Delhi District Court
State vs Suresh@Sonu on 3 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK WASON:
ASJ-04: SW DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
SC No. 778/2023
CNR No. DLSW01-011010-2023
State Vs. (1) Suresh @ Sonu
S/o late Sh. Aajad Singh
R/o- House no. 329, Near Harijan Chowk,
Paprawat, Najafgarh, Delhi.
FIR No. : 186/2023
Police Station : Dwarka Sec-23
Under Sections : 328/379/411 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 18.11.2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 03.07.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 03.07.2025
Final order : Acquitted for the offence
u/s 328 IPC and convicted
for the offence u/s 379 IPC
and not convicted for the
offence u/s 411 IPC.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. Brief facts in nutshell, are that on 24.07.2023, on receiving of DD no.17A, ASI Anil Kumar alongwith HC Satpal reached at the spot i.e Dhool Siras Chowk, Bamnoli Road, where they found complainant Sh. Sri Kant Kushwaha. Thereafter, on the directions of ASI Anil Kumar, HC Satpal took the complainant Sunny to Indira Gandhi Hospital and got admitted him there. On 25.07.2023, ASI Anil Kumar reached at Indira Gandhi hospital, where, he recorded the statement of complainant and FIR No. 186/2023 State Vs Suresh @ Sonu Page 1 of 14 accordingly, rukka was prepared and thereafter, present FIR was registered.
In the statement, complainant stated that he was plying a Rikshaw with no. DL11 EA2306 blue color and on 23.07.2023, at about 04:00PM, he picked a passenger from Hanuman Chowk, to Dwarka Sec-10 and thereafter, at about 05:00 PM, he was waiting at DCP office, thereafter, two boys came on scooty activa white, and they booked him for going Bandloi village, JIO mark for Rs. 500/- and there were saying that they had to collect 3 tokri material. Thereafter, one boy sit on his e rikshaw and another was moving towards his e rikshaw on scooty. Thereafter, they both took him to Reliance IO mart , Village Bamnoli and asked to remain there in the gali and wait for 5-10 minutes. Thereafter, one boy sat in his E rikshaw and another boy bring 3 orange bottle and given him one bottle to drink. After drinking that orange juice bottle, he became unconscious and fell on his E- Riksaw and thereafter on 24.07.2023 at about 05:30 am, he regained consciousness and he found himself at pochanpur flyover. Thereafter, he called at 112 from the phone of one juice person. Thereafter, PCR came and took him to Indira Gandhi hospital and got him admitted there and gave his statement that two boys took his E rishaw, cash of Rs. 800 and his mobile phone.
2. On the basis of his statement, FIR was lodged. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. The matter was committed to this court by this court on 18.11.2023 Thereafter charge was framed against accused U/s 328/379/411 IPC on 04.01.2024.
3. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined 2 witnesses to substantiate the accusations leveled against the accused.
FIR No. 186/2023 State Vs Suresh @ Sonu Page 2 of 144. PW-1 is the complainant Srikant Khushwa whose testimony would be considered at relevant stage.
5. PW-2 is the ASI Anil Kumar who has deposed that on 24.07.2023, he was posted at PS Dwarka Sec-23 as ASI, on that day, on receiving of DD no. 17 A, he alongwith HC Satpal reached at Dhool Siras Chowk, Bamnoli Road, where complainant Srikant Khushwaha met him who was under the condition of Semi-unconscious. He further deposed that thereafter, he was shifted to IG Hospital, by him and HC Satpal. He further deposed that Doctor opined him unfit for statement. He further deposed that Injured Shrikant remained admitted in the hospital and he alongwith HC Satpal returned to PS. He further deposed that on 25.07.2023, he again reached at IG hospital, where, he recorded the statement of Shrikant Khushwaha, as Ex. PW-1/B, and thereafter, he prepared Rukka, as Ex. PW-2/A and got registered the present FIR through DO. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, DO handed over to him copy of FIR and original Rukka. He further deposed that thereafter, he went to the spot and tried to trace out the accused and CCTV footage, if any. He further deposed that thereafter, he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant, as Ex. PW-1/A . He further deposed that after that he returned to the PS. He further deposed that On 03.08.2023, he alongwith Ct. Subhash and complainant tried to trace out the accused and reached at Radha Swami Satsang, Pochanpur, where, complainant has identified the accused Suresh @ Sonu being one of the assailant, who was standing on the side of the road and accused Suresh @ Sonu was apprehended by them and after FIR No. 186/2023 State Vs Suresh @ Sonu Page 3 of 14 interrogation, he was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-1/H . He further deposed that personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-2/B and he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW-2/C. He further deposed that thereafter, at the instance of the accused, they reached at the spot ie. near Jio Mart, where, he prepared pointing out memo at the instance of accused of the place from where, accused persons mix the stupefying substance in the juice, same is already Ex. PW-1/E and after that, they reached at the place where, accused persons, dropped the complainant in unconscious condition. He further deposed that he prepared pointing out memo at the instance of accused, as Ex. PW-1/F. He further deposed that after that, they went to the place, where, accused took battery from E Rikshaw, and prepared pointing out memo at the instance of accused, same is already Ex. PW-1/G. He further deposed that after that accused took them to his house from where, two E-Rikshaw batteries were recovered at his instance, same were seized vide memo already Ex. PW-1/C. He further deposed that after that, accused took them to the place, from where, complainant hired the E Rikshaw, He further deposed that he prepared pointing out memo, at the instance of accused, as Ex. PW-1/D and thereafter, they returned to the PS and case property were deposited in Malkhana and after medical examination , accused sent to Lockup. He further deposed that on 04.08.2023, he seized the E Rikshaw no. 11EA 2306 which was already lying in the PS as same was found in abandoned condition, above said E Rikshaw was seized as Ex. PW-2/E and E- Rikshaw deposited in the Malkhana. He further deposed that on the same day, accused produced before the court and sent to JC. He further deposed that he taken the CCTV footage , as Mark A of outside the Jio mart on FIR No. 186/2023 State Vs Suresh @ Sonu Page 4 of 14 record and in this regard, and had also collected the certificate u/s 65 B of IE Act. He further deposed that he collected the MLC of complainant, as Ex. PW-2/F and thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the charge sheet. He further deposed that he identified the case property, as PW-1 as P1 and P2 (Colly). This witness was cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
6. It is also matter of record that on 26.11.2024, statement of accused u/s 294 Cr. PC recorded wherein, he admitted the documents i.e. FIR as Ex. A-1, Certificate u/s 65 B of IE Act Ex. A-2, CD as Ex. A-3, Certificate u/s 65 B of IE Act issued by Akhilesh Sharma as Ex. A-4, DD no. 17 A 24.07.2023 as Ex. A-5, DD no. 64 A dated 24.07.2023 as Ex. A-6, MLC no. 8117 of Shrikant Ex. A-7, RC no. 246/21/23 is Ex. A-8. On the same day, some witnesses were also dropped from the list of witnesses.
7. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein, he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and did not wish to lead defence evidence and thereafter, final arguments were heard.
8. I have heard Sh. Brijesh Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. defence counsel. I have also gone through the entire record.
9. The accused Suresh is facing trial before the Court for the offences under Section 328/379/411 IPC on the allegations that on 23.07.2023 at around 05:00 PM at reliance IO Mark Bamnoli Village, he along with his FIR No. 186/2023 State Vs Suresh @ Sonu Page 5 of 14 co-accused (CCL stated to be facing trial before JJB ) in furtherance of their common intention had mixed some stupefying substance in orange juice and gave it to the complainant Srikant Kushwaha whose services of E Riksaw were hired by both accused for taking some object from one place to another and while he was waiting for the stuff to come, accused brought three orange juice bottles out of which, one was consumed by him, another was given to accused persons and same was consumed by him and another orange juice bottle was given to complainant and committed theft of complainant's E-Rikshaw, mobile phone two battery, cash of Rs. 800/-. Now, in these circumstances, the testimony of the complainant is very relevant, who was examined as PW-1.
10. PW-1 is Srikant Kushwa who has deposed that he is E-rikshaw driver and in July 2023 exact day he do not remember, he left his house at about 04:00 PM with E- Rikshaw bearing no. DL-11-EA-2306 blue color. He further deposed that he picked a passenger from Hanuman Chowk, who was to go to sec-10 Dwarka and he dropped the passenger at Sec-10 Dwarka and thereafter, at about 05:00 PM he was waiting for passenger at DCP office, two persons came by scooty activa. He further deposed that those two boys booked him for going to Bamdoli Village, Jio Mart, for Rs. 500/-. He further deposed that those boys had to collect Ration from Jio mart. He further deposed that he alongwith those boys reached Jio Mart and was waiting for them to load Ration (grocery) on his E-rikshaw, while one boy was waiting on his E-riksha, the other boy who had gone to collect Ration came from his back side and after coming back, he touched his nose from my back side as a result he started gidding. He further deposed that FIR No. 186/2023 State Vs Suresh @ Sonu Page 6 of 14 the person who had touched his nose is the accused. He further deposed that accused had brought 3 bottles of juice with him and accused gave one bottle to him and one to the person who was sitting on E-Rikshaw and the 3 rd one he drank himself. He further deposed that after consuming the juice bottle, he became unconscious. He further deposed that he do not know where the accused persons had thrown him when he got unconscious. He further deposed that in the morning of next day, when he got up, he found himself at Pochanpur, Dhoolsiras chowk, behind sec-23 PS, near Jal Board Office. He further deposed that he found his E-rikshaw, mobile phone and Rs. 1500-1600/- which were kept in his pocket missing and he made a 100 number to police from the mobile phone of a juice wala who was standing near Park at Pochanpur. He further deposed that PCR reached the spot and he met PCR officials. He further deposed that Police officials checked CCTV camera near Jio Mart company and he again got unconscious at Jio Mart. He further deposed that he was taken to hospital by PCR van. He further deposed that he remained unconscious for 2-3 days. He further deposed that he remained admitted in the hospital for about 5-6 days and thereafter, he was discharged. He further deposed that he again went to the Jio Mark with police officials and had shown the place of occurrence to the police officials and they prepared site plan Ex. PW-1/A . He further deposed that Police recorded his statement as Ex. PW-1/B . He further deposed that two batteries were produced by the police officials in the PS and Police officials gave him those batteries and he got those batteries of E- rikshaw released from the court and got it installed in his E-Rikshaw and he identified accused and the other person in the CCTV footage of Reliance Jio mart. He further deposed that seizure memo as Ex. PW-1/C, pointing FIR No. 186/2023 State Vs Suresh @ Sonu Page 7 of 14 out memos Ex. PW-1/D, Ex. PW-1/E, Ex. PW-1/F , Ex. PW-1/G. He further deposed that accused was arrested in his presence as Ex. PW-1/H and had had handed over the copy of RC of my E rikshaw to police and the same is on record and is now Ex. PW-1/I . He further deposed that he had taken loan on the said E-Rikshaw and the EMI card is on record as Ex. PW-1/J .
This witness has correctly identified the accused before the Court. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, wherein, he admit various suggestions given to him. He was cross examined at length by the Ld. defence counsel.
11. First, this court has to see whether accused has committed offence under Section 328 IPC. In this regard, PW-1 has deposed that one of the accused got down from E-Rikshaw and got orange juice three bottle, and had given one him and after consuming the said orange juice, he got intoxicated and fell down unconscious. It is tried to be proved by the prosecution that accused had administered some stupefying substance to PW-1.
12. At this stage, it would be relevant to go through Section 328 IPC which is as under:-
"328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence. - Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description FIR No. 186/2023 State Vs Suresh @ Sonu Page 8 of 14 for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
13. The ingredients of Section 328 IPC and the nature of evidence required to establish an offence under the said provision was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joseph Karlan Philip Jose Vs. State of Kerala 1994 IV AD (CL) 31 (1994) 6 SCC 535. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced herein-under:-
"10. In order to prove offence under Section 328 the prosecution is required to prove that the substance in question was a poison, or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, etc., that the accused administered the substance to the complainant or caused the complainant to take such substance, that he did so with intent to cause hurt or knowing it to be likely that he would thereby cause hun, or with the intention to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence. It is, therefore, essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused was directly responsible for administering poison etc. or causing it to be taken by any person, through another. In other words, the accused may accomplish the act by himself or by means of another. In either situation direct, reliable and cogent evidence is necessary."
14. Further, in Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2013 II AD (SC) 89-(2013) 9 SCC 253, the Hon'ble Apex Court had quashed the charge under Section 328 IPC observing that allegations levelled by the prosecutrix of having been administered some intoxicant in a cold drink could not be established by the cogent evidence. The relevant observations read as under:-
"23.9. Ninthly, as per the medical report recorded by the AIIMS dated 16.2.2007, the examination of the complainant did not evidence her having been poisoned. The instant allegation made by the complainant cannot now be established because even in the medical report dated 16.2.2007 it was observed that blood samples FIR No. 186/2023 State Vs Suresh @ Sonu Page 9 of 14 could not be sent for examination because of the intervening, delay. For the same reason even the allegations levelled by the accused of having been administered some intoxicant in a cold drink (Pepsi) cannot now be established by cogent evidence."
15. In another case titled as Mahinder Kumar Vs. State 2017 SCC Online Del 8327, in an appeal, had expressed that it was difficult to uphold the conviction under Section 328 IPC merely on the basis of oral evidence. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted as under:
In view of the aforesaid discussion, scrutiny of testimonies of prosecution as well as defence witnesses and the MLC of the victim, it is clear than the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court are passed only on the testimony of injured witness. But in the absence of any medical evidence corroborating the allegation of the injured, convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 328 of IPC does not seem to be justified in the facts of the present case, especially when the prosecution has not seized any liquid/substance for taking expert opinion so as to know the substance was poisonous, stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug. Prosecution has also not produced any witness to rebut the plea of alibi on behalf of the appellants except that of the injured witness. However, the appellants have produced two witnesses in their defence and merely because they did not prove the presence of the appellants at the spot, therefore, they were declared hostile.
16. Similar view was adopted earlier by Hon'ble High Court in Mukesh Chand Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2010 SCC OnLine Del 379, whereby it was held that:
Surprisingly, no chemical report about the "stomach wash" has been FIR No. 186/2023 State Vs Suresh @ Sonu Page 10 of 14 proved on record. It is well settled that in order to prove Section 328 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the substance in question was a poison."
17. In the present case, it is tried to be proved by the prosecution that accused had administered some stupefying substance to PW-1 but medical evidence in the shape of MLC shows nothing. There is no medical evidence to prove that complainant was administered any stupefying or intoxicating drug. Further, the statement of the owner from where the orange jusice was purchased, was also not recorded in the present case. Therefore, the oral testimony of PW-1 as to the administration of stupefying substance to him by the accused is not corroborated by medical evidence. Hence, in such circumstances, case against the present accused cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/s 328 IPC and hence, the present accused Suresh @ Sonu cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 328 IPC.
18. The accused is also facing trial for the offence under Section 379/411 IPC. In order to prove the offense U/s 379/411 IPC against accused, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed theft of E-Rikshaw , Techno Phone, and cash of Rs. 800/-.
19. It is a settled law that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided, he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. It is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is FIR No. 186/2023 State Vs Suresh @ Sonu Page 11 of 14 concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
i) Wholly reliable.
ii) Wholly unreliable.
iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
20. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.
21. In Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1251). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single 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 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act'). But if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honored 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 FIR No. 186/2023 State Vs Suresh @ Sonu Page 12 of 14 cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.
22. Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove a relevant fact. In the case of Joseph Vs. State of Kerala [AIR 2003 SC 507(510)], Hon'ble Apex Court held: -
"...................Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses in any case be required for the proof of any fact and, therefore, it is permissible for a court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness. But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with probabilities and inspires implicit confidence. By this standard, when prosecution case rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eye-witness, it should be wholly reliable."
23. The testimony of PW-1 shows that he is consistent and despite cross- examination, no contradiction in material aspect could be brought in his examination. Complainant has specifically deposed that accused took his mobile phone, E- Rikshaw, and cash of Rs. 800/-. He has specifically identified the accused before the Court in his examination. He was cross examined at length. In cross, nothing could be elicited which may raise doubt regarding the trustworthiness of this witness. There are certain minor contradictions which cannot go to the root of the case. Accused also failed to point out any reason to involve him by the complainant in a false case.
24. PW-1 is the complainant and he has been consistent in his deposition. Theft deals with the Section 378 of IPC and punishment is deal with the Section 379 of the IPC. The bare reading of Section 378 shows that whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without the person's consent, moves that property FIR No. 186/2023 State Vs Suresh @ Sonu Page 13 of 14 in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. PW-1 has specifically deposed about the movable property taken by the accused. I see no reason to disbelieve the complainant with respect to theft of movable articles as the incident was reported to the police immediately and police officials reached the spot. In the present case, it is clear that accused dishonestly took the movable property from the possession of the complainant without his consent. Further, the complainant has nothing to gain by reporting a false complaint of theft. Hence, all the ingredients of Section 378 of IPC are made out. Other witnesses have joined / conducted the investigation and nothing could be elicited in their examination by the Ld. defence counsel.
25. In view of the submissions made above, accused Suresh @ Sonu deserves to be given the benefit of doubt and is hereby acquitted of the charges U/s 328 IPC. Although, prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused who along with the co-accused (CCL) committed the theft from the complainant and accordingly, he is convicted under section 379/ IPC. Since accused has been convicted u/s 379 IPC, therefore, he cannot be convicted u/s 411 IPC.
26. Arguments on sentence heard separately and separate order was passed in this regard.
26. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
DEEPAK Digitally signed by
DEEPAK WASON
WASON 14:49:03 +0530
Date: 2025.07.03
Announced in open Court (Deepak Wason)
today i.e 03.07.2025 Additional Sessions Judge-04
South-West: Dwarka Courts:
New Delhi
FIR No. 186/2023 State Vs Suresh @ Sonu Page 14 of 14