Delhi District Court
State vs Salman@Javed on 30 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SURABHI SHARMA VATS, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-04: SHAHDARA: KKD COURTS: DELHI.
CNR No.DLSH01-006069-2022
SC No. 343/2022
State Vs. Salman @ Javed
FIR No. 659/21
U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC
PS: Nand Nagri
State
Vs.
Salman @ Javed S/o Guddu Salim
R/o H.No. 200, Jai Hind Simithi,
Kodhi Colony, Nand Nagri, Delhi.
Date of committal in the Court of Sessions : 15.09.2022
Final Arguments concluded on : 29.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 30.08.2025
Final Order : Accused Salman @ Javed is
convicted for offences
punishable under Section 392,
Section 394 and Section 397
IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Succinctly stated, the case of Prosecution is that on 30.09.2021, at about 10:00 pm, complainant Jahida was returning from Seelampur 'Thursday Market' on rickshaw towards her home and when she reached at Tahirpur Chowk Red Light, suddenly, one boy came in front of her rickshaw in a drunken condition who was carrying blade in his hand; he stopped the rickshaw and threatened her to give her mobile phone, cash and earrings by showing that blade; on seeing blade in his hand, the rickshaw driver got scared and tried to fled away with his rickshaw but that boy stopped the rickshaw by his hand. In the meantime, one passerby who was riding a motorcycle stopped his motorcycle, FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 1/27 over powered the said boy i.e. accused but accused hit the complainant Jahida and the motorcyclist with blade; at the same time, the complainant called the Police from a mobile of one passerby; After calling the cops, two more associates of accused came there, who were also in drunken condition, tried to save their associate i.e. accused but the motorcyclist namely Mahesh did not leave the boy who was trying to rob the complainant. Meanwhile, public persons gathered there and the associates of accused fled away towards Tahirpur Village after robbing earring of complainant Jahida; public persons gave beatings to accused. Thereafter, complainant Jahida along with Mahesh (motorcyclist) took accused to Police Station Nand Nagri where that boy disclosed his name as Salman @ Javed.
On the basis of above stated statement of the victim/ injured, present case FIR was registered and the investigation of the matter was conducted. After completing necessary formalities, charge-sheet u/s. 392/393/394/34 IPC was filed against the accused.
INVESTIGATION & OTHER PROCEEDINGS
2. On appearance, in compliance of section 207 Cr.PC, copy of Chargesheet was supplied to accused persons. Vide order dated 08.09.2022, the then Ld. MM observed that Section 397 IPC is made out against the accused and the cognizance for offence U/s 392/394/397/34 IPC was taken against the accused persons by the then Ld. MM. Since, offence punishable under Section 397 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of sessions, the present case was committed to this Court. Charge under Section 392/394/397/34 IPC was framed against the accused, same was read over and explained to him in vernacular, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 2/27EVIDENCE LED BY PROSECUTION
3. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused for the alleged offence, the Prosecution has examined six witnesses. The key excerpts from the desposition of Prosecution's witnesses are as follows:-
i. PW1 Sh. Mahesh/ independent eye-witness/injured : He deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 30.09.2021, at about 10.00 pm, he was going to his house from Seemapuri on his motorcycle and when he reached at Tahirpur Chowk, he saw that accused (whose name was later on revealed as Salman) was trying to rob a lady on the point of razor/blade; that on seeing this, he (PW-1) stopped there and when he tried to apprehend the accused, the accused inflicted injury with blade on his right hand and due to which blood started oozing out from his injury but he caught the accused; that public persons gathered there and someone from the public called the police. In the meantime, two other boys who were the associates of accused Salman also reached there and tried to rescue the accused but due to presence of many other public persons there, they could not succeed and fled away from there.
PW-1 further deposed that with the help of public and the lady Jahida, they took accused to PS Nand Nagri and produced him before the police; the police officer interrogated the accused and later on, accused was arrested by the police in his presence and in the presence of Lady Jahida; arrest memo (Ex.PW1/A) of accused bears his signatures; that personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/B. IO recorded the statement of PW-1, thereafter, PW-1 left the police station for hospital. PW-1 further deposed that he was taken to the hospital by the police only in their gypsy with complainant and the accused for their medical examination. The accused was correctly identified by the witness.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Amicus Curiae on behalf of FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 3/27 accused, the PW-1 deposed that accused Salman @ Javed was not previously known to him; that on that day, he was returning from Seema Puri Gol Chakkar and he went there to meet his relative namely Raj; that he was on motorcycle bearing no. DL 13 SU 4262; that he did not know the name of the public persons who were gathered there; that local Police did not arrive there in his presence and the witness voluntarily stated that they took the accused themselves to the police station since, accused was caught red handed on the spot and was caught by him. He further deposed that some public persons were also with them when they took the accused to the police station, however, those persons left the Police station as soon as he handed over the accused to the police official; he could not tell the time when they reached the Police station; that the distance between the place of incident and the Police Station Nand Nagri was about 1.5/2 km; that he was on his bike however, accused, the victim/complainant and other public persons were on e/battery-rickshaw; that he does not know the name of the other public persons who also reached there.
The PW-1 admitted that accused was beaten up by the public persons; that he did not see the accused Salman @ Javed inflicting any injury on his hand and voluntarily stated that since he caught hold the hand of the accused, therefore, in all probability, accused had given a blow/injury to him by blade or by any other weapon. PW-1 further deposed that other two accused persons fled away and he did not catch hold of them, therefore, there was no possibility of giving any sharp blow/injury to him by them.
PW-1 further deposed that accused was taken to the Police station in e-rickshaw; that driver was driving battery/e-rickshaw, the complainant/victim Jahida along with two other public persons were sitting in the e-rickshaw and these two public person were holding the accused tightly so that he does not escape from there; that he did not know the victim Jahida before the day of incident; that he did not know whether victim Jahida was wearing bangles on the FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 4/27 day of incident or not. The witness has denied the suggestion that he had sustained injuries on his hand by the bangle of the victim Jahida and not by the weapon allegedly used by the accused.
The witness further deposed that he had seen the accused Salman @ Javed robbing the victim while showing knife having blade; that he could not tell the description of the knife; that the co-associates of accused were also with the accused at the time of robbery, however, they fled away and then, they again came back to rescue accused Salman @ Javed. However, on seeing the public persons gathered there, they again fled away from the spot and could not be apprehended since, the public persons and he himself were busy in catching hold of accused Salman @ Javed so that he does not get free or does not escape from the spot.
PW-1 admitted that nothing was recovered from the accused Salman @ Javed in his presence and denied that the actual offenders were the other two persons or that the accused Salman @ Javed has been apprehended wrongly. The witness voluntarily stated that it was the accused Salman only who had shown weapon to the victim Jahida and was robbing her with his associates and he had seen him (accused ) and caught him then and there.
On being questioned that the vehicle in which the victim Jahida was sitting was a Gramin Sewa four wheeler vehicle and not any rickshaw or e/battery rickshaw, the witness replied in negative.
The witness denied that he was not on his bike or that he was also sitting in the alleged Gramin Sewa vehicle or that Police official had taken his signatures forcefully on the arrest memo. PW-1 voluntarily stated that he had voluntarily signed on the arrest memo.
The witness agreed that MLCs of the victims including himself and the accused were made in the same hospital i.e. GTB hospital on the same intervening night and denied that he had not gone to the hospital after the alleged FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 5/27 incident or that abrasion were already on his hand or that he did not give any statement to the police at any point of time or that he had not witnessed the incident.
ii. PW2 Smt. Jahida, complainant /victim: She deposed that on 30.09.2021, at about 10.00 p.m, she was returning from Seelampur in a battery rickshaw and when she reached at Tahirpur chowk, accused (correctly identified by the witness in the Court during her deposition) came there and stopped the E-battery rickshaw; in the meantime, two other boys also reached there; that accused was having blade i.e. ustra having handle & blade in his hand and shown the same to her; the accused along with his two other associates robbed her mobile phone, Rs.800/- - Rs.900/- and one of her earrings on the point of ustra/having handle and blade; that accused also threatened the E- Rickshaw Driver on the point of ustra i.e. sharp instrument used by barbers; that she (PW-2) raised alarm and in the meantime, one boy came there on motorcycle, stopped his motorcycle and tried to catch accused but accused inflicted injury on his right hand with ustra; that public persons gathered there and the other two associates of accused fled away from there but accused (present in the Court) was apprehended by the boy (motorcyclist); that the other two associates of accused also tried to rescue accused but they could not succeed due to presence of the public persons there; that she called the police on 100 number by the mobile phone of one public person who gathered there PW-2 further deposed that thereafter, she along with the motorcyclist (PW-1 Mahesh), apprehended the accused and took him to Police Station Nand Nagri and produced him before the police; that Police officer interrogated the accused whose name was revealed as Salman @ Javed; that IO recorded herstatement (Ex.PW2/A). She further deposed that Police registered the FIR on the basis of her statement; that the accused was arrested by the police vide arrest FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 6/27 memo Ex.PW1/A and personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/B; that the Police took her to GTB hospital for her medical examination where her medical was conducted; that she also visited the spot with the Police and police officer inspected the spot at her instance and prepared the site plan Ex.PW2/B; that her robbed articles could not be recovered by the police; the co- accused persons have fled away with her robbed articles.
During her cross-examination, the witness deposed that she does not know the accused; that the accused had stopped E-rickshaw by giving his hand; that she had gone to Seelampur market on the day of incident and was returning home in an e/battery-rickshaw; that she had purchased cloths from the Seelampur market, however, accused persons threw these cloths and looted only cash, mobile and one of her earring; that she had given description of her mobile phone, to the police, which was of Oppo company; that accused had sit near the driver of e/battery-rickshaw; that he had also put ustra on the neck of the driver of e/battery rickshaw to stop the vehicle and the driver stopped the vehicle and in the meantime, two of the associates of the accused came there at the stop near Ram Mandir; then, the accused along with his associates put ustra on her neck and his associates took away her mobile, cash and one of her earing, however, those two co-associates managed to flee away from the spot but the present accused Salman @ Javed was caught then and there, by the help of public person, who stopped his motorcycle and came to rescue her.
PW-2 further deposed that she could not identify the remaining accused persons since, they ran away from the spot and she could not see them; that they both (accused persons) were wearing mask and it was dark being night time; that she is able to identify the accused Salman @ Javed since, he was caught on the spot itself and was taken by them to the Police station; that she did not know the motorcyclist Mahesh prior to the date of incident; that he was the public person who came to help and rescue her since, she had raised alarm and she was shouting FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 7/27 for help that when he (PW-1 Mahesh) came to her help, the co-associates of accused were also there, however, as soon as accused Salman was caught hold, his co-associates ran away.
PW-2 further deposed that she had not seen the accused or any of his co- associates inflicting any injury by ustra upon that public person Mahesh; that she had not seen the accused throwing away that ustra on the way or anywhere. She denied the suggestion that accused Salman @ Javed has been wrongly apprehended since as the public mistook him as an offender and she voluntarily stated that Accused Salman @ Javed is one of the offender and she had seen him putting ustra on her neck and robbing her articles along with his co-associates. She further deposed that he was caught at the spot itself, however, his associates fled away with her robbed articles. She admitted that none of her robbed articles had been recovered till that day.
She further deposed that she had stated the incident to the police official who typed the same; that she had stated to the police that accused who was present in the Court on the day of her deposition stopped the e/battery-rickshaw and then he showed ustra to the driver to stop the e/battery rickshaw. Then his other two associates also came there. Accused robbed the cash and mobile phone from her and his associates robbed one kaan ki bali (earing) from her. Accused Salman @ Javed handed over the robbed articles to his co-associates who ran away from the spot.
PW-2 further deposed that she had not beaten the accused, however, public persons had beaten the accused; that the public person Mahesh who was on motorcycle did not give any beatings to the accused; he (PW-1 Mahesh) was saving the accused from the public person so that they can take him to the Police station and hand him over to them; that when they were catching hold of accused Salman @ Javed, he (accused) had given ustra blow to her and Mahesh, however, they did not see him doing that since, many public persons were there and they FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 8/27 were busy catching hold of him; that she along with two public persons took the accused to the Police Station in that battery rickshaw, however, Mahesh (motorcyclist/PW-1) was on his motorcycle and he had gone to the Police Station on his motorcycle. The witness/PW-2 denied the suggestion that the vehicle was a Gramin Sewa four wheeler vehicle and not the e/battery-rickshaw and further deposed that the Police official took her, Mahesh and accused in a gypsy for their medical examination at around 2.30 a.m. in the intervening night; that her statement was recorded by the Police in the Police Station. iii. PW3 Dr. Harsh Bhardwaj : PW3 proved the MLC No.4089/19/2021 of patient Mahesh (Ex.PW3/A) which reveals sustained abrasion over right forearm.
iv . PW4 Duty Officer/SI Rakesh Kumaar: PW-4 proved the registration of present case FIR vide its computerized copy Ex.PW4/B, his endorsement on rukka i.e. Ex.PW4/A and a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW4/C) regarding the genuineness of FIR.
v. PW-5 2nd IO/SI Sachin Dev Dangi:- PW-5 has deposed that on 02.11.2021, the investigation of this present case was marked to him by the direction of SHO concerned; he inspected the case file and found that the investigation was already complete; after completing the necessary formalities, he filed the chargesheet in the concerned Court for trial; that he had not recorded statement of any witness.
vi. PW-6 IO/ SI Bijender Kumar: He deposed that on 30.09.2021, on receipt of DD No. 138A, he along with Ct. Rakesh reached at the spot i.e. Tahirpur Red Light but the PCR caller was not found at the spot; meanwhile, Duty Officer informed him telephonically that the persons related to DD No. 138A had reached Police station, hence, he along with Ct. Rakesh returned to Police station; that in the Police Station, he found complainant Jahida, PW Mahesh and accused Salman FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 9/27 @ Javed present there; that all the three persons were in injured state, therefore, he sent them to GTB Hospital for medical examination along with Ct. Rakesh; that after medical examination, Ct. Rakesh brought them back to PS Nand Nagri; he recorded the statement of complainant Jahida (Ex.PW2/A) on his laptop; thereafter, he prepared tehrir/rukka (Ex.PW6/A) and handed over the same to Duty Officer for registration of FIR.
PW-6 further deposed that after registration of FIR, he arrested the accused Salman @ Javed in the present case and prepared his arrest memo (Ex.PW1/A); he also prepared his personal search memo (Ex.PW1/B); he recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW6/B; then, he took complainant Jahida and Ct. Rakesh to the spot where he prepared site plan (Ex.PW2/B) at the instance of the complainant; then, they returned to PS. He further deposed that thereafter, he recorded supplementary statements of complainant and statement of PW Mahesh and Ct. Rakesh; he produced the accused in the court and accused was sent to Judicial custody. Thereafter, he was transferred from the PS Nand Nagri and case file was handed over to the MHC(R) The witness correctly identified the accused.
During his cross-examination, PW-6/IO admitted that the arrest proceedings were conducted in the Police Station and that he had not witnessed the incident. He deposed that accused had told him that he was beaten up by the public; that no public persons were found at the spot when he had reached the spot on receiving the above said call recorded vide DD No.138 A; that he does not remember if it was the weekly market day on the day of incident. PW-6 admitted that the statements of victims, eye-witness and other witnesses were recorded in the Police Station.FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 10/27
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
4. PE was closed upon examination of all Prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused Salman @ Javed stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case; that on the day of incident, there was a weekly market at New Seemapuri, Delhi and thus, he was present at the spot; that the other two boys/other accused persons were talking to him; in the meanwhile, the public gathered at the spot and were able to grab him. Then, they started beating him in black and blue. Thereafter, he was produced before the Police officials at PS Nand Nagri; that the complainant/victim lady described the incident to the Police officials and they also told the police officials that the other two boys had succeeded in running away from the spot.
FINAL ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. FOR STATE AND LD. DEFENCE COUNSEL
5. This Court has heard the final arguments advanced by Sh. S.K. Dubey, Ld. Addl. PP for State as well as by Sh. Rajesh Mittal, Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused. This court has also perused the entire record.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the testimony of complainant as well as other witnesses including public witness are consistent and are corroborating each other; that the accused Salman @ Javed alongwith his associates robbed the mobile phone, cash and one of the earrings of the complainant. The accused Salman @ Javed was caught red handed at the spot and was caught by the public, however, two of his associates succeeded in fleeing away the scene of crime. PW1/ public witness Mahesh and PW-2/complainant Smt. Jahida have also correctly identified the accused before the Court as one of the offender. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that Prosecution has proved its case beyond every shadow of doubt, therefore, accused Salman @ FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 11/27 Javed deserves to be convicted as per law for the offences in question.
Per contra, Ld. Amicus Curiae Sh. Rajesh Mittal for the accused submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case; that accused Salman @ Javed was present at the place of incident and he had seen the incident, however, the offence in question were committed by the co-accused persons namely Hoddo @ Mudassir and Tapseer; that the victims/alleged eye witnesses mistook the accused Salman @ Javed as the offender, but the co-accused persons, who were the real offenders succeeded to flee away from the spot. It is further argued that accused Salman @ Javed has not used the weapon of offence i.e. ustra/blade/razor and for an offence punishable under Section 397 IPC, accused must have used deadly weapon and must have caused grievous hurt to the victim, therefore, accused is not guilty graver offence i.e. offence under Section 397 IPC.
6. POINTS OF DETERMINATION
1. Whether the Prosecution proves that the in order to commit theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft, the accused for that end, voluntarily caused or attempted to cause death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint, to victim/ complainant, as per section 392 IPC?
2. Whether the Prosecution proves that while committing robbery or in attempting to commit robbery, accused voluntarily caused hurt, punishable as per section 394 IPC ?
3. Whether the Prosecution proves that while committing robbery, accused used a deadly weapon i.e. ustra/razor/blade, as per section 397 IPC ?
FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 12/27APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
7. Sections 390/392 IPC have been re-produced herein for the ready reference :-
Section 390 IPC reads as under :- "Robbery - 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.
Section 392 IPC reads as under :-
" Punishment of robbery - Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years"
8. Brief facts of the case:-
That on the night of 30.09.2021, at around 10:00 p.m., the complainant (PW-2) Jahida was returning home from Seelampur in a battery rickshaw. When she reached Tahirpur Chowk, the accused Salman @ Javed, stopped the rickshaw. The accused was armed with a blade (ustra) and used it to FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 13/27 threaten the complainant. Other two associates of the accused also came there. They robbed her of one of her earrings. The accused also threatened the rickshaw driver with the same weapon. When the complainant raised an alarm, a man on a motorcycle (PW-1 Mahesh) stopped to help. The accused attacked Mahesh with the blade/ustra, causing an injury to his right hand. While the two associates of the accused managed to flee after taking robbed articles, Salman @ Javed was apprehended from the scene of crime itself by PW-1/victim/injured Mahesh with help from the public. The complainant then called the police using a bystander's phone. Thereafter, complainant/PW-2 Jahida along with Mahesh and other public persons took the accused to PS Nand Nagri, where he was interrogated and disclosed his name as Salman @ Javed S/o Guddu Saleem.
9. Apprehension of the accused from the spot/scene of crime:-
The testimony of PW1/injured Mahesh, a public witness, provides a clear and consistent account of the apprehension of the accused at the place of occurrence. PW1 deposed that on the date of incident i.e., 30.09.2021, at about
10.00 pm, he was going to his house from Seemapuri on his motorcycle and when he reached at Tahirpur Chowk, he saw that accused was trying to rob a lady on the point of razor/blade; that on seeing this, he stopped there and when he tried to apprehend the accused; the accused inflicted injury with blade on his right hand due to which blood started oozing out from his injury but he caught the accused; that public persons gathered there and someone from the public called the police. As per the evidence of this public witness who come to the rescue of victim/complainant Jahida, the accused was caught on the spot during the act of robbery.
10. The PW-2/complainant/injured Jahida, who is also an eye-witness of the incident has also clearly stated during her testimony that accused was caught at the spot itself, however, his associates fled away with her robbed articles; that FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 14/27 she along with the motorcyclist (PW-1 Mahesh) apprehended the accused and took him to Police Station Nand Nagri and produced him before the Police; that Police officer interrogated the accused and he revealed his name as Salman @ Javed. Thus, both the injured eyewitness and the victim independently and unequivocally confirmed that the accused was caught red-handed at the scene and was then taken to the Police station.
11. The accused himself, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., admitted being present at the spot and being apprehended by the public. He stated that on the day of incident, there was a weekly market at New Seemapuri, Delhi and he was present at the spot; the other two boys/co-accused persons were talking to him; in the meanwhile, the public gathered at the spot and were able to grab him. Then, they started beating him in black and blue. Thereafter, he was produced before the Police officials at PS Nand Nagri.
12. While the accused has attempted to distance himself from the actual robbery, his own admission of presence at the scene, being grabbed by the public, and then being taken to the police station confirms the factum of apprehension at the scene of crime. Thus, the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, and the admissions of the accused himself leave no room for doubt that the accused was apprehended at the spot immediately after attempting to commit robbery and was handed over to the police by public persons.
13. Credibility of the witnesses:-
The testimonies of PW1 Mahesh and PW2 Jahida are not only consistent but also mutually corroborative, significantly upholding the Prosecution's story. PW1 Mahesh provided a clear and detailed account of the incident. He deposed that when he reached Tahirpur Chowk, he saw the accused Salman @ Javed trying to rob a lady at knifepoint, using a razor/blade; on witnessing this, he immediately stopped and attempted to intervene. In doing so, FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 15/27 the accused inflicted an injury on his right hand with the blade, causing bleeding, yet PW1 managed to apprehend the accused on the spot. He further stated that public persons gathered at the location and one of them called the police.
14. PW2 Jahida, the complainant and victim, also gave a detailed and consistent narration of the event. She testified that the accused was in possession of a blade (ustra) with a handle and blade and that he showed it to her. She stated that the accused along with two associates robbed her of her mobile phone, Rs.800-900, and one earring on the point of ustra i.e. a sharp instrument used by the barbers. The accused also threatened the E-rickshaw driver with the same blade. On her raising an alarm, a boy (PW-1) came on a motorcycle and tried to catch the accused but the accused inflicted a blade injury on his hand. She categorically stated that the accused was apprehended on the spot while his co- associates fled with the stolen articles.
15. Both PW1 and PW2 independently confirmed the presence of the accused, the use of the blade/ustra, and the commission of robbery. Crucially, PW2 Jahida specifically asserted that she had seen the accused putting ustra on her neck and robbing her. The Ld. Defence Counsel attempted to argue mistaken identity and false implication but failed to offer any plausible motive for the complainant or public witness to implicate the accused falsely. During extensive cross-examinations, no material contradictions or impeachment of credibility could be elicited. Further, the defense offered no evidence or witnesses to rebut the consistent and corroborated version of events given by PW1 and PW2. Therefore, the testimonies of PW1 Mahesh and PW2 Jahida stand as credible, reliable, and unshaken. The defense's failure to puncture a hole in their credibility only serves to further reinforce the Prosecution's case.
FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 16/2716. Testimony of Public Witness:-
PW1 Mahesh stands out as an independent and reliable public witness with no prior connection to either the complainant or the accused. He deposed during his testimony that he was going to his house from Seemapuri on his motorcycle; that he saw the accused trying to rob a lady on the point of razor/blade; that on seeing this, he stopped there and when he tried to apprehend the accused, the accused inflicted injury with blade on his right hand but he caught the accused; that public persons gathered there and someone from the public called the police. This narration demonstrates that PW1 was not only a mere passerby but actively engaged in preventing the robbery, despite sustaining injury from the accused's blade. His injury is medically corroborated by PW3 Dr. Harsh Bhardwaj, who proved the MLC No. 4089/19/2021 (Ex.PW3/A) of PW-1 Mahesh affirming the injury consistent with PW1's account of being attacked while he tried to nab the offender.
17. Importantly, PW1 clarified during cross-examination that Accused Salman @ Javed was not previously known to him; accused was caught red- handed on the spot and was caught by him. The absence of any prior relationship with the accused or complainant further enhances his credibility as an unbiased witness. The Defense could not elicit any contradiction or bias in his testimony. His narrative remained consistent throughout his examination and cross- examination. The presence of this public witness, his spontaneous and credible intervention, his sustained injury, and the fact that he accompanied the accused and complainant to the Police station and for medical examination lend high probative value to his testimony.
18. Accused and witnesses not known to each other prior to the incident It is evident from the record that the accused Salman @ Javed was not previously known to either the complainant Jahida or to the independent FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 17/27 public witness Mahesh. PW2 Jahida, the complainant, clearly stated in her statement Ex.PW2/A that while she was returning home in a rickshaw and reached Tahirpur Chowk, a boy, who appeared to be in an inebriated condition, stopped her rickshaw and demanded her mobile phone, cash, and earrings at the point of a blade. She further stated that a passerby (PW1 Mahesh) intervened by stopping his motorcycle and trying to overpower the said boy, who in turn struck PW-1 Mahesh with the blade. The accused was thereafter taken to the police station, where upon interrogation, he disclosed his name as Salman @ Javed. In her statement recorded before the Court as well, she has stated that she did not know the accused. PW1 Mahesh, the public witness who intervened to stop the incident has also admitted during cross-examination that the accused was not previously known to him. He had stopped at the spot only because he witnessed the robbery taking place and attempted to prevent the crime.
19. Notably, the accused himself, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., did not allege any prior animosity, grudge, or motive on the part of either witness for falsely implicating him. Instead, he stated that he was present at the place of incident and was beaten by the public after being mistaken for an offender. His omission to suggest any previous dispute with the witnesses or any enmity that could have led to his false implication is itself speaking volumes. This complete absence of prior relationship between the witnesses and the accused also eliminates the possibility of fabricated allegations and fortifies the genuineness of the testimonies.
20. From the above, it is crystal clear that the accused was a stranger to both the victim and the public witness. The name of the accused was not known to either of them at the time of the incident and came to be known only after he was interrogated by the police. It defies logic and probability that a public witness and a victim both unrelated to each other and to the accused, would concoct a story to falsely implicate a stranger. Despite detailed and extensive cross-
FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 18/27examination of both PW1 and PW2, the defence has failed to elicit any material which could even remotely suggest a motive for false implication or mistaken identity.
21. Therefore, the consistent testimonies of PW1 and PW2, both strangers to the accused and to each other, supported by the sequence of events and the medical record, make it abundantly clear that the identification and implication of the accused was natural and free from any motive. This aspect significantly fortifies the Prosecution's case and further demolishes the defence's plea of false implication.
22. Medical Evidence The medical evidence on record also lends corroboration to the ocular testimonies and substantiates the occurrence of the incident as described by the Prosecution witnesses. PW3 Dr. Harsh Bhardwaj, who examined PW1 Mahesh proved MLC No. 4089/19/2021 (Ex.PW3/A), confirming that Mahesh had sustained a injury on his right hand. This directly supports PW-1 Mahesh's own deposition wherein he stated that when he tried to apprehend the accused, the accused inflicted injury with blade on his right hand but he managed to apprehend the accused. The injury noted in the MLC is thus consistent with the statement of PW-1/injured/eyewitness Mahesh that the accused caused hurt/harm to him (eye- witness Mahesh) while resisting apprehension.
23. Taken together, the medical evidence stands in complete harmony with the version of events narrated by the Prosecution witnesses and adds a layer of objective proof to the subjective testimonies. It reinforces that a deadly weapon specifically i.e. a blade/ustra/knife was used during the commission of the offence thus, supporting the charge of robbery accompanied by hurt and use of deadly weapon for causing hurt.
FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 19/2724. Admission by the accused in his Statement of Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.:-
In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Salman @ Javed claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the present case, however, in the same breath, he admitted that he was present at the spot of occurrence and was apprehended by the public. He further stated that he was speaking with two individuals Hoddo @ Mudassir and Tapseer, who fled from the scene when the public intervened. He claimed that he was not carrying any weapon and suggested that the actual offenders might have had some weapon, although he stated that he was not aware about the nature of such weapon. Despite this assertion, the accused admitted that he was caught by the public and later taken to the Police station. He also acknowledged that the complainant narrated the incident to the police and disclosed that the other two boys had managed to escape.
25. This version of the accused, rather than discrediting the Prosecution's case, lends further credence to it. The accused has not denied the occurrence of the incident or the presence of other accused persons but has simply tried to dissociate himself from the offence by asserting that the others were responsible. Importantly, he admits that he was in conversation with the actual offenders immediately before the commission of the offence and that he remained at the scene while the others fled. This admission coupled with his apprehension by the public and subsequent production before the Police, contradicts his claim of false implication. The accused has not offered any plausible explanation as to why he was the one apprehended by PW1 Mahesh, a stranger and independent public witness, or why both Mahesh and the complainant Jahida, who were strangers for him prior to the incident, would implicate him falsely. Defence raised by accused is a bald denial, uncorroborated by any evidence and fails to address the clear and consistent testimony of the Prosecution witnesses, who identified him as the offender.FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 20/27
26. The law permits drawing an adverse inference when the accused fails to offer a reasonable and credible explanation for incriminating circumstances brought to his notice under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the present case, not only did the accused fail to provide such an explanation, but he also made admissions that go to affirm the Prosecution case in material respects i.e. his presence at the scene, interaction with the co-offenders and being apprehended by the public. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., far from creating a dent in the Prosecution's case, in fact strengthens it and justifies the drawing of an adverse inference. His attempt to deflect culpability is not only unsupported by any material on record but also contrary to the chain of evidence presented by the Prosecution.
27. In this view, this Court is fortified with a judgment titled as "Rajkumar vs State Of M.P" on 25 February, 2014, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that :
"11. Admittedly, the appellant did not take any defence while making his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., rather boldly alleged that the family of the deceased had roped him falsely at the instance of the police. However, appellant could not reveal as for what reasons the police was by any means inimical to him.
12. The accused has a duty to furnish an explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding any incriminating material that has been produced against him. If the accused has been given the freedom to remain silent during the investigation as well as before the court, then the accused may choose to maintain silence or even remain in complete denial when his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is being recorded. However, in such an event, the court would be entitled to draw an inference, including such adverse inference against the accused as may be permissible in accordance with law. (Vide: Ramnaresh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2012 SC 1357; Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912; and Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2013 SC 3150).
In the instant case, as the appellant did not take any defence or furnish any explanation as to any of the incriminating material placed by the trial court, the courts below have rightly drawn an adverse inference against him."FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 21/27
28. Observations and Findings:-
After meticulous scrutiny of the evidence on record and appreciation of the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge under Section 392 IPC stands proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Salman @ Javed. The complainant (PW-2 Jahida) and the independent public witness (PW-1 Mahesh) have both given consistent, detailed, and corroborative accounts of the incident that unfolded on the night of 30.09.2021 at Tahirpur Chowk. PW-2 has clearly identified the accused as one of the three assailants who, while armed with a sharp-edged blade (ustra), robbed her of her mobile phone, cash, and one earring at knifepoint using that blade/ustra. Her testimony has been fully corroborated by PW-1 Mahesh, who intervened during the incident and sustained an injury on his right hand when the accused attacked him with the weapon while resisting apprehension.
29. The medical evidence, particularly MLC No. 4089/19/2021 proved by PW-3 Dr. Harsh Bhardwaj, affirms the presence of an injury consistent with the version as narrated by PW-1/injured Mahesh. Both PW-1 and PW-2 were not previously acquainted with the accused, nor with each other, thereby ruling out any possibility of false implication. Furthermore, the accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., admitted his presence at the spot and being apprehended by the public, although he attempted to dissociate himself from the offence by shifting the blame to co-accused who fled the scene. However, this explanation is unsubstantiated and contrary to the consistent testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, which have remained unshaken throughout cross-examination.
30. The defense failed to demonstrate any motive for false implication or mistaken identity, and did not produce any evidence to rebut the prosecution's case. Rather, the admissions made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. strengthen the prosecution's version. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar v. State of M.P. and reiterated in several other decisions, failure to FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 22/27 provide a reasonable explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can justify drawing of adverse inference against the accused.
31. Accordingly, based on the cogent, trustworthy, and corroborated testimonies of the victim and the public witness, supported by medical evidence and the accused's own admissions, the Prosecution has been able to establish that Salman @ Javed committed robbery by use of violence and threat at the point of a deadly weapon, thereby, attracting the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. The charge is thus proved, and the accused is held guilty and convicted for the said offence.
32. In the present matter, the accused Salman @ Javed has been charged for the offence punishable U/s 392/394/397/34 IPC. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused has argued that accused Salman @ Javed has not caused hurt to the victims and the offence in question had been committed by the co-accused persons who fled away from the spot. It was also argued that accused has not used the weapon on offence i.e. ustra/blade/razor and for the graver offence punishable under Section 397 IPC, the accused must have used deadly weapon and must have caused grievous hurt to the victim, therefore, accused is not guilty even for graver offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.
33. To appreciate this contention of Ld. Defence Counsel, this Court deems it fit to reproduce Section 394 IPC and Section 397 IPC for ready reference :-
Section 394 IPC - Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 23/27
Section 397 IPC - Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt -- If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
An act would only fall within the mischief of Section 397 IPC if at the time of committing robbery, the offender (i) uses any deadly weapon; or (ii) causes grievous hurt to any person; or (iii) attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person.
34. To examine the applicability of Section 397 IPC to the present case, it is essential to determine whether the Prosecution has established that the accused used a deadly weapon at the time of the commission of robbery.
35. In the present case, PW-2/Complainant Jahida has given a clear, cogent, and consistent account of the incident. PW-2/complainant Jahida deposed that the accused Salman @ Javed, along with his associates, robbed her of her mobile phone, cash amounting to ₹800-900, and one earring. She categorically stated that the accused was armed with a ustra, described as a sharp instrument typically used by barbers, with a handle and visible blade. She further deposed that the accused Salman @ Javed used this weapon to threaten her and the E- rickshaw driver during the course of the robbery.
36. PW-2/complainant's testimony finds complete corroboration in the deposition of PW-1 Mahesh, an independent eyewitness, who stated that he witnessed the robbery and intervened in an attempt to apprehend the accused. PW-1 further deposed that the accused Salman @ Javed attacked him with the blade, causing a bleeding injury to his right hand. This evidence clearly establishes that the accused has used it in the course of the robbery. The requirements of Section 397 IPC are, therefore, squarely met.
FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 24/2737. Both PW-1 and PW-2 are consistent, natural, and trustworthy witnesses. There are no material contradictions or omissions in their testimonies that would cast doubt on the veracity of their statements. Their accounts are mutually corroborative and leave no room for reasonable doubt that the accused was armed with a deadly weapon, used it to commit the robbery, and caused injury in the process.
38. The contention of the Ld. Amicus Curiae that Section 397 IPC is inapplicable due to non-recovery of the weapon and absence of grievous injury is misconceived. It is a well-settled position in law, as held in Rajiv @ Sonu & Anr. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8112 and Aas Mohd. & Ashu v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5493 (Ref: CRL. APPEAL NO. 697/2023, Crl.M.B. 1428/2025, titled as Govinda @ Bhura Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, dated 25.07.2025 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), that non-recovery of the weapon of offence is not fatal to a Prosecution under Section 397 IPC, provided the use or display of a deadly weapon is proved by reliable ocular testimony. The focus of Section 397 IPC is not on the recovery of the weapon but on its use or display in a manner that instills fear or causes actual harm during the commission of robbery. Furthermore, Section 397 IPC does not require actual grievous hurt to be caused even; it is sufficient if the offender is armed with a deadly weapon, displays it or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt. In the present case, the weapon of offence i.e. ustra/blade was not only displayed in a threatening manner to instill fear in the mind of the complainant, but was also used to inflict injury on PW-1 Mahesh. The ingredients of Section 397 IPC are, therefore, clearly satisfied.
39. The act of voluntarily causing hurt to PW-1 Mahesh during the course of the robbery also brings the offence squarely within the ambit of Section 394 IPC. The evidence on record demonstrates that the injury inflicted upon PW-1 was not incidental, but was a deliberate act committed by the accused in FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 25/27 response to PW-1's attempt to apprehend him during the robbery. The use of force to facilitate the commission of robbery, or to retain the stolen property or escape apprehension, is specifically contemplated under Section 394 IPC. In the present case, the Prosecution has clearly established that the accused inflicted hurt in furtherance of the robbery, thereby fulfilling the ingredients of Section 394 IPC as well.
40. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Salman @ Javed committed robbery while being armed with a deadly weapon ( ustra), used the said weapon to threaten the complainant, and voluntarily caused hurt to PW-1 Mahesh during the course of the same transaction. Accordingly, the essential ingredients of both Sections 394 IPC and 397 IPC stand fully established on the basis of consistent, credible, and corroborated eyewitness testimony.
41. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, the points of determination are decided as under :-
1. Whether the Prosecution proves that the in order to commit theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft, the accused for that Positive end, voluntarily caused or attempted to cause death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint, to victim/ complainant, as per section 392 IPC?
2. Whether the Prosecution proves that while committing robbery or in attempting to commit robbery, accused Positive voluntarily caused hurt, punishable as per section 394 IPC ?
3. Whether the Prosecution proves that while committing robbery, accused used a deadly weapon i.e. Positive ustra/razor/blade, as per section 397 IPC ?FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 26/27
CONCLUSION
42. In view of the above detailed appreciation of evidence and the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the Prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused Salman @ Javed beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Salman @ Javed is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 392 read with Sections 394 and 397 of IPC.
43. Put up for arguments on the quantum of Sentence on 23.09.2025. Copy of this Judgment be supplied free of cost to the convict/his Counsel.
Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court on 30.08.2025 (Surabhi Sharma Vats) ASJ-04, Shahdara/KKD Courts, Delhi/30.08.2025 This judgment contains 27 pages & each page has been signed by me.
(Surabhi Sharma Vats) ASJ-04, Shahdara/KKD Courts, Delhi/30.08.2025 FIR No. 6592021 PS Nand Nagri State Vs. Salman @ Javed Page 27/27