Delhi District Court
State vs Arman on 28 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC NO. 334/2024
FIR NO. 113/2024
U/SEC. 392/394/397/411/34 IPC
PS Tigri
State Vs. Arman
S/o Sh. Shakeel Ahmed
R/o: H.no. B-61, J.J. Camp,
Tigri, New Delhi
Date of Institution : 05.04.2024
Date of Committal : 17.05.2024
Date of arguments : 07.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. On the complaint of complainant Sh. Ajay Kumar, FIR No. 113 dated 08.02.2024 was registered in Police Station Tigri, under Section 397/34 IPC, which on completion of requisite investigation, culminated into the charge-sheet u/s 394/397/411/34 IPC against the accused Arman and the same was filed in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. After compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions under the provisions of Section 209 Cr. P. C. for trial, the same being a session trial case.
SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Digitally
signed by
FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Page No. 1 of 31
Pathak Date:
2026.01.28
16:52:14
+0530
2. Facts in brief as per the charge sheet are that on receipt of DD no. 38A dated 07.02.2024, ASI Ram Chander along with HC Om Chand reached at the spot of incident i.e. 572 J.J. Colony, Tigri, where they came to know that the injured has been shifted to hospital by PCR. ASI Ram Chander called crime team and collected blood swabs and control swab and seized the same. In the meanwhile, on receipt of another DD no. 53A regarding MLC from AIIMS Trauma Center they found injured Ajay Sagar admitted vide MLC No. 500417859. Doctor informed them that the patient had gone for CT Scan and Surgery, as such, MLC is not ready. Later they collected the MLC wherein it was mentioned 'Alleged H/O Assault - (1) Laceration Rt. Upper Arm 1.2 cm X 0.2 cm apx., (2) Left upper Arm 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm apx., (3) Below left elbow 1.8 cm x. 0.4 cm apx.'. ASI Ram Chander recorded the statement of complainant wherein it is stated that he resides with his employer Mr. Mustak in the gali near his house, he used to run shop of selling Chole Bhature. On 07.02.2014, he was working in his Chole Bhature shop and his owner had gone to Govindpuri to purchase goods. On that day at about 01.00 PM, two boys came to his shop and one of them demanded change of Rs. 500/- to which, complainant refused. The other boy took out money from the galla of the shop and when complainant opposed, both of the boys beat him and one of the boy caught hold of his hand and other boy stabbed him with knife on both of his Digitally SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman signed by FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Page No. 2 of 31 Pathak Date:
2026.01.28 16:52:21 +0530 hands. Injured informed about the incident to his owner, who came at the spot and called the police. PCR came and took the injured to AIIMS Trauma Center, where he was treated. ASI Ram Chander recorded the statement of complainant and got the present FIR registered. The investigation of the case was assigned to ASI Ram Chander, who prepared the site plan Ex. PW 5/D at the instance of the complainant. IO along with other police staff apprehended accused Arman on the identification of complainant. On his personal search, an amount of Rs. 1155/- was recovered along with Adhaar card of Mustak, owner of the complainant. Accused Arman disclosed that recovered amount is his share of robbery and remaining amount has been spent by him in consuming drugs/alcohol. Accused Arman further disclosed that Adhaar card of Mustak also came in his possession along with the robbed amount and he only caught hold the complainant and robbed money from galla, however, CCL 'A' stabbed the complainant with knife. Accused Arman disclosed the name of his associate CCL 'A', who participated with him in the incident. Complainant identified the Adhaar card to be that of his owner Mustak. Accordingly, Section 411 IPC was added. IO Arrested accused Arman vide memo Ex. PW 5/F. IO made efforts to trace out co-accused CCL 'A' but he could not be found and his house was found locked. IO recorded supplementary statement of complainant. IO seized the CCTV footage installed in the shop of Mustak.
Digitally SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman signed by Purshotam FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Purshotam Pathak Pathak Page No. 3 of 31 Date:
2026.01.28 16:52:27 +0530 IO obtained MLC of complainant/injured as per which the nature of injuries has been opined as 'simple' 'Blunt'. Co- accused was found to be CCL as per his school leaving certificate, however, could not be traced and requisite proceedings qua him were conducted before JJB. IO prepared the charge sheet and filed it before the Court.
3. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC was filed. However, considering the evidence and material on record, charge U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC was framed against the accused on 20.08.2024, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined 07 witnesses in total. The details pertaining to their role, documents proved by them, Exhibit number etc. are as under:-
SL. Witness Witness Role of Nature Document proved Exhibit no. number name witness of Number witness
1. PW-1 Ajay Injured / Eye 1. Statement given to Ex. PW1/A Complainant witness police;
Kumar / Public 2. His MLC; Ex. PW 1/B Witness 3. Seizure memo of Ex. PW 1/C Robbed articles;
4. Arrest Memo of Ex. PW 1/D accused;
5. Personal search memo Ex. PW1/E of accused;
2. PW-2 Mustak Owner of the Public 1. His Adhaar Card Ex. PW 1/P1 Kiosk where Witness (Robbed article); complainant used to work 2. Certificate U/s 65-B Ex. PW2/A Digitally SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman signed by Purshotam FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date: Page No. 4 of 31 2026.01.28 16:52:33 +0530 IEA;
3. Pen Drive containing Ex. MO1 CCTV footage;
3. PW-3 HC Incharge Formal / Inspection Report Ex. PW 3/A Mobile Police Gireesh Crime official Tyagi Team /finger from Print Expert Crime Team
4. PW-4 HC Ajit Photographer 1. Proved 12 Ex. PW4/P-1 Crime Team Photographs; to Ex. PW4/ P-12
2. Certificate U/s 65-B Ex. PW 4/A IEA;
5. PW-5 ASI Ram IO of the 1. DD No. 38A Ex. PW5/A Case 2. DD No. 53A Ex. PW 5/B Chander
3. Seizure of Blood Ex. PW5/C swab and control swab;
4. Site Plan of incident Ex. PW5/D
5. Disclosure statement Ex. PW 5/E of accused;
6. Seizure of Cash and Ex. PW 5/F Adhaar card;
7. Site plan of place of Ex. PW5/G recovery
8. Discharge summary Ex. PW 5/H of injured;
9. Application seeking Ex. PW 5/I medical opinion
10. Robbed currency Ex. PW5/P notes
6. PW-6 Dr. Prepared Formal MLC of injured Ex. PW 1/B MLC of Witness / Nikhil injured and Doctor Soni gave opinion
7. PW-7 HC Duty Officer Formal / 1. Registration of FIR Ex. PW 7/A Police No. 113/2024, PS Tirgi;
Krishan witness 2. Certificate U/s 65-B Ex.PW 7/B Pal IEA
5. During trial, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein accused stated that nothing was recovered from his possession nor did he made any disclosure statement. He further stated that false charge Digitally signed by SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Purshotam Purshotam Pathak FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Pathak Date: Page No. 5 of 31 2026.01.28 16:52:40 +0530 sheet has been filed. The witnesses has falsely identified him and it is a false case. Accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he opted not to lead DE.
6. PW-1 Sh. Ajay Kumar is the complainant/injured in the incident who deposed that in the month of Februaryhe along with his employer Mustak were living as tenant. He was employed by his owner Mustak on his rehri of Chole Bhature, set up in the gali outside the rented house. On 07.02.2024 at about 01.00 PM, while he was selling Chholey Bhature on said Rehri and his employer Mustak had gone to Govindpuri to buy some material, two boys came there and demanded change of Rs. 500/-. He replied to them that he does not have change, on which, those boys started hitting on galla (box meant to fill cash on the redi) with hands and also slapped him. When he resisted them, one of the said boy gave him knife blows thrice on his shoulder and arm. The second boy who was carrying wooden fatta, repeatedly hit him with the fatta while catching hold of him. After sustaining knife blows, complainant, in order to rescue himself, ran to the second floor of the building where he used to live on rent. He made call to his owner Mustak, who came after half an hour. His owner Mustak called police. PCR van came there and took him to Hospital. Police came at hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. His MLC (Ex. PW1/B) Digitally signed by Purshotam SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Purshotam Pathak Pathak FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Date:
2026.01.28 Page No. 6 of 3116:52:45 +0530 was prepared and he was discharged after treatment. He had shown the place of incident to the police and joined them in search of accused persons. At about 11 PM, he spotted the accused Arman in Chhatri wala Park and identified him sitting in the corner of the park. Police apprehended accused at his instance. He identified the accused to be the person who demanded change of Rs. 500/- and to be giving beatings with wooden fatta and his accomplice had given him knife blows thrice. On his cursory search, currency notes of Rs. 1155/- were recovered which were same currency notes robbed by the accused. Adhaar card of his employer Mustak was also recovered from the possession of the accused. Police took in possession the robbed cash and Adhaar card, arrested the accused and conducted his personal search. Accused was arrested by the police. The pen drive (Ex. MO1) containing CCTV footage was played in the Court wherein at 13.06 Hrs, two persons can be seen, one out of them coming towards rehri and taking something from galla/box of rehri, hitting the complainant with wooden fatta and also giving him knife blow. After seeing the same, witness identified the person wearing white shirt as the same person who hit him repeatedly with the wooden fatta. He identified the acused in the Court. He identified the Adhaar card of his employer, however, stated that he cannot identify currency notes due to lapse of time. He was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
Digitally signed by SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Purshotam Purshotam Pathak FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Pathak Date:2026.01.28 Page No. 7 of 31
16:52:50 +0530
7. PW-2 Mustak is the owner of the complainant who deposed that in February 2024, he used to put rehri to sell Chhole Bhature in front of his house. Complainant was working at his rehri for last 5-6 months prior to the date of incident. On the date of incident at about 12.30 PM, he had gone to Govindpuri Market to buy some disposable items, leaving behind his employee Ajay Kumar / complainant.
He had kept his Adhaar Card in the galla /cash box as he had brought it for getting photocopied. At about 1.30 PM he received call from his employee Ajay Kumar who narrated the incident to him. He came back to the rented accommodation, met complainant/injured and made PCR call and PCR van came and took the complainant to hospital. He identified his Adhaar Card in the Court.
8. PW-2 Mustak was re-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he deposed that he got installed two CCTV Cameras at his rented house in front of which he used to set up rehri, where incident took place. He provided the CCTV footage to the police along with certificate U/s 65-B IEA (ex. PW2/A). He deposed that there was no tampering with the CCTV footage the the cameras were functional at the time of incident. He was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
9. PW-3 HC Gireesh Tyagi is the Incharge, Crime Team who Digitally signed by SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Purshotam Purshotam Pathak FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Pathak Date:
2026.01.28 16:52:56 Page No. 8 of 31 +0530 deposed that on 07.02.2024, on receipt of information from District Control room regarding inspection of scene of crime, he along with HC Ajeet Photographer reached the spot of incident where they met IO. He carried out the inspection of scene of crime but chance print could not be found. He prepared the inspection report Ex. PW 3/A. He was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
10. PW-4 HC Ajit is the photographer of the Crime Team who deposed that on 07.02.2024, he long with HC Gireesh Tyagi, Finger Print Proficient/Incharge reached the spot of incident. He clicked photographs of the scene of crime which are Ex. PW 4/P1 to Ex. PW 4/P-12 and issued certificate U/s 65B IEA (Ex. PW4/A). He was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
11. PW-5 ASI Ram Chander is the IO of the case, who deposed that on 07.02.2024, on receipt of DD No. 38A (Ex. 5/A), he along with HC Om Chand reached the spot of incident where he came to know that injured has been shifted to hospital. He called crime team and got the scene of crime inspected and photographed vide inspection report Ex. PW 3/A. Crime Team lifted exhibits from the spot. In the meanwhile, he received DD no. 53A (Ex. PW 5/B) regarding admission of injured at AIIMS Hospital. He collected MLC (Ex. PW1/B), recorded statement of complainant (Ex. PW1/A), got the FIR registered. He SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Digitally signed by Purshotam FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Purshotam Pathak Pathak Page No. 9 of 31 Date:
2026.01.28 16:53:02 +0530 prepared the site plan (Ex. PW5/D). During investigation, he received CCTV footage and certificate U/s 65-B IEA from Mustak, owner of rehri. On 08.02.2024, on receiving secret information regarding accused Arman at Ambedkar Park/ Chhtariwala Park, Tigri, he joined the complainant and other police staff and apprehended the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW 1/D. He conducted personal search (Ex. PW1/E) of accused, recorded his disclosure statement (Ex. PW 5/E). He recovered Rs. 1155/- and Aadhaar Card of Mustak from the possession of accused and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW 1/C. He prepared site plan of place of recovery vide memo Ex. PW 5/G. He collected discharge summary (Ex. PW 5/H) of injured. He obtained opinion qua nature of injuries which was opined to be 'simple' caused by 'sharp object'. He recorded statement of witnesses, prepared charge sheet and filed it before the Court. He identified the case property i.e. cash (Ex. PW5/P) and Adhaar Card (Ex. PW1/P1) to be recovered from the possession of accused. Later, he apprehended CCL 'A' @ 'A' and conducted proceedings against him as per JJB. He was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
12. PW-6 Dr. Nikhil Soni is the concerned Doctor who deposed that he conducted medical examination of injured Ajay Sagar and prepared MLC Ex. PW 1/B. He deposed that on 26.03.2024, he gave opinion qua nature of injuries SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Digitally signed by FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Page No. 10 of 31 Pathak Date:
2026.01.28 16:53:06 +0530 as Simple caused by Sharp object. His cross examination was recorded as nil.
13. PW-7 HC Krishan Pal is the Duty Officer who deposed that on 08.02.2024, HC Om Chand produced rukka (Ex. PW1/A) before him sent by ASI Ram Chandra for registration of FIR. He registered the present FIR (Ex. PW 7/A) and handed over it to HC Om Chand for further handing over to ASI Ram Chander. He issued certificate U/s 65-B IEA (Ex. PW 7/B). He was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
14. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded on 04.03.2025 wherein he denied the allegations leveled against him and claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused stated that nothing was recovered from his possession. He was called at police station and was arrested. He did not made any disclosure statement. False charge sheet has been filed against him and he has been falsely identified. The witnesses who deposed against him are interested witnesses. He did not opt to lead DE.
15. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that it is a clear case wherein accused along with CCL 'A' have robbed money from galla/cash box of the complainant by giving him beatings /knife blows at Arms, Elbow etc. It is argued that Digitally signed by SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Purshotam Purshotam Pathak FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Pathak Date:
2026.01.28 Page No. 11 of 3116:53:11 +0530 the incident of robbery and thrice stabbing has been recorded in CCTV footage. It is argued that the robbed money and Adhaar card has been recovered from the possession of the accused. It is argued that accused persons used deadly weapon i.e. knife and put the complainant in fear of death causing him injuries on his person. It is argued that complainant has remained intact in his version throughout, even in his cross examination. It is argued that the allegations are serious in nature and accused is liable to be convicted.
16. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that there are various discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses as compared to the prosecution story which causes dent on the case of the prosecution and therefore accused should be given benefit of doubt. He has further argued that except PW1/complainant there is no independent witness to the incident as well as recovery / arrest. It is argued that the weapon of offence has not been recovered and in the CCTV footage, the faces of the accused persons is not clear. It is argued that accused deserves benefit of doubt and is liable to be acquitted.
17. I have considered the arguments advanced by Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State as well as by Ld. counsel for the accused and I have gone through the entire record carefully. Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman 2026.01.28 16:53:17 FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri +0530 Page No. 12 of 31
18. The accused has been charged for the offences punishable U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC and for ready reference the said provisions of law are being reproduced herein below
19.Section 392 IPC is reproduced as under:
Punishment for 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.
20.Section 394 IPC is reproduced as under:
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.
21. Section 397 of IPC is reproduced as under:
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, so attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Pathak Date:
2026.01.28 FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Page No. 13 of 31 16:53:22 +0530 than seven years.
22. Section 411 of IPC is reproduced as under:
Dishonestly receiving stolen property - Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
23. In the present case, out of the two accused persons, one is CCL against whom separate proceedings are going on before JJB. The allegations against the accused persons are that accused Arman demanded change of Rs. 500/- from the complainant, who is working as worker in a Chole Bhature rehri/kiosk, however, on his showing inability, both the accused persons robbed his galla/cash box on the knife point and attacked him with knife thrice and wooden fatta causing 'Simple' injuries to him. Complainant examined himself as CW-1 and his owner was examined as CW-2. It may be mentioned that on appreciation of evidence which surfaced on record, it can be seen that PW-1 has disclosed the incident in question to be of 07.02.2024 at 01.00 PM and the PCR call was made at 13:23:12 Hours vide GD No. 0038A dated 07.02.2024 (Ex. PW5/A) and his date of medical examination at AIIMS Trauma Center mentioned in MLC (Ex. PW1/B) is at 15:13:10 Hrs. Complainant/injured remained admitted in Digitally SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Pathak Date:
2026.01.28 Page No. 14 of 31 16:53:27 +0530 the hospital till 07.17 Hrs on 08.02.2024 and the FIR (Ex. PW7/A) in the instant case was registered at 01:32 Hrs. on
08.02.2024. The incident of robbery was duly captured in the CCTV footage and perusal of the same reveals that the incident took place between 01.05 PM to 01.10 PM on 07.02.2024. Hence, the series of incidents and chronology of time line i.e. alleged incident at 01.00 PM, PCR Call at 1.23 PM, MLC at 03.13 PM on 07.02.2024 and thereafter, registration of FIR at 01.32 AM and discharge from hospital at 07.17 AM on 08.02.2024 reveals that there is no unnecessary delay in registration of FIR. PW1/complainant in his testimony categorically deposed that on 07.02.2024 at about 01.00 PM, while his employer had gone to Govindpuri to buy some materials, accused persons came and demanded Rs. 500/- from him. He further stated that when he showed his inability, they started hitting on his galla, slapped him and started taking out money from his galla and when he resisted, the CCL 'A' gave him knife blows thrice on his shoulder and arms and Accused Arman who was carrying wooden fatta, hit the same to him repeatedly, by catching hold of him. PW1 further deposed that after receiving beatings and knife blows, he ran to his room to rescue himself. Thereafter, he called his owner over phone and narrated the incident. The owner came and called PCR which shifted him to hospital. PW1 deposed about the proceedings conducted by police in his presence. PW-2 supported the version of PW1 confirming receipt of Digitally signed by SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Purshotam Purshotam Pathak FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Pathak Date: Page No. 15 of 31 2026.01.28 16:53:32 +0530 phone call, calling PCR by him.
24. Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that despite presence of witnesses to the incident, no independent public person was made to join the investigation. It is further argued that weapon of offence i.e. knife and wooden fatta were not recovered and there is no independent witness to the recovery of robbed amount. The MLC of the injured/complainant opines the nature of injuries being caused with a Sharp object and injured has claimed it to be knife and wooden fatta with which he was assaulted. It may be mentioned that PW-1/complainant has categorically testified that he was assaulted by the accused persons with a knife thrice and wooden fatta. The non- recovery of alleged wooden fatta and knife used in the commission of offence is possible as accused was not apprehended at the spot on the same day of incident but was arrested on the next day, due to which he got sufficient time to eliminate the weapons. The repeated assaults by knife and wooden fatta that too on a very petty issue of not giving change is highly improbable, however, it shows that it was a pre-planned robbery and asking for change was only an excuse to approach the complainant to enter into altercation. The entire incident was captured in the CCTV footage wherein it can be seen that on the alleged date and time of the incident, two persons are beating the complainant on the road. Furthermore, recovery of robbed Digitally signed by Purshotam SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri 2026.01.28 16:53:38 Page No. 16 of 31 +0530 cash and Adhaar card of Mustak, from the possession of the accused, coupled with CCTV footage of the incident shows involvement of the accused in the crime. In case, the issue would have been limited to the non-giving of change by the complainant, the result could at most be upto altercation or manhandling the complainant at the worst but not assaulting him with repeated knife blows and wooden fatta blows.
25. The objection of non-participation of independent witnesses in the investigation, raised by Ld. defence counsel has been negated by Ld. Addl. PP for the State with the contention that now a days it has become very difficult to join public witnesses as due to fear of police proceedings, risk from accused, time consuming process and rounds of courts, public persons seldom shows their willingness to join the investigation and become witness to the recovery or incident. The submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State bears force and can't be ignored. If the ratio of the same is applied to the present case, no doubt, the incident took place at 01.00 PM in noon time on a public road at a Chole Bhature kiosk and public persons were surrounded thereto, however, since the accused persons were armed with deadly weapon knife and wooden fatta, nobody dare to restrain or intervene them due to fear of injury and threat to life. On the other hand, police cannot force or pressurize any public person to participate as Digitally SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman signed by Purshotam FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Purshotam Pathak Page No. 17 of 31 Pathak Date:
2026.01.28 16:53:43 +0530 witness to prove the case of the prosecution. It is relevant to point out that PW-1/complainant in his cross examination categorically stated that he sought help from the public persons at the time of incident but nobody came forward to help him, which infers, the non-cooperation of general public in such situation. Hence, non-joining of independent witnesses in the incident or recovery cannot be taken as a sole ground for acquittal of accused in a serious crime of robbery.
26. It has further been argued on behalf of Ld. counsel for the accused that PW1/complainant has failed to identify the robbed currency notes. It is relevant to point out that the robbed amount of Rs. 1155/- was in the denomination of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 200/-, Rs. 50/- and Rs. 5/- and it is very difficult for anyone to identify the currency notes, specially after 9 months of the incident as currency notes are common and same throughout. Nobody retains currency notes after noting its numbers printed thereon. PW1/complainant has categorically stated that he cannot identify the currency notes due to lapse of time. Hence, the plea of the accused for non-identification of currency notes by complainant does not bear any weight-age.
27. In the cross examination of PW-1/complainant, he categorically deposed that at the time of incident, there would be cash of Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 6000/- in the shop Digitally SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman signed by Purshotam FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
Page No. 18 of 312026.01.28 16:53:49 +0530 alongwith the Adhaar Card of the shop owner. PW-2 on the other hand confirmed that he had kept his Adhaar Card in the kiosk as he has brought it to get photocopied, which he also identified in the Court when case property was shown to him. The argument on behalf of the accused persons that complainant could not tell the dress / clothes worn by the accused persons at the time of incident causes dent on the case of prosecution does not stand convincing as complainant at the time of incident was given merciless beatings with knife and wooden fatta and he cannot be expected to note the dresses/clothes worn by accused persons at that time.
28. It has categorically come in the testimony of the PW1 at the time of playing pendrive of CCTV footage in the Court that the accused persons had taken something (though not visible) from the galla / cash box kept on the rehri/kiosk and thereafter taking him, hitting him with wooden fatta and also giving him knife blow, however, it is stated that their faces are not clear. The complainant/PW1 on seeing the video identified the accused Arman to be the person wearing white shirt, who hit him repeatedly with the wooden fatta.
29. Perusal of the testimonies of PW1 & PW2 reveals that they are consistent in their versions and have corroborated the case of the prosecution. In the entire cross examination Digitally signed by SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Purshotam Purshotam Pathak FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Pathak Date:
2026.01.28 Page No. 19 of 31 16:53:55 +0530 of the complainant by the Ld. defence counsel for the accused, no suggestion whatsoever was put up to him that accused was not present at the spot of incident at the given date or time. Hence, the question of availability of accused at the given date and time is not in dispute. PW-6 Dr. Nikhil Soni, who conducted medical examination of complainant and opined the nature of injuries as 'Simple' cause with an 'Sharp' object was not cross examined by the accused persons. Accused did not examined any witness in his defence. No plausible defence has been taken by the appellant in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C, except that he is innocent.
30. It is relevant to note that the testimony of PW1/complainant is not only consistent with that of other PWs but he has identified the accused in the Court and had also identified the robbed articles i.e. Adhaar Card recovered from the possession of accused. It is relevant to note that despite the complainant being the only public and eye witness to the incident, he being the victim had entirely supported the case of the prosecution despite cross examination by the accused.
31. There might be small and very insignificant discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, but these discrepancies are not of such a magnitude or of nature, which will discredit the testimony of the public/police Digitally SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Pathak Date: Page No. 20 of 31 2026.01.28 16:54:01 +0530 witnesses. Complainant, as well as the police witnesses have duly supported the case of the prosecution. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. No suggestion has been given to the complainant by the accused that he have some prior enmity with complainant due to which he has been falsely implicated by the complainant in the present case.
32.Neither the counsel for the accused during cross- examination of the police witnesses gave any such suggestion or even not made any such arguments that accused had some enmity with the police officials due to which police officials in connivance with the complainant have falsely implicated the accused. Except denial of the allegations by the accused, there is no particular probable defence taken by him.
33.The law on appreciation of evidence, as deposed by Prosecution witnesses, has been well settled by catena of judgments. In the case of Gulam Sarbar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 3 SCC 401, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness which has passed the test of reliability and consistency with the information supplied in the FIR and material collected during the course of investigation. It is not the number of witnesses examined but the quality of evidence that is important whereupon the conviction can be based. In other words, the evidence must be weighed and not counted.
Digitally SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman signed by Purshotam FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date: Page No. 21 of 31 2026.01.28 16:54:07 +0530 The testimony of witness should pass the litmus test of cross-examination and stand the touch stone having element of truth and should be cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise".
34. In the case of State vs. Som Dutt Cr Case 10/2019, decided on 29 June, 2019, it was held :-
"The complainant is a victim of offence in this case. The evidence of a victim must be given due weightage. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he will spare the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. Moreover, the testimony of a victim of offence has its own relevancy and efficacy as the wife has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of a victim of offence is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. The evidence of the victim should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
35. In Lallu Manjhi v State of Jharkhand, (2003) 2 SCC 401, it was held as under:
10. The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness. (See: Vadivelu Digitally SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman signed by Purshotam FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Purshotam Pathak Page No. 22 of 31 Pathak Date:
2026.01.28 16:54:14 +0530 Thevar v. State of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 614 : 1957 Cri LJ 1000].)"
36. In Amar Singh v State NCT Delhi, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 826, it was observed as under:
"16. Thus the finding of guilt of the two accused appellants recorded by the two Courts below is based on sole testimony of eye witness PW-1. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony Courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise.
29. In the facts and circumstances of the case this was serious lapse on the part of the investigating officer. Though normally minor lapses on the part of the investigating officer should not come in the way of accepting eye witness account, if otherwise reliable. But in the circumstances of the case at hands where the conduct of sole eye witness is unnatural and there are various other surrounding circumstances which make his presence at the site of incident doubtful, such a lapse on the part of the investigating officer assumed significance and is not liable to ignored."
37.Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Karamjit Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration)", AIR 2003 SC 1311" has observed that the testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Pathak Date:
FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri 2026.01.28 16:54:20 Page No. 23 of 31 +0530 corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon.
38. Nothing material has come out from the cross- examination of the complainant/victim, which could support the accused. Prosecution remained successful in proving its case and all the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. The recovery of robbed money and Adhaar Card coupled with electronic evidence in form of CCTV footage wherein incident can be clearly seen supports the version of the prosecution witnesses.
39. The silent reason behind complainant running away after suffering injuries and non-participation of public witnesses is evident that accused persons were carrying deadly weapon i.e. knife and wooden fatta, which could cause death of the injured or anyone who would have interfered in the incident. Neither there is any discrepancy in the statements of witnesses in this regard nor any doubt in the case of the Prosecution can be raised.
40. The cash and Adhar card (belonging to PW-2 Mustak) are the movable properties and they have been forcibly taken away from the possession of the complainant without his consent. The only purpose of taking these items from the possession of the complainant, was to cause wrongful gain to the accused which proves the dishonest intention of the Digitally signed by SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Purshotam Purshotam Pathak FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Pathak Date:
2026.01.28 Page No. 24 of 3116:54:26 +0530 accused. Therefore, all the ingredients of the offence of theft have been proved. As per Section 390 IPC, theft is robbery when while committing the theft, assailants voluntarily cause hurt or wrongful restrain to the complainant. From the deposition of PW-1 and scrutiny of CCTV footage of the incident, it can be seen that accused restrained the complainant by catching hold of him from proceeding in any direction, therefore, complainant was wrongfully restrained by the accused while committing robbery. Therefore all the ingredients of the offence of robbery as defined in Section 390 IPC stands satisfied. Therefore, accused has committed the offence u/s. 392 IPC.
41. The main ingredients of the Sec.394 IPC is that either robbery or attempt to robbery is committed and while doing it hurt was caused to the victim and it was caused voluntarily by the assailant, who committed the robbery or attempted to commit the robbery.
42. In the present case, PW-1 is the complainant / injured of the case and he specifically deposed that the accused Arman and CCL 'A' started taking out money from the said Galla and when he resisted, accused Arman while catching hold of him, hit him repeatedly with wooden fatta and CCL 'A' took out the knife and stabbed him.
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri 2026.01.28
16:54:32
Page No. 25 of 31
+0530
43. After the incident, PW-2 / Mustak informed the police and information was recorded in DD No.38A and after that PCR came there and took PW-1 / complainant to AIIMS Truama Center, where PW-1 / complainant was given treatment vide MLC No. 500417859/2024 i.e. Ex.PW-1/B, wherein in column of particulars of injury, 'LACERATION RT UPPER ARM 1.2 CM x 0.2 CM APX, LACERATION LT UPPER ARM 0.8 CM x O.2 CM APX and LACERATION BELOW LEFT ELBOW 1.8 CM x 0.4 CM APX" is mentioned. The kind of weapon used for causing injury was opined in the MLC to be 'sharp' and same was testified by PW-6 Dr. Nikhil Soni who deposed nature of injury to be caused by 'sharp' object. All these documentary evidences corroborates testimony of PW-1 and PW-5 and proves that the complainant got hurt as he received multiple injuries. The hurt was caused to him while robbery was committed upon him.
44. The voluntariness of an act is to be adduced from the means employed to commit the act. In the present case, when PW-1 / complainant resisted, accused Arman hold the PW-1 / complainant, hit him with fatta and CCL 'A' stabbed him. The active role of the accused Arman came into picture when complainant resisted to avoid robbery, accused Arman caught hold of him and hit fatta on him, also facilitating co-accused CCL 'A' in subjecting knife stabbing, which proves that injuries, so caused was a SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Digitally signed by Purshotam FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Purshotam Pathak Page No. 26 of 31 Pathak Date:
2026.01.28 16:54:39 +0530 voluntary act of the accused Arman.
45. All the ingredients of the offence u/s. 394 IPC stands proved, therefore, prosecution is successful in proving that accused Arman committed the offence u/s. 394 IPC. Since offence u/s. 392 IPC and 394 IPC belongs to the same family of offences / inter-related and offence u/s. 394 IPC is a graver offence, therefore, accused Arman is convicted for the offence u/s. 394/34 IPC.
46.The offence under section 397 IPC for which accused has been charged uses the expression "the offender", which is clearly a singular indication towards a particular culprit. The latter part of the provision provides about minimum sentencing and has used an expression "such offender". Both the expressions i.e. "the offender" and "such offender" makes it clear that he who had done the particular activity will become liable for minimum punishment and none else. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Phool Kumar vs Delhi Administration" AIR 1975 SC 905 has observed -
"The term 'offender' in that section, as rightly held by several High Courts, is confined to the offender who uses any deadly weapon. The use of a deadly weapon by one offender at the, time of committing robbery cannot attract section 397 for the imposition of the minimum punishment on another offender who had not used any deadly weapon".
Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman 2026.01.28 16:54:46 FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri +0530 Page No. 27 of 31
47. The provision of Sec. 397 IPC is individualistic in nature and refers to a particular culprit and the concept of common intention for fastening vicarious liability on other offenders cannot be used for giving minimum punishment to them. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Ashfaq vs State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi)", AIR 2004 SC 1253 has observed as under:-
"For that reason, no doubt the provision postulates only the individual act of the accused to be relevant to attract Section 397 IPC and thereby inevitably negates the use of the principle of constructive or vicarious liability engrafted in Section 34 IPC"
48. It may be mentioned that though charge U/s 397 IPC was framed against the accused, however, during evidence it has been surfaced that the use of deadly weapon i.e. knife was not used by accused Arman. The essential ingredients of section 397 IPC are the 'use of deadly weapon'. In the case in hand, it is CCL A' who used a deadly weapon i.e. knife and caused hurt to the PW-1 / complainant while committing robbery with PW-1/complainant, and the 'fatta' was used by accused Arman to beat the complainant. Since, it has surfaced on record in evidence that the knife was exclusively used by CCL 'A' and not by accused Arman, therefore, he does not fall under this category. As such, Section 397 IPC cannot be invoked against him and he is not liable for punishment u/s. 397 Digitally signed by Purshotam SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri 2026.01.28 16:54:52 Page No. 28 of 31 +0530 IPC.
49. Now coming to the offence u/s. 411 IPC, for which accused Arman has also been charged. Police has recovered robbed amount of Rs. 1155/- (in cash) and Aadhaar Card of PW-2 / Mustak from the possession of accused Arman. Ld. Counsel for accused Arman has submitted that the recovery of stolen property has been planted upon the accused by the police and in fact, nothing was recovered from his possession.
50. Seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C shows that Rs. 1155/- and Aadhaar Card was recovered by PW-5 ASI Ramchander from accused Arman belonging to PW-2 / Mustak in presence of PW-1 and PW-5. The case property i.e. cash (Ex. PW 5/P) when produced in the court was identified by PW-5 to be recovered from the possession of accused. The Adhaar Card (Ex. PW1/P1) when produced in court was duly identified by PW-1, PW-2 and PW5 to be belonging to PW-2 Mustak, to have been recovered from possession of accused. So, it stands proved that both the robbed items i.e. cash and Adhaar Card of the PW-2 were recovered from the possession of accused Arman. Merely taking the ground that prosecution has falsely planted recovery of robbed cash and Adhar card on the accused without any justification, does not inspire confidence and such ground is liable to be rejected.
Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Pathak Date:
FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri 2026.01.28 16:54:59 Page No. 29 of 31 +0530
51. Section 114 Illustration (a) of Indian Evidence Act reads as under:-
"(a) That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.
Calcutta High Court in criminal appeal no. 67 of 2006 titled as "S. L. Eklash Vs. State of West Bengal" decided on 1 April 2010, has observed that "In Section 114 Illustration(1) of the Evidence Act the words "either the thief or has received goods" and more particularly, the word "or" postulates that both the presumptions cannot be drawn simultaneously. This appears to be a pointer to the proposition that one cannot be convicted with both theft and for receiving or retaining stolen property. Section 411 nor Section 414 of the IPC can be applied to the original theft of the property concerned. No person can receive for himself, nor does a person assist himself in concealing. Thus, it appears that simultaneous conviction for robbery and receiving or retaining stolen property by commission of robbery is not permissible."
52. The act of dishonest removal constitutes dishonest reception and so the thief does not commit the offence of retaining stolen property merely by continuing to keep possession of the property he stole. The theft and taking and retention of stolen goods form one and the same offence and cannot be punished separately. A person cannot be convicted under Section 411 IPC in respect of property for which he himself has been convicted of the principal offence i.e. theft. The theft and retention of stolen goods forms one and the same offence, and cannot be punished separately. When the chief offence charged and Digitally signed by SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman Purshotam Purshotam Pathak FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Pathak Date: Page No. 30 of 31 2026.01.28 16:55:05 +0530 proved by the evidence is theft, the fact of the stolen property being found in the possession of the offender should be considered as a portion of the evidence by which the chief offence is proved. As accused Arman is found guilty for the offence under Section 394 IPC, which is higher form of Sec. 379 IPC, therefore, in view of above discussion accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 411 IPC simultaneously and is liable to be acquitted under Section 411 IPC.
CONCLUSION :
53. In view of above facts and circumstances, accused Arman is convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 394 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.01.28
16:55:14
+0530
Announced in the open (Purshotam Pathak)
Court on 28.01.2026 Additional Sessions Judge-05
South District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi
SC NO. 334/2024, State vs. Arman
FIR NO. 113/2024, PS : Tigri Page No. 31 of 31