120 IPC.
Charges framed against accused Sec. 103 of Delhi Police
Sheikh Shrabat Ali. Act.
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, Adwani 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.
4. Sheikh Shrabat Ali,
S/o Sh. Sheikh Hasan Ali,
R/o H. No. 405, Gali No. 16,
Vijay Park, Delhi
FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla,
State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 1 of 50
Permanent Address:-
Village Mondulika,
PS Jangipada, District Hugli,
West Bengal.
...Accused Persons.
Date of Institution of case 03.08.2018
Date of Arguments 22.04.2026
Judgment reserved on 22.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on 25.04.2026
Decision Acquitted
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. Accused Sheikh Shrabat Ali is facing trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 103 of Delhi Police Act. The case of the prosecution is that on or before 17.05.2018 accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Naim entered into criminal conspiracy to commit theft on passengers and in pursuance of abovesaid conspiracy, on 17.05.2018 at about 12:30 pm at some unknown place, accused persons namely Irfan Khan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay voluntarily caused hurt to complainant Sh. Sharad Kokare and his friend Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad by administering some poisonous or stupefying substance in their body by mixing it in fruit juice. Further, on the abovesaid date after administering poisonous or stupefying substance to complainant Sh. Sharad Kokare and his friend Sh.
FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 2 of 50 Somnath Nana Gaikwad, accused persons namely Irfan Khan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay in pursuance of abovesaid conspiracy committed theft of their wallet, one gold ring, one gold chain and one wrist watch. Further on 28.05.2018 at Kabir Nagar, Delhi accused Sheikh Shrabat Ali was found in possession of forty nine grams of gold and there were reasons to believe the same to be stolen and he failed to account for the said quantity of gold in his possession.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the case are that on 17.05.2018 at about 07:50 pm, on receiving DD No. 42A, Ex. PW-9/A, regarding missing of a person and admission of another person in Aruna Asaf Ali hospital, PW-9 Retd. SI Devender (the then SI), went to the hospital, where he collected MLC of injured/complainant namely Sh. Sharad and recorded his complaint, Ex. PW-1/A regarding administering of poisonous or stupefying substance to him and his friend Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad and theft of their wallet, one gold ring, one gold chain and one wrist watch by accused persons. Thereafter, PW-9 SI Devender prepared rukka, Ex. PW-9/B on the basis of complaint, Ex. PW-1/A and got the present FIR registered at PS Sarai Rohilla. PW-9 SI Devender also obtained biological exhibits i.e. blood sample and gastric lavage of injured from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/C. Thereafter further investigation of the present case was entrusted to PW-10 SI Narender Singh. During investigation, PW-10/IO SI Narender Singh recorded FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 3 of 50 supplementary statement of complainant Sh. Sharad and prepared site plans, Ex. PW-1/B & Ex. PW-1/C at his instance. During investigation, on 27.05.2018, on receiving secret information that three accused persons who were involved in the present case would be coming near Red Fort, PW-10/IO SI Narender Singh along with staff and secret informer went near Red fort where secret informer identified one auto bearing registration no. DL-1RK-5333 and informed that three persons sitting inside the said auto were the accused persons involved in the present case. Thereafter, IO apprehended all the three accused persons whose names were revealed as Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay & Naim and they were found in possession of Ativan 2mg tablets, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/E. Thereafter IO/PW-10 SI Narender Singh arrested accused persons namely Ram Naryan @ Sanjay, Naim and Irfan Khan in the present case vide arrest memos Ex. PW-8/A to Ex. PW-8/C, conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW-8/A-1 to Ex. PW-8/C-1 and recorded their disclosure statements, Ex. PW-8/A-2 to Ex. PW-8/C-2. Thereafter IO also seized the TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RK-5333 vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-8/D.
3. During investigating, accused Irfan led the police party to his house and from where he got recovered several stolen articles, which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/C-3. Accused Ram Narayan @ Sanjay also led the police party to his house and got recovered several stolen articles which were also seized by the IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-8/A-3.
FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 4 of 50 During investigation, IO also informed the concerned Police Stations regarding disclosure statements made by the accused persons and their involvement regarding the recovery of the case properties of the concerned cases. During investigation, IO also moved application for TIP of accused persons, however, accused persons refused to participate in TIP proceedings. During PC remand, accused persons namely Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay pointed out the spot of incident i.e. Sarai Rohilla Railway Station vide memos Ex. PW-8/B-5 & Ex. PW-8/A-5 and accused Irfan led the police party to Kabir Nagar and got arrested co- accused Sheikh Shrabat Ali from his shop, vide arrest memo Ex. PW-8/F. IO also conducted personal search of accused Sheikh Shrabat Ali vide memo Ex. PW-8/F-1 and recorded his disclosure statement, Ex. PW-8/F-3. During PC remand accused Sheikh Shrabat Ali got recovered gold pieces weighing about 49.11 gms which was seized by IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-10/A. During investigation, IO sent biological exhibit i.e. gastric lavage of complainant as well as tablets recovered from accused persons 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.
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 a s 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 FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 5 of 50 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 and charge under Sec. 103 of Delhi Police Act was framed against accused Sheikh Shrabat Ali. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and they claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
7. PW-1 Sh. Sharad Bhaskar Kokate, was the complainant and one of the victims in the present case. He deposed that on 16.05.2018, he along with his friend Somnath Nana Gaikwad left Mumbai for Delhi by Garib Rath Express. He further deposed that they de-boarded at Sarai Rohilla Railway Station on 17.05.2018 at about 12:30 pm and he along with his friend came out from Railway Station to hire a TSR and they stopped one TSR. He further deposed that one person was already sitting on the rear seat of the TSR and he along with his friend boarded the TSR and moved towards Janpath Road. He further deposed that after covering some distance, the said person asked the driver of TSR to stop the TSR and the said person got down from the TSR and brought mango juice and water and he offered the mango juice in glasses to him and his friend. He further deposed that FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 6 of 50 they consumed mango juice and after some time, he and his friend became unconscious and at about 08:00 pm, he regained consciousness and he found himself present at a taxi/car parking area. He further deposed that he telephoned his friend Ajit Shinde from mobile of a passersby and his friend Ajit Sinde came there and he shifted him to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. He further deposed that on that day, he did not find any clue of his friend Somnath Gaikwad. He further deposed that his gold chain, one gold ring, mobile phone make Samsung A-5, cash of Rs. 22,000/-, VIP bag containing clothes, his shoes, his Aadhar card, ATM card and some other documents were stolen. He further deposed that police came to the hospital and his statement, Ex. PW-1/A was recorded. He also deposed that he had shown the place of occurence and IO had prepared two site plans, Ex. PW-1/B & Ex. PW-1/C at his instance. He further deposed that on 29.05.2018, he came to Tis Hazari Court where he identified accused persons namely Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay with their specifice role in commission of offence. In his cross- examination, he deposed that the said TSR was hired on sharing basis and he did not remember the registration number of the said TSR. He also deposed that he was not aware where the TSR was halted for getting the mango juice. He deposed that accused Irfan had brought paper glass for serving mango juice. He also deposed that accused Irfan had poured the mango drink in three empty glasses in front of him and he had served it to him, his friend Somnath and the auto driver namely Sanjay. He deposed that he became unconscious within one or two minutes of FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 7 of 50 consuming the drink and he did not feel dizziness before becoming unconscious. He denied the suggestion that no such incident had ever taken place with him. He also deposed that after regaining his consciousness, first of all he made a call to him wife. He also deposed that his first statement was recorded at Police Station. He also deposed that he did not know where the police met him first after he made a call to his wife. Voluntarily, he deposed that Police had met him for the first time at the place where he was lying unconscious. He also deposed that police had sent the photographs of accused persons to him on Whatsapp and the same photographs were also sent to his friend Somnath. He also deposed that when his statement, Ex. PW-1/A was recorded by police for the first time, he was in full senses, his mental faculties were working and he was fully conscious and aware. He also deposed that he had got recorded the details of his articles/goods i.e. gold chain, one gold ring, mobile phone make Samsung A-5, cash of Rs. 22,000/-, VIP bag containing clothes, his shoes, his Aadhar card, ATM card and some other documents to the police when his statement, Ex. PW-1/A was recorded. This witness was confronted with his statement, Ex. PW-1/A under Sec. 161 Cr.PC. He denied the suggestion that he got a false case registered against accused persons to show his alibi in some personal political dispute and to create false evidence. He also denied the suggestion that no intoxicating substance was ever given to him or his friend. This witness could not identify accused Naeem during his deposition before the court by stating FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 8 of 50 that he had not seen this person at the time of alleged incident or thereafter.
8. PW-2 Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad, was the friend of complainant as well as one of the victims in the present case. He deposed that on 17.05.2018, he along with his friend Sh. Sharad Bhaskar Kokate had come to Delhi from Mumbai by Garib Rath Express. He further deposed that they de-boarded at Sarai Rohilla Railway Station and they had to go to Janpath. He further deposed that they stopped a TSR in which one person was already sitting at the rear seat of the said TSR. He further deposed that they boarded the TSR and after running for ten minutes, the person who was sitting at the rear seat stopped the TSR on the pretext of taking water. He further deposed that the said person got down from the TSR and he brought mango juice along with water. He further deposed that he offered mango juice to him as well as his friend and they consumed the mango juice. He further deposed that after a few mintues, he became unconscious and after around twenty or twenty two hours, he regained consciousness and he found himself at Janpath. He further deposed that he took mobile phone from a passerby and called his friend Ajit and after some time, his friend Ajit and Sharad came to him. He also deposed that by that time, his luggage containing clothes, wrist watch, his purse containing driving license, cheques, PAN card, Voter i-card of his mother and his belt had been stolen. He further deposed that he went to Police Station Sarai Rohilla where his statement was recorded.
FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 9 of 50 This witness correctly identified accused Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay by their specific roles during his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not suspect any foul play in the behaviour of the person who was sitting with them on the rear seat. He also deposed that he became unconscious within approximately ten minutes after consuming mango juice. He also deposed that he did not raise any alarm for help as he started to loose his consciousness. He also deposed that neither he nor his friend Sharad knew the names of accused persons prior to incident or at the time of commission of alleged incident or at the time of recording of his statement. He also deposed that police had recorded his statement in this case only once and it might had been recorded either on 18.05.2018 or 19.05.2018. He also deposed that neither he nor his friend (complainant) ever told the names of accused persons to the police. He denied the suggestion that he had consumed alcohol or any such intoxicating substance in the train with his friends. He also denied the suggestion that under the influence of such intoxicant, he left his belongings and luggage in the train, in which he was travelling.
9. PW-3 Dr. Krushit Patel, Casulty Medical Officer, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital deposed that on 17.05.2018 at about 06:35 pm, one Sharad was brought to the hospital with alleged history of ingestion of unknown substance. He proved MLC of complainant/victim Sharad as Ex. PW-3/A. In his cross- examination, he admitted that the vitals did not show that the FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 10 of 50 patient had ingested some poisonous or stupefying substance. He also admitted that if any poisonous and stupefying substance was ingested then the vitals would be stable. Voluntarily, he deposed that this also depends on the duration and amount of ingestion.
10. PW-4 ASI Brahm Pal, was the duty officer at PS Sarai Rohilla. He proved copy of present FIR, his endorsement on rukka and certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act exhibited as Ex. PW-4/A to Ex. PW-4/C. In his cross- examination, he deposed that IO/SI Devender Kumar was present at the PS when he recorded the FIR. He also deposed that he did not know whether complainant or any other witness was accompanying him. He denied the suggestion that the FIR was ante-dated and ante-timed.
11. PW-5 Ct. Rajesh Kumar, deposed that on 09.07.2018, on direction of IO, he took exhibits of this case to FSL vide RC No. 113/21/18 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini and obtained acknowledgment of case acceptance. He also deposed that after returning from FSL, Rohini, he handed over the acknowledgment to MHC(M). This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
12. PW-6 Ex-Head Constable Harijesh Kumar, who was also examined as PW-12 was MHC(M) at PS Sarai Rohilla. He proved entries in register no. 19 & 21 regarding movement of case properties exhibited as Ex. PW-12/A to Ex. PW-12/F. He also proved acknowledgment received from FSL regarding deposit of case properties exhibited as Ex. PW-12/F-1. In his FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 11 of 50 cross-examination, he admitted that none of the entry in register no. 19 bore the endorsement by SHO. He denied the suggestion that abovementioned entries were ante-dated and ante-timed.
13. PW-7 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 IO/SI Narender. He further deposed that accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Naeem were sent to judicial custody, however, one day PC remand of accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali were taken. He further deposed that accused Sheikh Sarabat Ali led the police party to his shop and got recovered pieces of gold, which were seized by IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-7/A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no recovery was effected in his presence at the instance of accused persons namely Irfan and Naeem. He also admitted that no recovery had been effected from accused Ram Narayan @ Sanjay in his presence. He also deposed that he did not remember as to whether the photographs of shops of accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali were taken by the IO or not. He also deposed that no site plan of shop of accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali was prepared in his presence. He also deposed that no public witness was joined in the investigation at the shop of accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali in his presence. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the shop of accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali.
14. PW-8 HC Krishan Kumar, deposed that on 27.05.2018 he joined the investigation of the present case along with IO/SI FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 12 of 50 Narender Singh and they were present at Railway Station Sarai Rohilla. He further deposed that a secret information was received that the persons involved in the incident of intoxication and robbery of passengers would come near Red Fort and could be apprehended, if raided. He further deposed that a raiding team was constituted comprising of himself, SI Pankaj Tomar, SI Narender, Ct. Ravinder etc. and they proceeded to Red Fort along with secret informer. He further deposed that they took position near Red Fort and thereafter a TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RK-5333 came from Kashmere Gate ISBT side and secret informer pointed towards the said TSR, which was got flagged down. He further deposed that three persons were found in the said TSR whose names were revealed as Irfan, Naeem & Ram Narayan @ Sanjay. He further deposed that they all three were interrogated by the IO, during which, they disclosed about their involvement in the incident of intoxication and robbery. He further deposed that on cursory search, they were found having one strip of tablets Ativan and powder of some medicine in paper pouch. This witness narrated about the seizure of aforesaid Ativan tablets and proved its seizure memo Ex. PW-8/E, arrest of accused persons namely Ram Naryan @ Sanjay, Naim and Irfan Khan in the present case and proved their arrest memos Ex. PW-8/A to Ex. PW-8/C, their personal search memos Ex. PW-8/A-1 to Ex. PW-8/C-1 and their disclosure statements, Ex. PW-8/A-2 to Ex. PW-8/C-2. He also narrated about seizure of TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RK-5333 and proved its seizure memo, Ex. PW-8/D. He also narrated about recovery of FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 13 of 50 two mobile phones make Vivo and Samsung, black colour wallet containing Aadhar card in name of R. S. Sharma, 10 passport size photographs & one railway ticket at instance of accused Irfan. He also narrated about recovery of PAN & Aadhar card in the name of Jhuntha Ram, ATM Card, Rs. 40,000/- (of old currency notes), Aadhar Card in name of Udham Singh, one empty carry bags with two empty boxes of lable Ramdev Jewellers at instance of accused Irfan and proved their seizure memo, Ex. PW-8/C-3. He also narrated about recovery of mobile phone, some documents, camera etc. at instance of accused Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and proved their seizure memo Ex. PW-8/A-3. He also proved pointing out memo of spot by Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Irfan from where they picked the victims and the place where they administered tablets and robbed victims vide pointed out memo, Ex. PW-8/A-5, Ex. PW-8/B-5, PW-8/A-6 and Ex. PW-8/B-6. He also narrated about apprehension of co-accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali at instance of accused Irfan and proved his arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement exhibited as Ex. PW-8/F to Ex. PW-8/F-2. He also narrated about recovery of pieces of gold (about 49.11 grams) recovered from the shop of Sheikh Sarabat Ali. This witness correctly identified the case property as well as accused persons during his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that no site plan was prepared at the spot where the TSR in question was apprehended. He also deposed that he had no knowledge whether any independent person/witness was opted to join the investigation before cursory search /investigation from the FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 14 of 50 accused persons after their apprehension. He denied the suggestion that the incriminating articles viz. Medicine powder and other articles were planted upon the accused persons and were not recovered from them. He denied the suggestion that no recovery from the house of any accused was made as stated by him, therefore, he could not tell the sequence of recovery/raid by them. He also deposed that he could not tell whether the IO took any steps to join any independent person/witness in the investigation at the house of accused Ram Narayan. He also deposed that he did did not remember whether IO investigated about the incident from any person at the spot. He also deposed that during the investigation about the incident from the place of picking up the victim, place of administering the cold drink/intoxication, place of purchasing the incriminating medicine and powder of some medicines and the place of alleged robbery, no CCTV footage out of any source was obtained or attempted to be obtained by the IO. He also 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 IO of the police officials of Red Fort Chowki. He also deposed that accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali told them that he had minted case property and hence gold pieces were recovered. He also deposed that no public witness joined the investigation during recovery of gold pieces and its seizure by the IO. He denied the suggestion that accused Sheikh FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 15 of 50 Sharabat Ali had been falsely implicated at instance of co- accused persons and IO.
15. PW-9 Retd. SI Devender, was the first IO in the present case. He deposed that on 17.05.2018 at about 07:50 pm, an information was received regarding missing of a person and on admission of another in hospital vide DD No. 42A, Ex. PW-9/A. He further deposed that accordingly, he went to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and collected MLC of injured namely Sharad and recorded his complaint, Ex. PW-1/A, prepared rukka, Ex. PW-9/B and got the present FIR registered. He further deposed that he also obtained biological exhibit i.e. blood sample and gastric lavage of injured which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/C and thereafter further investigation of this case was carried by SI Narender. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not remember neither the phone number of caller nor his name. He denied the suggestion that DD No. 42A was ante-dated and ante-timed.
16. PW-10 SI Narender Singh, was the Investigating Officer in the present case. He deposed that after entrustment of further investigation of the present case, he recorded supplementary statement of complainant Sh. Sharad and prepared site plans, Ex. PW-1/B & Ex. PW-1/C at his instance. He further deposed that on 27.05.2018, on receiving secret information that three accused persons involved in the present case would be coming near Red Fort, he along with staff and secret informer went near Red fort where secret informer identified one auto bearing registration no.
FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 16 of 50 DL-1RK-5333 and informed that three persons sitting inside the said auto were the accused persons involved in the present case. He further deposed that he apprehended all the three accused persons whose names were revealed as Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay & Naim and they were found in possession of Ativan 2mg tablets, which were seized by the him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/E. He further deposed that he arrested accused persons namely Ram Naryan @ Sanjay, Naim and Irfan Khan in the present case vide arrest memos Ex. PW-8/A to Ex. PW-8/C, conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW-8/A-1 to Ex. PW-8/C-1 and recorded their disclosure statements, Ex. PW-8/A-2 to Ex. PW-8/C-2. He further deposed that he also seized the TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RK-5333 vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-8/D. He further deposed that accused Irfan led the police party to his house and from where he got recovered several stolen articles, which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/C-3. He further deposed that accused Ram Narayan @ Sanjay also led the police party to his house and got recovered several stolen articles which were also seized by the him vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-8/A-3. He further deposed that he informed the concerned Police Stations regarding disclosure statements made by the accused persons and their involvement regarding the recovery of the case properties of the concerned cases. He further deposed that he also moved application for TIP of accused persons, however, accused persons refused to participate in TIP proceedings. He further deposed that during PC remand, accused persons namely Irfan and Ram FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 17 of 50 Narayan @ Sanjay pointed out the spot of incident i.e. Sarai Rohilla Railway Station vide memos Ex. PW-8/B-5 & Ex. PW-8/A-5 and accused Irfan led the police party to Kabir Nagar and got arrested co-accused Sheikh Shrabat Ali from his shop, vide arrest memo Ex. PW-8/F. He further deposed that he also conducted personal search of accused Sheikh Shrabat Ali vide memo Ex. PW-8/F-1 and recorded his disclosure statement, Ex. PW-8/F-3. He further deposed that during PC remand accused Sheikh Shrabat Ali got recovered gold pieces weighing about 49.11 gms which were seized by him vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-10/A. He also deposed that during investigation, he sent biological exhibit i.e. gastric lavage of complainant as well as tablets recovered from accused persons to FSL. This witness correctly identified case properties as well as accused persons during his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not notice CCTV cameras in the vicinity around shop of accused Shrabat Ali. He admitted that he went to shop of Sharabat Ali for recovery of gold articles but gold articles could not be recovered. He admitted that he requested some of the public persons to join proceedings when he visited the shop of Sharabat Ali. He also deposed that he did not write down the particulars of those public persons who refused to join proceedings. 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 at the spot nor he gave FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 18 of 50 any notice to them. He also deposed that prior to arresting accused persons, it was not in his knowledge that accused persons were previously involved in similar type of offences. He denied the suggestion that they arrested accused persons from Tis Hazari Courts when they came to attend their court hearing. He also denied the suggestion that time and again police officials of PS Sarai Rohilla had falsely implicated accused persons to work out their unsolved cases.
17. PW-11 SI Vijay Maan, deposed that on the direction of FSL, he brought FSL Report No. 2018/C-6327, Ex. PW-11/A, prepared supplementary charge-sheet and filed the same before the Hon'ble Court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge regarding the present case.
18. PW-13 Dr. Kavita Goyal, Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL Rohini proved her detailed chemical report exhibited as Ex. PW-13/A. In her cross-examination, she admitted that no intoxicating substance was found in the blood of victim Sharad, Ex. 1. Voluntarily, she deposed that Ex. 2 was found to contain lorazepam and quinazoline (metabolite of loazepam). She also deposed that she had not determined the quantity of lorazepam and quinazoline in Ex.-2.
19. During trial, accused persons namely Irfan, Naeem & Ram Narayan @ Sanjay admitted the genuineness of TIP proceedings dated 29.05.2018 exhibited as Ex. PX-1, under Sec. 294 Cr.PC.
20. After closing of Prosecution Evidence, separate statements FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 19 of 50 of all the accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein they denied all the charges against them. Accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Naim stated that they had been falsely implicated in the present case. They stated that police had failed to apprehend real culprits and since their involvement had been shown previously to work out those cases, hence, they were falsely implicated by the police in this present matter to fill up their loopholes. Accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali claimed that police had falsely implicated him in the present matter to show recovery of items which were not stolen and rather it belonged to his customers who had given the same to him for repairing as he worked as goldsmith. Accused persons did not lead any defence evidence.
21. 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 & Ld. Amicus Curie for accused Shiekh Sharabat Ali and Sh. M. N. Khan, Ld. Counsel for accused Irfan and Naim.
22. 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-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad have narrated the incident in detail and they have also deposed about the specific role of accused persons namely Irfan & Ram FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 20 of 50 Narayan @ Sanjay. He further deposed that co-accused Naim was also involved in the incident and all of them had entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the offence and the criminal conspiracy has been duly proved by the prosecution through the circumstances. He further argued that accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali was found in possession of articles which were stolen and he did not explain the possession of said articles. He further argued that PW-3 Dr. Krushit Patel has proved the MLC of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate while PW-13 Dr. Kavita Goel has proved her report Ex. PW-13/A and has proved that that Ex. 2 i.e. gastric lavage of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate was found containing lorazepam and quinazoline. He further argued that PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad have correctly identified the accused persons before the court. He further argued that none of the prosecution witness has turned hostile and the IO as well as the other police witnesses has 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.
23. 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 FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 21 of 50 that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an arbitrary manner. They further argued that PW-1/complainant/ victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad had not given any description of accused persons nor any sketch was prepared by the IO at their instance. They further argued that PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad have deposed that the IO had sent the photographs of accused persons to them on their Whatsapp. They further argued that since the photographs of accused persons were already shown to PW-1/complainant/ victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad, the said witnesses have identified the accused persons on the basis of said photographs and hence the prosecution has not proved the identity of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. They further argued that the stolen articles of PW-1/complainant/ victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad have not been recovered by the IO in the present case. They further argued that some other articles not connected with the present case was recovered by the IO at instance of accused persons and even at that time no independent public person was joined in the investigation. They further argued that no CCTV footage of any connected spot has been collected by the IO. They further argued that no owner/employee of medical store from where accused persons might have purchased the tablets have been examined as PWs. They further argued that that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are not FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 22 of 50 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.
24. 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 namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Naim and charge under Sec. 103 of Delhi Police Act has been framed against accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali. 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 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.
FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 23 of 50
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.
Sec. 103 of Delhi Police Act:-Possession of property of which no satisfactory account can be given.
Whoever has in his possession or conveys in any manner, or offers for sale or pawn, anything which there is reason to believe is stolen property or property fraudulently obtained, shall, if he fails to account for such possession or act to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan Magistrate, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 24 of 50 three months or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or with both.
25. 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 Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Defence Counsels for accused persons.
26. PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate deposed that on 16.05.2018, he along with PW-2/victim Sh.
Somnath Nana Gaikwad left Mumbai for Delhi by Gareeb Rath Express and they de-boarded at Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, Delhi on 17.05.2018 at about 12:30 pm. PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad has corroborated the version of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate by deposing that on 17.05.2018, he along with his friend Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate came to Delhi from Mumbai by Gareeb Rath Express and they de-boarded at Sarai Rohilla Railway Station and they had to go to Janpath. Thus, there is complete consistency in the testimonies of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad with respect to the fact that both arrived at Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, Delhi on 17.05.2018 and they had to go to Janpath.
27. PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 25 of 50 deposed that they stopped one TSR and one person was already sitting on the rear seat of TSR. He further deposed that he along with his friend boarded the TSR and moved towards Janpath Road. He further deposed that the person who was sitting on the rear seat of TSR started talking to them. PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad has corroborated the version of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate by deposing that they stopped a TSR and one person was already sitting at the rear seat of the TSR and they boarded the same. There is complete consistency in the testimonies of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad with respect to the fact that they boarded a TSR from Sarai Rohilla Railway Station for going to Janpath and at that time one person was already sitting in the rear seat of said TSR. Accused persons have failed to put any dent on the veracity of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad with respect to the abovesaid fact.
28. PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate deposed that after covering some distance, the person who was sitting rear seat of TSR with them asked the driver of TSR to stop the TSR and he got down from the TSR and brought Mango juice and water. PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad has corroborated the version of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate by deposing that after running for ten minutes, the person who was sitting at the rear seat stopped the TSR on FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 26 of 50 pretext of taking water, got down from the TSR and brought Mango juice and water. Thus, there is complete consistency in the testimonies of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad with respect to the fact that a person who was already sitting in the TSR stopped the TSR and brought Mango juice and water. Accused persons have failed to create any doubt with respect to the abovesaid facts.
29. PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate deposed that the said person offered Mango juice in glasses to him and his friend PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad. He further deposed that after sometime he and his friend became unconscious and at about 08:00 pm, he regained his consciousness and found himself at the taxi/car parking area. He also deposed that his gold chain, one gold ring, mobile phone make Samsung A-5, cash Rs. 22,000/-, VIP bag containing clothes, his shoes, his Aadhar card, his ATM card and some other documents were found to be stolen. Similarly, PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad has also deposed that the said person offered mango juice to him and his friend PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and they consumed the same. He further deposed that after few minutes he became unconscious and after about twenty or twenty two hours he regained his consciousness and found himself at Janpath. He further deposed that his luggage containing clothes, wrist watch, purse containing driving license, cheques, PAN card, voter i-card FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 27 of 50 of his mother and his belt were found to be stolen. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the person who was already sitting in the TSR offered PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad mango juice after consuming which, they became unconscious, found themselves at different places in unconscious condition and their luggage as well as other valuable articles along with documents were found to be stolen.
30. PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate deposed that he made a call to his friend Ajit Sindhe from mobile phone of a passerby and his friend Ajit Sindhe shifted him to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad also deposed that he made call to his friend Ajit and after some time, his friend Ajit and Sharad came to him. PW-3 Dr. Krushit Patel has proved MLC of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A. PW-3 Dr. Krushit Patel deposed that on 17.05.2018 at about 06:35 pm, one patient namely Sharad was brought to the hospital with the alleged history of ingestion of unknown substance. PW-13 Dr. Kavita Goel has proved the FSL Report, Ex. PW-13/A. As per the FSL Report, Ex. PW-13/A, Ex. '2' i.e. gastric lavage of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate taken by the doctor at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital was found to contain lorazepam & quinazoline. Thus, through the medical and scientific evidence in form of MLC of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate, Ex. PW-3/A and FSL Report, Ex.
FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 28 of 50 PW-13/A, prosecution has successfully proved that some unwholesome/poisonous substance was administered to PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad in Mango juice by the person who offered them mango juice in the TSR.
31. In the present case, IO has arrested four accused persons for the commission of offences against PW-1/complainant/ victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad. Now the question before this court is that whether the accused persons had committed the said offences against PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad. For reaching any conclusion, this court has to scrutinize the overall evidence led by the prosecution in this regard.
32. PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate as well as PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad have not deposed that they had given any description of the accused persons to the IO or that any sketch of accused persons was prepared by the IO at their instance. The accused persons have not been arrested at instance of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate or PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad and the three accused persons namely Irfan, Naim and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay were arrested at instance of one secret informer who was not the eyewitness of the alleged incident. This raises serious doubts with respect to the fixing of identity of accused persons before their arrest.
FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 29 of 50
33. PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate deposed that on 29.05.2018, he came to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and he had seen the Investigating Officer and three persons outside lockup and he had identified the auto driver as well as the person who had given mango juice to him and his friend. He further deposed that the name of person who was sitting on the rear seat of TSR was revealed as Irfan and the name of TSR driver was revealed as Sanjay. In his cross-examination, PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate deposed that on 29.05.2018, neither he was having any case in Tis Hazari Court nor he was having any personal work at Tis Hazari Court. Voluntarily, he deposed that he was called to Tis Hazari Court by the police. PW-10/IO SI Narender Singh deposed that while leaving the court room, complainant also came at Tis Hazari Court premises and he identified accused Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay. PW-10/IO SI Narender Singh has not deposed that PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate identified accused persons namely Irfan and Ram Narayan @ Sanjay near the lockup of Tis Hazari Court as deposed by PW-1/ complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and the court room and lockup are situated at different places. IO has also not deposed that he had called PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate to Tis Hazari Court from Mumbai as deposed by PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate. PW-10/IO SI Narender Singh deposed an application for police remand of accused persons which was allowed for one day. On the perusal of charge-sheet, it is revealed that the Ld. MM had FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 30 of 50 granted one day PC remand of accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Naim and as per version of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate, he had seen the accused persons outside the lockup of Tis Hazari Court. Only those accused persons who are sent to JC are taken to the lockup of the court premises for shifting them to respective jails. In the present case, since one day PC remand of accused persons was granted by the Ld. MM, the accused persons were to be taken by the IO either to the PS or to any other spot for the purpose of investigation and there is no question of going to the lockup of the court premises. Moreover, PW-1/complainant/ victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate in his cross-examination deposed that his statement was recorded on 18.05.2018 and after two days of recording of his statement, he along with his friend PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad went to Nasik, Maharashtra. PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad in his cross-examination has also deposed that his friend i.e. PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate had gone to Mumbai with him on 22.05.2018 or 23.05.2018 and his never came back to Delhi regarding the present case after 22.05.2018 or 23.05.2018. PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate has also not produced the railway or air ticket for 29.05.2018 showing his presence in Delhi. Thus, in view of aforesaid discussion, this court is of considered opinion that identification of accused persons by PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate at Tis Hazari Court complex on 29.05.2018 has become highly doubtful.
FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 31 of 50
34. PW-10/IO SI Narender Singh deposed that at the time of production of accused persons before the court of Ld. MM on 29.05.2018 all the accused persons were kept in muffled face. PW-7 HC Dal Chand has also deposed that accused persons were in muffled face when they produced them before Ld. Court on 29.05.2018 at about 02:30 pm. If the accused persons were kept in muffled face, there is no question of their identification by PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate at Tis Hazari Court complex. PW-7 HC Dal Chand in his cross- examination deposed that he did not remember, if complainant or any of his family members were present in the court on that day and he did not meet complainant in PS and he did not know if he visited the police station on that day. He specifically deposed that he had met the complainant only once in the Police Station when he had got the FIR registered. PW-7 HC Dal Chand was with PW-10 SI Narender Singh when the accused persons were produced before the court of Ld. MM and he had not seen PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate in the court premises on that day. This raises serious doubts with respect to the presence of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 29.05.2018 and the prosecution story in this regard cannot be relied upon.
35. PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate in his cross-examination deposed that police had shown him the accused persons. He further deposed that police had sent the photographs of accused persons to him on his Whatsapp. He also FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 32 of 50 deposed that the same photographs were sent to his friend Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad also. PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad has corroborated the version of PW-1/complainant/ victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate by deposing that the accused persons were shown to him in presence of many persons by the police between 19.05.2018 & 23.05.2018. He also deposed that the police had sent the photographs of accused persons on his Whatsapp. The accused persons have taken the defence that before their TIP proceedings, they were shown to PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad and hence they refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. Accused persons have admitted the TIP proceeding exhibited, Ex. PX-1 in which accused persons had stated before the Ld. MM that they did not want to participate in TIP proceedings as complainant had already seen them. Thus, through the testimonies of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad, it has come on record that the accused persons were shown to PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad by the police officials and the photographs of accused persons were also sent to their Whatsapp number before filing the applications for their TIP proceedings. The evidentiary value of identification of accused persons namely Irfan & Ram Narayan @ Sanjay by PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad in the court at the time FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 33 of 50 of recording of their testimonies is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard.
36. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as 'Shaikh Umar Ahmed Shaikh & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra cited as (1998) 5 SCC 103' observed as under:-
".......But the question arises: what value could be attached to the evidence of identity of accused by the witnesses in the Court when the accused were possibly shown to the witnesses before the identification prade in the police station. The designated Court has already recorded a finding that there was a strong possibility that the suspects were shown to the witnesses. Under such circumstances, when accused were already shown to the witnesses, their identification in the Court by the witnesses was meaningless. The statement of witnesses in the Court identifying the accused in the Court lost all its value and could not be made the basis of recording conviction against the accused...."
37. Applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as 'Shaikh Umar Ahmed Shaikh & Anr (supra)', this court is of considered opinion that identification of accused persons namely Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Irfan by PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad in the court after they FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 34 of 50 were shown to them before the recording of their testimonies has lost its evidentiary value and accused persons cannot be convicted on the basis of identification of accused persons by PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad in the court.
38. As per prosecution story, accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay & Naim entered into a criminal conspiracy for the purpose to commit theft on passengers and in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy, they voluntarily caused hurt to PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad by administering some poisonous or stupefying substance in their body by mixing it in fruit juice. Thus, the prosecution has to prove that abovesaid accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy through direct or circumstantial evidence.
39. The term "Criminal Conspiracy" has been defined under Sec. 120A of IPC which reads as under:-
120 A . When two or more person agreed to do, or caused to be done:-
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
Provided that no agreement an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 35 of 50 Explanations: It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement or is merely incidental to that object.
Section 120 B provides punishment for the commission of offence of criminal conspiracy. The offence of criminal conspiracy is a substantive offence. When two or more person agree or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, the agreement entered by such persons will constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy. The most important ingredient of offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement between two or more person to do an illegal act. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intents. The offence of criminal conspiracy is a separate and distinct offence.
Generally the conspiracy is hatched up in utmost secrecy and in these circumstances it becomes very difficult to prove the same by direct evidence. The conspiracy in such cases is to be incurred on the facts and circumstances of the case. The circumstances of a particular case before, during and after the commission of offence have to be taken into consideration to infer the criminal conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explaination
40. The term "Criminal Conspiracy" has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Judgment titled as Major E.G. Barsey FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 36 of 50 Vs. State of Bombay (1962) 2 SCR195 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"31.... The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of number of acts".
41. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Landmark Judgment of Red Fort attack titled as Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2011) 13 SCC 621 observed as under:-
"207...once the prosecution proves that there was a meeting of minds between two persons to commit crime, there would be emergence of conspiracy".
42. As per the testimonies of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad, two accused persons i.e. one driver of TSR and other who was sitting with them as passenger was involved in the commission of offence and as per prosecution story, the said accused persons are Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Irfan. However, accused Naim is also facing trial under Sec. 120B IPC. Prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Naim entered into the criminal conspiracy to commit offence. PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate in his FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 37 of 50 cross-examination specifically deposed that he had not seen accused Naim at the time of incident or thereafter. The prosecution has also not collected any CDR of mobile phone numbers or the text messages exchanged between the abovesaid accused persons to prove that they were in contact with each other or they had planned to commit the alleged offences. PW-10/IO SI Narender Singh has not explained the role of accused Naim. As per prosecution story, no stolen case property has been recovered from possession/at instance of accused Naim. None of the prosecution witness have deposed against accused Naim. The disclosure of an accused does not have any evidentiary value until some new fact is discovered in pursuance of that disclosure. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the criminal conspiracy entered by accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay and Naim through direct or circumstantial evidence.
43. PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad have specifically deposed that accused Irfan went to a shop and brought mango juice and water and he offered the said juice to them, after consuming which, they became unconscious. FIR in the present case was registered on the same day and accused persons were also arrested after about ten days of the incident. However, IO did not record the statement of the shopkeeper who sold the mango juice and water to accused Irfan who could have identified accused Irfan and could have connected him with the FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 38 of 50 commission of offence in the present case. The IO has also not collected the CCTV footage of the spot from where PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad boarded the TSR or the spot from where accused Irfan purchased mango juice and water bottle or the spots from where the TSR passed or the spots where PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate and PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad were thrown by the accused persons. PW-10/IO SI Narender Singh deposed that accused persons namely Ram Narayan @ Sanjay, Irfan and Naim were found in possession of tablets Ativan 2mg which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/E. IO has not made any efforts to trace the medical store or examine the concerned seller from whom, the accused persons had purchased those tablets. This shows casual approach in the investigation by PW-10/IO SI Narender Singh which has weakened the case of the prosecution.
44. PW-10/IO SI Narender Singh deposed that accused persons namely Ram Narayan @ Sanjay, Sheikh Sharabat Ali and Irfan made disclosure statements on the basis of stolen properties were recovered from their possession. He further deposed that accused Irfan led them to his house from where he got recovered several stolen articles which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/C3. He also deposed that accused Ram Narayan @ Sanjay led the police party to his house and got recovered several stolen articles which were seized by him vide seizure FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 39 of 50 memo Ex. PW-8/A3. He also deposed that during PC remand, accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali got recovered gold pieces weighing about 49.11 gms which was seized by him vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-10/A. The recovery of the case properties has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in compliance with the law laid down in this regard by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 and Section 26 of the said Act. Section 27 is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The principle under Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act is based on the principle that if any fact is discovered on the basis of disclosure statement of accused, the discovery of said fact is a guarantee that the information given by the accused in his disclosure statement is true. Such information may be confessional or non-inculpating in nature but if any new fact is discovered from such information it will be considered as a reliable information.
45. The fact discovered on the basis of disclosure of statement of accused must be relevant facts. Such information must be given by the person who is accused of an offence and the recovery of article or discovery of fact must be based upon the information given by such accused.
46. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Judgment titled as Mohammad Burhan Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, cited as 'MANU/DE/3131/2017' has held that:-
FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 40 of 50 "joining of independent public witness is not mere a formality; it is a vital safeguard to avoid false implication of individual. In number of cases either no independent public witnesses are associated on the pretext that none of them is available; in some cases only passerbyes are requested to join the investigation. Non- examination of independent public witness in the instant case is serious flaw and adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding them.
47. Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Ramanand@Nand Lal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh cited as 2022 SCC online SC 1396 has observed as under:-"52. Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads thus:
'27 How much of information received from the accused may be proved-Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information, received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.
If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant while in custody on his own free FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 41 of 50 will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence along with his blood stained clothes then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire, in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of that independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 42 of 50 commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two particular place anything like the weapon of offence of blood stained clothes or any other article is discovered then the part of the entire process expects the investigating officer then it is clear that the same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter."
48. As per the case of prosecution, the recovered case properties at instance of accused persons pertains to other cases and IO has failed to recover the case properties of present case. Prosecution has not examined any witness who could have proved that the recovered case properties were the stolen case property of other cases. Accused Ram Narayan @ Sanjay @ Irfan have taken the defence that the case properties have been planted upon them while accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali has taken the defence that the recovered case properties were not stolen and these belonged to his customers who had given the same to him for repairing as he was working as a goldsmith. Prosecution has failed to prove that the properties recovered at instance of accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali were stolen one and only suspicion cannot be ground for his conviction under Sec. 103 of The Delhi Police Act. It is pertinent to mention that no public persons were joined by IO at the time of recoveries of case properties at instance of accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 43 of 50 Sanjay and Sheikh Sharabat Ali. Joining of independent public person in investigation is not mere a formality and rather it is necessary to put a check on the misuse of powers by Investigating Agency. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammad Burhan (Supra) and Ramanand @ Nand Lal Bharti (Supra), this Court is of considered opinion that due to non-joining of independent public person at the time of recoveries of properties, non-recovery of case properties of present case and non-proving the fact that the alleged properties were stolen one, the alleged recoveries of properties at instance of accused persons has become doubtful.
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 FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 44 of 50 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 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 FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 45 of 50 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 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 FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 46 of 50 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 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-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate, PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad, PW-8 HC Krishan Kumar & PW-10/IO SI Narender Singh are not witnesses of sterling quality as their versions are not natural and they have also failed to withstood the test of cross examination. This court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate, PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad, PW-8 HC Krishan Kumar & PW-10/IO SI Narender Singh are not clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and same have not been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses and other corroborative evidence on record and the circumstances.
FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 47 of 50
54. It is established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
55. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:-
"The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
56. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 48 of 50 be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
57. In the present case, due to non-joining of independent public witnesses, non-collection of CCTV footage, showing the accused persons to PW-1/complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate, PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad and sending them the photographs of accused persons on their Whatsapps numbers, non-examination of shopkeeper from whom accused Irfan purchased juice, non-examination of the person/medical store keeper from whom accused persons pur- chased the tables, non-recovery of any stolen articles of PW-1/ complainant/victim Sh. Sharad Bhashkar Kokate, PW-2/victim Sh. Somnath Nana Gaikwad, non-proving of the fact that other recovered properties were stolen one & doubtful recoveries of properties at instance of accused persons, serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution story and two views are FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 49 of 50 possible in this case and hence the benefit of the same must go to the accused persons.
58. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 328 IPC & 120B IPC & Sec. 379 IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC against accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay & Naim beyond reasonable doubts. Prosecution has also failed to prove ingredients of offence punishable under Sec. 103 of The Delhi Police Act against accused Sheikh Sharabat Ali, beyond reasonable doubts.
59. Accordingly, accused persons namely Irfan, Ram Narayan @ Sanjay & Naim are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 328 IPC & 120B IPC & Sec. 379 IPC read with Sec. 120B IPC. Accused Sheikh Shrabat Ali is also hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 103 of The Delhi Police Act.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR KHARTA Announced in the open court KHARTA Date: 2026.04.25 on 25th day of April, 2026 15:25:34 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI/25.04.2026 FIR No. 194/2018, PS: Sarai Rohilla, State Vs. Irfan & Ors. Page No. 50 of 50