Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Azeem@Ajim on 25 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT:
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NEW DELHI),
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
State Vs. 1. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim
S/o Mohd. Asif
2. Aman @ Ammu
S/o Sh. Suleman
Both Residents of:-
R/o 1127, 3rd Floor, Khan Kuch
Kalan, Kalan Mahal,
Dariyaganj Delhi, Daryaganj,
Central Delhi.
● CNR No. : DLND01-001477-2023.
● Registration No. of the Case : 48/2023
● SC Number : 314/2023
● FIR Number : 48/2023
● PS : North Avenue
● Under Section : 392/397/34/411 IPC.
● Date of Institution : 11.08.2023
● Case Committed to the
Court of Sessions for : 29.08.2023
● Case Received by this Court
by way of Transfer on : 01.09.2023
Digitally
● Case Reserved for signed by
Pitamber
Pitamber Dutt
Judgment on : 20.02.2026 Dutt Date:
2026.02.25
● Judgment Announced on : 25.02.2026 17:02:45
+0530
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 1 of 39.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the case bearing SC No. 314/2023, being FIR No. 48/2023, PS North Avenue, registered under Sections 392/397/34/411 IPC. The brief facts necessitated in registration of this case, as per the prosecution are given as under:-
Brief Facts
2. The prosecution has alleged that on 13.06.2023 at around 07.30 PM, complainant Sh. Amit Kumar Yadav along with his relative Sh. Ramji Yadav, reached at Kendriya Terminal bus stand, Pandit Pant Marg and while they were waiting for the bus, two persons came on a scooty and started inquiring about the route to Bangla Sahib Gurudwara from a lady. At that time, Ramji Yadav got a call and he started talking on his phone. Suddenly, the pillion rider of the scooty, snatched the mobile phone of Ramji Yadav, who was talking on his mobile phone, however, Ramji Yadav caught the hand of the scooty driver, upon which, the scooty driver asked the pillion rider to hit Ramji Yadav with a blade, after which the pillion rider, slashed the neck of Ramji Yadav with a sharp blade, due to which Ramji Yadav fell on road and scooty riders fled away towards Gol Dakkhana. Thereafter, Ramji Yadav was shifted to RML Hospital by complainant Amit Kumar Yadav, who made a complaint in this regard to PS North Avenue, Delhi and on FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 2 of 39.
the basis of said complaint, rukka was prepared, pursuant to which FIR No. 314/2023 under Section 392/397/34/411 IPC at PS North Avenue was registered and investigation was initiated.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on 11.08.2023. On the basis of charge sheet, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate had taken the cognizance against accused Mohd. Azeem @ Azim and Amaan @ Ammu and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the present case to the Court of Sessions.
4. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2023 framed formal charge under Section 397 of IPC against accused Amaan @ Ammu and charges for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC, under Section 103 of Delhi Police Act, were framed against accused Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim and charges under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC, were framed against both the accused persons. Charges were read over and explained to both the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The, matter was, thereafter posted for Prosecution Evidence. To prove their case, prosecution has examined 21 witnesses, which are as under:-
● PW-1:- Sh. Amit Yadav, complainant and relative of victim Ramji Yadav, who proved his statement FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 3 of 39.
recorded by the police in the hospital as Ex.PW- 1/A and Site Plan as Ex.PW-1/B. ● PW-2:- Victim Ramji Yadav, who identified his blood stained shirt Ex.P-2/1, surgical blade Ex.P- 2/2, T-shirt and lower of black color, worn by accused Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim Ex.P-2/3 (colly), mobile phone make POCO Ex.P-2/4.
● PW-3:- ASI Giri Raj Prasad Meena was posted as Duty Officer in PS North Avenue on 13.06.2023. He exhibited computer copy of FIR no. 48/2023 as Ex. PW-3/A, endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW- 3/B and Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-3/C. ● PW-4:- SI Puran Singh was posted as Incharge Mobile Crime Team, New Delhi district on 13.06.2023. On receiving information he along with HC Dharam Raj went to the spot and assisted the IO in collecting blood samples and earth control from the spot. He also inspected the spot and gave his detailed report Ex. PW-4/A. ● PW-5:- HC Dharam Raj was posted as photographer, mobile crime team, New Delhi district. He exhibited photographs Ex.P-5/1 to FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 4 of 39.
Ex.P-5/7 and certificate under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-5/A. ● PW-6:- Mohd. Inam, Owner of Shanta Public School, he exhibited the original admission form of accused Amaan as Ex. PW-6/A and copy of birth certificate of accused Amaan as Ex. PW-6/X. ● PW-7:- ASI Dev Kumar was posted as duty officer at PS North Avenue from 04.00 PM to 12.00 Midnight and recorded GD no. 49A. He exhibited GD no. 49A as Ex.PW-7/A. ● PW-8:- Ms. Adeeba Asif, sister of accused Ajeem, and registered owner of scooty bearing no. DL14SR5426. She exhibited her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM as Ex.PW-8/A. ● PW-9:- Dr. Purvi Dhanraj Mankar, RML Hospital, New Delhi. She exhibited MLC of Ramji Yadav as Ex.PW-9/A and MLC of Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim as Ex.PW-9/B. ● PW-10:- Sh. Sheesh Ram Yadav, relative of victim Ramji Yadav. He exhibited bill of mobile phone gifted by him to Ramji Yadav as Ex.PW-
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 5 of 39.
10/A. ● PW-11:- HC Sunil Kumar was on patrolling duty on 14.06.2023 in the area of North Avenue and after receiving the call from the duty officer, he along with ASI Narender reached at RML Hospital, where ASI Narender collected MLC of injured Ramji Yadav, recorded the statement of complainant and eye-witness Amit Yadav and prepared rukka, on the basis of which FIR was registered. Thereafter, he went at the spot and called the crime team and collected samples from the spot and sealed the samples with the seal. He exhibited sealed envelopes as Ex.PW-11/A, sealed pulanda as Ex.PW-11/B and cloth pullanda as Ex.PW-11/C. ● PW-12:- Sh. Shahzad, neighbor of accused Azeem.
● PW-13:- HC Pawan Kazla assisted the IO in the investigation. He exhibited documents w.e.f. Ex.PW-13/A to Ex.PW-13/K. ● PW-14:- Constable Gaurav was posted in the CCTV Control Room, installed at PS Parliament Street and handed over the CCTV footage of the incident to the IO. He exhibited certificate under FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 6 of 39.
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-14/A and pendrive Ex.PW-14/B and images contained in the pendrive as Ex.PW-14/C. ● PW-15:- Sh. Saurabh Pathak Junior Forensic / Chemical Examiner (Biology), RFSL, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. He exhibited his detailed report as Ex.PW-15/A. ● PW-16:- ASI Bikram Singh was posted as duty officer in PS Chanakyapuri on 13.06.2023 from 07.18 PM to 07.19 PM. He exhibited certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-16/A. ● PW-17:- Sh. Prakash Saxena, Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. He exhibited CAF qua mobile phone no. 9354207006, in the name of Ms. Adeeba Asif as Ex.PW-17/A, CDR dated 13.06.2023 qua said mobile as Ex.PW-17/B and Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-17/C. ● PW-18:- Sh. Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. has exhibited notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW-18/A, CAF as Ex.PW-18/B, computer generated CDR of mobile number FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 7 of 39.
9818860537 w.e.f. 12.06.2023 to 23.06.2023 as Ex.PW-18/C, certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-18/D. ● PW-19:- Sh. Raj Kumar, Medical Record Clerk, RML Hospital, New Delhi.
● PW-20:- SI Rajender Kumar, received the RFSL result and filed the same in the Court in shape of supplementary charge sheet.
● PW-21 ASI Narender Singh is the investigating officer of this case.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating material was put to accused persons in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.. Both the accused persons have denied all incriminating material put to them and opted to lead defence evidence. However, they have failed to lead any defence evidence despite granting opportunity, consequently, defence evidence was closed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2025 and matter was posted for final arguments.
7. Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld. Additional PP for the State has contended that prosecution has established its case against both the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. He further FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 8 of 39.
argued that prosecution has established all the circumstances against accused persons which unmistakably proves the guilt of accused persons and rules out every possibility of their innocence. He further contended that prosecution has placed on record sufficient material to prove the guilt of accused persons. He prayed that accused persons may be convicted under appropriate provisions of law.
8. Sh. Rashid Hasmi, Ld. Counsel for accused Azeem @ Ajim has contended that the injured has not stated anything regarding the commission of robbery of mobile phone to the doctor at the time of preparation of his MLC. He further contended that though the injured was conscious but his statement was recorded after two days of commission of offence. He further contended that the police has not joined any public witness at the time of recovery of mobile phone, therefore, the said recovery is of no use. He further contended that the prosecution has implicated the accused in a false case, which they have miserably failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt. He prayed that accused may be acquitted.
9. Sh. Amarender Choubey, Ld. Counsel for accused Aman @ Ammu has also raised the same contention as raised by Ld. Counsel for accused Azeem @ Ajim.
10. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, guarantees every citizen protection of life and liberty as a fundamental FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 9 of 39.
right. It cast a duty on State to maintain law and order in society for securing peace and security to its citizens. To achieve the said objectives State enacts substantive penal laws, instrumental and symbolic prescribing punishment in case of breach of law and order in society. When any person found guilty of committing breach of right of life, liberty or property guaranteed to citizens then it becomes a duty of the State to apprehend such person, put him to fair trial and punish him if found guilty. The aim of Criminal Justice System is to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent.
11. In a criminal trial, the charge against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of proof does not lie in the realms of surmises and conjectures. However, the doubt must be of reasonable man and the standard adopted must be a standard adopted by a reasonable and just man for coming to a conclusion considering the particular subject matter. Doubt must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of accused arising from the evidence or lack of it, as opposed to mere apprehensions.
12. Section 390 of IPC deals with robbery. It provides that in all robbery there is either theft or extortion. 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 voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 10 of 39.
restraint, or fear of instant death or instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Section 392 of IPC provides punishment for robbery.
13. Section 394 of IPC deals with voluntary causing hurt while committing robbery. It provides that if any person in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, then such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life and for rigorous punishment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.
14. Both the accused persons have been charged under Section 394 Read with Section 34 of IPC.
15. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons under Section 394/34 IPC, the prosecution has examined PW - 1 Sh. Amit Yadav, the complainant, who briefly deposed in his examination in chief that on 13.06.2023, he along with Sh. Ramji Yadav were at Pandit Pant Marg Central Terminal, for catching their respective buses at around 07.30 PM, both accused Azeem @ Ajim and accused Amaan, came on a scooty and inquired about the way to Bangla Sahib Gurudwara from a women, standing there. In between, phone of Sh. Ramji Yadav, who was at a distance, rang and he started talking on his mobile phone. At that time, accused Aman, pillion rider of the scooty, FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 11 of 39.
snatched the mobile phone of Ramji Yadav, who caught hold the left hand of driver of scooty. However, driver of the scooty, did not stop the scooty and dragged Ramji Yadav at the distance of about 70/80 meters. Ramji Yadav, did not leave the hand of driver of the scooty, therefore, accused Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim asked accused Amaan @ Ammu to hit Ramji Yadav with a blade otherwise Ramji Yadav would not leave his hand, on which accused Aman @ Ammu gave a blade blow on the neck of Ramji Yadav 2-3 times, due to which Ramji Yadav left the hand of scooty driver and fell on the road and both accused persons ran away towards Gol Dakkhana with the mobile phone. PW- 1 has further deposed that he ran towards Ramji Yadav, who was in the pool of blood and took him to RML Hospital in a TSR, where his statement was recorded by the police.
16. During cross-examination, PW - 1 denied that Ramji Yadav did not catch hold the hand of accused Azeem @ Ajim, who was driving the scooty. He also denied that he identified accused persons at the instance of IO or that he had never seen accused robbing the mobile of Ramji Yadav or causing injury to him. He further deposed that he had not told about the incident of robbery to the doctor concerned or the reason as to how Ramji Yadav sustained injury, however, he told the reason of receiving injury on the person of Ramji Yadav to the police officials. He further deposed that at the time of incident, he was at the distance of 5/6 feet from Ramji Yadav. He further FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 12 of 39.
deposed that he was drinking water when the incident had taken place. He further deposed that he came to know about the incident after hearing the noise and at that time robbers had passed about 12 meters from him and he ran behind them. He further averred that accused persons dragged Ramji Yadav for a distance of about 40 meters. He had not heard the words to hit Ramji Yadav with blade otherwise Ramji Yadav would not leave his hand. He denied that a quarrel had taken place with Ramji Yadav with some unknown person or that he sustained injury in the aforesaid quarrel.
17. The prosecution has also examined injured PW - 2 Ramji Yadav, who briefly deposed in his examination in chief that on 13.06.2023, he along with his relative Amit came from Naraina at Pandit Pant Marg Central Terminal and was waiting for catching his bus. At about 07.30 PM, accused Azeem @ Ajim and accused Amaan, came there on a scooty and asked the way to Bangla Saheb Gurudwara from a woman who was standing there. Meanwhile, his mobile rang and he started making conversation on his mobile phone and was at a distance from complainant Amit Yadav. He further deposed that accused Amaan, who was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooty, snatched his mobile phone make POCO. He caught hold the left hand of accused Mohd. Azeem, who was driving the scooty. However, accused did not stop the scooty and dragged him at the distance of about 70/80 meters, he however, did not leave his hand and accused Azeem asked accused FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 13 of 39.
Amaan @ Ammu to hit him with blade, otherwise he would not leave his hand. On which accused Amaan @ Ammu gave surgical blade blow on his neck 2-3 times as well as on his cheek, after which he left the hand of the driver of the scooty and fell on road and thereafter both the accused persons fled towards Gol Dakkhana with mobile phone. He further averred that blood was oozing from his injuries and Amit took him to Doctor RML Hospital in a TSR.
18. During cross-examination, PW - 2 denied that he could not see who caused injuries on his neck. He also denied that he has identified accused persons at the instance of IO. He denied that he has never seen the accused persons robbing his mobile phone and causing injuries to him. He denied that accused Amaan was never present at the spot at the time of incident or that he is deposing falsely. He further deposed that when accused persons asked the route of the Gurudwara, he was at the distance of 4/5 feet from the lady and was standing at the road, at the time of incident and Amit was standing at a distance of ½ feet from him. He further deposed that after receiving the injury, he became unconscious, so he cannot say when he reached the hospital. He regained his consciousness after about half an hour after reaching the hospital. He told the doctor concerned that he sustained injury in the aforesaid incident of robbery. He also denied that he had disclosed to the police that he sustained injury in a quarrel or some unknown person caused injury on his neck. He further deposed that he FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 14 of 39.
was discharged from the hospital on 14.06.2023 in the morning hour. He further deposed that he did not visit the police station on 14.06.2023. He further deposed that he visited the police station to get his statement recorded, however, he does not remember the exact date. He further deposed that his mobile phone, which was robbed from him was gifted by his brother in law. He denied that his said mobile phone was never gifted to him by his brother in law.
19. The prosecution has also examined PW - 6 Mohd.
Inam, owner of Shanta Public School, Opposite Suiwalan, Chitli Qabar, Delhi - 110006. He produced the original admission form of accused Amaan Ex.PW - 6/A (OSR) and his birth certificate as Ex.PW-6/X. As per the said Birth Certificate Ex. PW-6/X, the date of birth of accused Amaan is 31.03.2003. Thus, he was of around 20 years of age at the time of incident.
20. The prosecution has also examined PW- 9 Dr. Purvi Dhanraj Mankar, PG Resident, Dr. RML Hospital, who prepared the MLC of injured Ramji Yadav on 13.06.2023 and proved the same as Ex. PW-9/A. She deposed in her examination in chief that on medical examination of accused Ramji Yadav, it was found that he was having incised would over left side of neck on the upper side measuring about 10 x 0.5 cm and back of left ear measuring 5 cm x 0.5 cm; abraised wound over right elbow.
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 15 of 39.
21. PW- 9 also examined accused Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim and prepared his MLC dated 15.06.2023 Ex.PW-9/B. On medical examination of Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim, it was found that there were two nail scratch marks over left forearm below left, about two days old and bruise marks over right hand, which were also two days old.
22. The prosecution has also examined PW - 10 Sheesh Ram Yadav, who gifted the mobile phone make POCO C-3 of blue color from Flipkart. He exhibited the bill of aforesaid mobile phone as Ex.PW-10/A.
23. The prosecution has also examined PW - 13 HC Pawan Kazla, who accompanied the PW-21 IO / ASI Narender Singh on 15.06.2023 at the residence of Ms. Abida Asif, daughter of Mohd. Asif, R/o House no. 1127, Kucha Faulad Khan, Kucha Chalan, Darya Ganj, Delhi, who was the sister of accused Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim. IO / ASI Narender Singh made interrogation from Ms. Abida Asif in the presence of PW - 13 HC Pawan Kazla and she told them that scooty bearing no. DL- 14SR-5426 make Yamaha is owned by her. She further told that her brother Azim Khan had taken the said scooty on 13.06.2023 and came back on that date at around 10 PM. She also told that accused Azim Khan was sleeping in his room when they reached at the address. Thereafter, PW - 13 along with IO went inside the room, where accused Azim Khan was sleeping. He was interrogated by the IO in his presence and FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 16 of 39.
accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW-13/A, thereafter, accused Mohd. Azim handed over one mobile phone make POCO, after taking out the same from the almirah, kept in his room, which was robbed in the incident. The said mobile phone was seized by the IO vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-13/B.
24. Accused Mohd. Azim also pointed out towards Scooty bearing registration no. DL-14SR-5426 make Yamaha, which was standing in a gali towards left side of the house of the accused and told them that it was the same scooty , which was used in the incident on 13.06.2023. Mohd. Azim also handed over four other mobile phones of different makes, for which accused could not account for his ownership. Those mobile phones were taken into possession by the IO vide Ex.PW-13/C. Thereafter, in the presence of PW - 13, IO / ASI Narender arrested accused Amaan @ Ammu on the pointing out of accused Azeem @ Azim, who also made disclosure statement Ex.PW-13/F and from his possession, a surgical blade was recovered, which was taken into possession vide Memo Ex. PW-13/G. Both the accused persons were arrested in the presence of PW - 13 vide arrest memo Ex. PW-13/H and Ex.PW-13/I. Thereafter, personal search of both the accused persons was also carried out and personal search memo(s) Ex.PW-13/J and Ex.PW-13/K were prepared.
25. During cross-examination, PW - 13 deposed that the name of accused Amaan @ Ammu was disclosed by accused Azeem @ Ajim. He volunteered that accused Amaan was also FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 17 of 39.
found visible in the CCTV footage as pillion rider on scooty. He had seen the CCTV footage, in which accused was found sitting as pillion rider. He further deposed that surgical blade was recovered from accused Amaan. He further deposed that IO, he and police team officials were present when the CCTV footage were analyzed in presence of its operator. He further deposed that he does not remember whether any notice under Section 133 of the MV Act was served upon Ms. Abida or not. He further deposed that he has no idea how many rooms were built in the premises of Ms. Abida. He further deposed that apart from Abida, her mother and accused Azeem @ Ajim were also present. He further deposed that public persons were asked to join the investigation but none of them came forward to join the investigation. He further deposed that if any notice was served upon those persons or not. He further deposed that the almirah from where mobile phone was recovered from the house of accused Azeem @ Ajim, was made of wood. He denied that no mobile phone was recovered at the instance of accused Azeem. He denied that the scooty was not recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement of accused Azeem.
26. Prosecution has also examined PW - 14 Ct. Gaurav, who proved the CCTV footage of the cameras installed in PS Parliament Street between 07:39 PM to 07:41 PM in a pen- drive Ex.PW-14/B along with Certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW-14/A. He also proved the four images visible in the CCTV footage as Ex.PW-14/C (colly).
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 18 of 39.
27. During cross-examination, he deposed that he did not note down that the said pen-drive consists of how much storage capacity. He only handed over the footage of the incident after transferring the same in the pen-drive. He did not hand over any image of the incident to the IO. He denied that he did not hand over any CCTV footage to the IO. He denied that the certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act is not correct.
28. The prosecution has also examined PW - 16 ASI Bikram Singh, who proved the CCTV footage of Panchsheel Red Light crossing from 07:18 PM to 07:19 PM of Camera L2 and L4 (traffic cameras) Ex.PW-14/C. He also issued Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-16/A.
29. The prosecution has also examined PW - 15 Sh.
Saurabh Pathak, who proved the CFSL Report Ex.PW-15/A.
30. A perusal of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses shows that both PW - 1 and 2 have categorically deposed before the Court that the incident had taken place on 13.06.20203, when accused Azeem and Amaan came on a scooty and snatched the mobile phone of victim Ramji Yadav, who was talking on his mobile phone. Ramji Yadav caught hold of the hand of accused Azeem @ Ajim, driver of the FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 19 of 39.
scooty, who dragged him to a distance of 70-80 Meters but when Ramji Yadav did not leave the hand of accused Azeem @ Ajim, he told accused Amaan, pillion rider of the scooty, to hit Ramji Yadav with a blade, otherwise, he would not leave his hand, on which accused Amaan gave surgical blade blow on the neck of Ramji Yadav 2-3 times, due to which Ramji Yadav, left the hand of accused Azeem @ Ajim and fell on road and thereafter he was taken to the hospital by complainant Amit Yadav, where he was medically examined and his MLC Ex.PW-9/1 was prepared by Dr. Purvi Dhanraj Mankar, mentioning that Ramji Yadav was having a wound over left upper side of his neck, measuring about 10 x 0.5 cm and back of left ear measuring 5 cm x 0.5 cm and abrased wound over right elbow. As per MLC Ex.PW-9/1, the injuries sustained by Ramji Yadav were simple injuries.
31. Both PW -1 and PW - 2 have identified accused Mohd.
Azeem @ Ajim, who was driving the said scooty on the date of incident as well as accused Amaan @ Ammu, who was the pillion rider of the scooty and snatched the mobile phone from victim Ramji Yadav and caused injuries on his neck.
32. Both PW - 1 and PW - 2 have been thoroughly cross-
examined but their testimonies have remained unshaken and no material contradiction has emerged in their testimony.
33. Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that PW - 1 FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 20 of 39.
and PW - 2 were not knowing the accused persons and have identified them first time in the Court, therefore, their identification is of no use. They further contended that both PW - 1 and PW - 2 have identified the accused persons at the instance of the IO, therefore, identification of the accused first time in the Court should be seen with suspicion.
34. The said contention of Ld. Counsel of accused however is not sustainable for the simple reason that during the investigation, prosecution filed an application for holding the TIP of accused persons. However, both the accused persons refused to participate in TIP proceedings before Sh. Sahil Khurmi, Ld. Duty MM-01, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on 16.06.2023, without assigning any reason.
35. None of the accused persons gave any reason before the Ld. MM, for their refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings. Both the accused persons have also admitted the factum of their refusal for the TIP proceedings, before this Court and their statement in this regard was recorded on 02.08.2025.
36. When both the accused persons themselves had refused to participate in the TIP proceedings without assigning any reason, then they could not be allowed to say that they have been identified by PW - 1 and PW-2, first time in the Court.
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 21 of 39.
"Munna Vs State (NCT of Delhi)", reported as (2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 599 has held that:-
"In a case where an accused himself refuses to participate in a test identification parade, it is not open to him to contend that the statement of the eye- witnesses made for the first time in the Court, wherein they specifically point towards him as a person who had taken part in the commission of the crime, should not be relied upon. The plea is available provided the prosecution is itself responsible for not holding a test identification parade. However, in a case where the accused himself declines to participate in a test identification parade, the prosecution has no option but to proceed in a normal manner like all other cases and rely upon the testimony of the witnesses, which is recorded in court during the course of the trial of the case."
38. Both the accused persons themselves have refused to participate in the TIP proceedings sought to be conducted by the police during the investigation on 16.06.2023. They have also admitted the proceedings conducted before the Court on 16.06.2023 Ex.PX-1.
39. When both the accused persons themselves had to participate in TIP proceedings during the investigation, therefore, they cannot be allowed to say that PW - 1 and PW - 2 have identified them first time in the Court, therefore, their testimony is of no use.
40. Both PW - 1 and PW - 2 have categorically deposed before the Court that they were present at Pandit Pant Marg, Central Terminal at around 07.30 PM, when the incident had FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 22 of 39.
taken place. The accused persons were on their scooty. Accused Amaan snatched mobile phone. PW - 2 Ramji Yadav caught hold the hand of accused Azeem @ Ajim, who was driving the said scooty. Accused persons dragged Ramji Yadav for a distance of 70-80 meters and thereafter accused Amaan @ Ammu, on the asking of accused Azeem @ Ajim, hit PW - 2 Ramji Yadav with a surgical blade on his neck, due to which Ramji Yadav left the hand of accused Azeem @ Ajim and fell on road.
41. PW - 1 Amit Yadav, complainant and PW- 2 Ramji Yadav, Victim were having sufficient time to see the accused persons who committed the offence on that day.
42. The prosecution has placed on record CCTV footage of the incident Ex. PW-14/B, which clearly shows that a scooty came at the bus stand and was having a driver and a pillion rider. The pillion rider of the scooty snatched the mobile phone and the victim caught the hand of the driver of the scooty and he was dragged at some distance by them and thereafter he fell down.
43. Four images taken from the CCTV footage Ex.PW-
14/C also shows that both the accused persons came on a black scooty and initial registration number of the scooty i.e. DL 14 S was visible and make of scooty was Yamaha.
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 23 of 39.
44. The incident which is narrated by PW - 1 and PW - 2 during their deposition before the court found support from the CCTV footage Ex. PW-14/B, where the sequence of events were shown as it is as deposed by both the witnesses.
45. PW - 1 and PW - 2 have identified both the accused persons and described their roles played in the said incident and there is no contradiction in their testimony.
46. It is relevant to mention that both PW - 1 and PW - 2 stated categorically that when the pillion rider of the scooty snatched the mobile phone of PW - 2, he caught the hand of the driver and PW - 2 was dragged for about 70 to 80 meters but he did not leave his hand, upon which, driver told the pillion rider that he should hit PW - 2, otherwise, he would not leave his hand, thereafter, pillion rider hit on the neck of PW - 2, due to which he fell down.
47. Accused Azeem @ Ajim was arrested on 15.06.2023 and his medical examination was conducted by PW - 9, who prepared MLC Ex.PW-9/B. In the said MLC, accused was having two nail scratch marks over left forearm below elbow (two days old) and bruise mark over right hand.
48. The left hand of accused Azeem @ Ajim, was caught by PW - 2. Accused Azeem was having scratch marks over his left forearm below his elbow, which was two days old i.e. of FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 24 of 39.
the date of incident. Accused Azeem has not furnished any explanation, how and when, he sustained those bruises or injury marks on his left hand.
49. The accused got bruises and injury marks on his left forearm. As per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is within the personal knowledge of accused Azeem as to how he sustained these marks. However, he has not given any explanation. In the absence of any explanation, an irresistible conclusion emerges that accused Azeem @ Ajim got bruises at the time of the incident, when PW - 2 Ramji Yadav caught his hand, when accused Amaan @ Ammu Snatched his mobile phone.
50. The prosecution has arrested accused Azeem from his house, where he was sleeping and recovered the mobile phone of PW - 2, which was snatched in the said incident in the presence of PW - 13 HC Pawan Kazla.
51. Accused Mohd. Azeem had also handed over four other mobile phones of different make, qua which, he could not furnish any explanation qua their ownership and same were also taken over possession by the IO.
52. The prosecution has also examined PW - 10, who deposed in his examination in chief that he purchased mobile phone make POCO of blue color through Flipkart in October FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 25 of 39.
2020, vide bill Ex.PW-10/A and gifted the same to his relative Ramji Yadav.
53. PW - 2 Ramji Yadav was talking on his mobile phone at the time of the incident. The said mobile phone was snatched by accused Amaan @ Ammu, the pillion rider of the scooty, which was being driven by accused Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim on 13.06.2023. Accused Amaan @ Ammu also caused simple injury at the neck of victim Ramji Yadav.
54. The said mobile phone, which was snatched by accused Amaan @ Ammu from PW - 2 Ramji Yadav, was recovered from the possession of accused Azeem @ Ajim by PW - 21 IO / ASI Narender Singh in the presence of PW - 13 HC Pawan Kazla.
55. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have contended that police has not joined any public witness while arresting accused persons and at the time of recording their disclosure statement. They further contended that as the police had not joined any public witness during the recovery proceedings, therefore, recovery of mobile phone, shown from accused Azeem @ Ajim, is of no consequence.
56. The contention of Ld. Counsel of accused persons is however not sustainable. After analyzing the CCTV footage and after inquiring about the ownership of the scooty, police FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 26 of 39.
came to know that scooty bearing registration no. DL 14S 5426 was owned by Ms. Abida. Thereafter, IO ASI Narender Singh along with HC Pawan Kazla, visited the house of Ms. Abida, who was the registered owner of said scooty. On enquiry, Ms. Abida told the IO that accused Azeeem @ Ajim is her brother and was sleeping in another room. Thereafter, police entered into said room and interrogated accused Azeem @ Ajim and arrested him and during interrogation accused Azeem @ Ajim handed over mobile phone make POCO, after taking out the same from his almirah, which was kept in his room. He also handed over four other mobile phones of different make, for which he could not account for his ownership. All these mobile phones were seized by the IO in the presence of PW - 13 HC Pawan Kazla vide Memo Ex. PW-13/B and Ex.PW-13/C.
57. No doubt that at the time of arresting accused Azeem @ Ajim and getting recovery of mobile phones, scooty and surgical blade from the possession of accused Azeem @ Ajim and accused Amaan @ Ammu, no public witnesses were joined, however, mere non-joining of public witnesses cannot be fatal for the prosecution case.
58. The testimonies of PW - 13 and PW - 21 are consistent qua the arrest of accused persons from their house as well as qua recovery of mobile phone, scooty and surgical blade from the possession of accused persons.
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 27 of 39.
59. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "State of Government of NCT of Delhi Vs Sunil & Ors.", reported as 2001 (1) SCC 652 has held in para 21 that:-
"We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during the British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hangover persisted during post- independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the legislature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in Court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused, it is open to the Court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other material, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume that police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions.
60. The said legal proposition has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rizwan Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh" 2020 (9) SCC 627.
61. The above legal propositions laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India makes it absolutely clear that there is FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 28 of 39.
no law that the testimony of police witnesses should not be believed, even if their testimony is consistent, coherent and without any defect. There is no rule of evidence that in all circumstances, public witnesses should be joined.
62. In the instant case, accused Mohd Azeem @ Ajim was at his house and PW - 21 and PW - 13 came at the premises of Ms. Abida, who was the registered owner of the scooty used in the incident. She informed that scooty was being driven by her brother accused Azeem @ Ajim, who was sleeping there and thereafter accused Azeem @ Ajim narrated the entire incident and also brought the mobile phone from his almirah.
63. The said mobile phone was not owned by Mohd.
Azeem @ Ajim or any of his family members but same was of PW - 2 Ramji Yadav, which was gifted to him by PW - 10 Sheesh Ram Yadav, who purchased the same from Flipkart vide bill Ex.PW-10/1.
64. The said mobile phone was robbed on 13.06.2023 while PW - 2 was talking on his said phone. The said mobile phone was recovered from the almirah of accused Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim, thus the recovery is without any default.
65. The aforesaid fact thus clearly shows that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim and co-accused Amaan @ Ammu have FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 29 of 39.
voluntarily caused hurt on the person of Ramji Yadav by a blade while committing robbery of mobile phone from him, therefore, both the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Section 394 Read with Section 34 IPC.
66. The prosecution has also successfully proved that accused Mohd Azeem @ Ajim, got recovered four mobile phones make Samsung, HOPE, JIO and I Phone from his house, of which he was not the owner and he failed to establish as to how those mobile phones came in his possession.
67. The prosecution has thus proved that accused Azeem has committed the offence punishable under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act.
68. Accused Azeem @ Ajim has also been charged for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. However, once accused Azeem @ Ajim is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC he cannot be called recipient of the stolen property as mobile phone recovered from his possession was robbed by Mohd. Amaan, which was found from his possession. Thus, it cannot be held that he was the recipient of the stolen property and cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC.
69. The prosecution has thus failed to prove on record that accused Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim has conmitted offence FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 30 of 39.
punishable under Section 411 of IPC.
70. Accused Amaan @ Ammu has also been charged for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, on the ground that while committing the robbery, accused Amaan @ Ammu used a deadly weapon.
71. Section 397 of IPC deals with robbery or dacoity with attempts to cause death or grievous hurt. It provides that at the time of committing robbery, the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person shall liable to be punished for imprisonment which shall not be less than seven years.
72. Section 397 of IPC attracts if, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses a deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person. A deadly weapon must have been used at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, and not before its commission. The word 'uses' in should be given a wider meaning, and should not be confined merely to cutting, stabbing or shooting, as the case may be, but also to carrying the weapon for the purpose of overwhelming the victims of dacoity. If a dacoit is armed with a deadly weapon, then undoubtedly, he inspires the victim with the feeling of fear and his power of resistance is, to a great extent, paralysed. Section FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 31 of 39.
397 IPC does not create any offence but merely regulate the punishment already provided for robbery and dacoity. This section fixes a minimum term of imprisonment between the commission of robbery and dacoity has been attended with certain aggravating circumstances, viz., (1) the use of a deadly weapon, or (2) the causing of grievous hurt, or (3) attempting to cause death or grievous hurt.
73. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Asif Vs State (NCT of Delhi)", reported as 2022 SCC Online Del 270 has held that:-
"It is a well settled law that whether the weapon of offence is deadly or not, is a question of fact which would depend on the nature of weapon used in the offence. A pistol, revolver, sword, axe or even a knife are deadly weapons. However, in the case of knife, the length of the knife, its sharpness and the pointed edge has to be seen to ascertain whether the knife is a deadly weapon or not." In the present case, the evidence of the prosecution is that the appellant took out a blade and kicked the complainant. In cross-examination it is further stated that the blade was not a shaving blade, hence the kind of blade used is not proved even by the ocular evidence of the witnesses. Though it is not essential that the weapon of offence should be recovered to prove the nature of the weapon used and that a deadly weapon was used at the time of commission of the offence, however, the prosecution is required to prove the nature of the weapon of offence used specially in the case of knife or blade. Since from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the size and sharpness of the blade is not proved, hence the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant used a deadly weapon."
74. Both PW - 1 and PW - 2 have stated that accused Amaan @ Ammu, on the asking of accused Mohd. Azeem @ FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 32 of 39.
Ajim, hit PW - 2 on his neck, with a surgical blade. However, neither PW - 1 nor PW - 2 gave any detail or dimension of said surgical blade either before the police or during his examination in chief.
75. The police recovered the said surgical blade from the possession of accused Amaan, when he was arrested by the IO, in the presence of PW - 13. However, when the said surgical blade got recovered from the pocket of accused Amaan @ Ammu, the IO did not prepare any sketch of the said surgical blade nor described the nature of said blade recovered from the possession of acc used Amaan @ Ammu.
76. The said surgical blade along with cloth of PW - 2 were sent to CFSL for examination. CFSL report has been proved by PW - 15 Sh. Saurabh Pathak, Junior Forensic Chemical Examiner (Biology), RFSL, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. As per RFSL Report Ex.PW-15/A, no blood could be detected on surgical blade Ex. '6'.
77. If the said surgical blade was used in commission of offence, the stain of blood should have been there on the said surgical blade but RFSL report Ex.PW-15/A shows that no blood could be detected on the surgical blade recovered from the possession of accused Amaan.
78. The aforesaid facts thus clearly shows that the FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 33 of 39.
prosecution has failed to produce on record any sufficient material to prove that accused Amaan @ Ammu has used deadly weapon while committing robbery on 13.06.2023. The prosecution has thus failed to prove on record that accused Mohd. Amaan @ Ammu has committed an offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.
CONCLUSION
79. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond any reasonable doubt that accused Azeem @ Ajim and accused Amaan @ Ammu have caused voluntary hurt on the person of Sh. Ramji Yadav by a blade, while committing robbery of mobile phone from Sh. Ramji Yadav and thus committed offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC Read with Section 34 of IPC.
80. The prosecution has also proved beyond any reasonable doubt that accused Azeem @ Ajim was in possession of four mobile phones, for which he could not account for his ownership, therefore, he is held guilty for commission for the offence punishable under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act.
81. The prosecution however, has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Amaan @ Ammu has committed the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC. Hence, accused Amaan @ Ammu stands acquitted for the same.
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 34 of 39.
82. The prosecution has also failed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that accused Azeem @ Ajim has committed offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. Hence, accused Azeem @ Ajim stands acquitted for the same.
83. A copy of this judgment be given dasti to Prosecution.
84. In view of the directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to all Trial Courts across the country vide judgment dated 15.12.2025 in case titled Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) vs State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No(s). 2973 of 2023, following charts have been appended to enhance the legibility of criminal judgments.
1. Chart of Witnesses Examined Srl. Prosecution Name of Witness Description No. Witness Number 1 PW 1 Sh. Amit Yadav Eye witness/complainant. 2 PW 2 Sh. Ramji Yadav Injured/victim.
3 PW 3 ASI Giri Raj Prasad Duty Officer/recorded FIR.
Meena 4 PW 4 SI Puran Ram In-charge mobile crime team/inspected the spot.
5 PW 5 HC Dharam Raj Photographer mobile crime team/took photographs.
6 PW 6 Mohd. Inam Owner of Shanta Public School, Delhi.
7 PW 7 ASI Dev Kumar Duty Officer/recorded GD No. 49A. 8 PW 8 Ms. Adeeba Asif Owner of Scooty No. DL14SR5426.
9 PW 9 Dr. Purvi Dhanraj PG Resident at Dr. RML
Mankar Hospital/Medical Jurist.
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 35 of 39.
10 PW 10 Sh. Sheesh Ram Purchaser of mobile phone in
Yadav question.
11 PW 11 HC Sunil Kumar Accompanied Investigating Officer.
12 PW 12 Sh. Shahzad Hakeem by profession.
13 PW 13 HC Pawan Kazla Accompanied Investigating Officer.
14 PW 14 Ct. Gaurav CCTV control room operator at PS
Parliament Street.
15 PW 15 Sh. Saurabh Pathak Jr. Forensic Chemical Examiner,
RFSL, New Delhi.
16 PW 16 ASI Bikram Singh Duty Officer PS Chankaya
Puri/CCTV footage handed over to
IO.
17 PW 17 Sh. Prakash Saxen Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio
Info.com Ltd, Delhi.
18 PW 18 Sh. Ajay Kumar Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd.,
Delhi.
19 PW 19 Sh. Raj Kumar Medical Record Clerk, RML
Hospital, Delhi.
20 PW 20 SI Rajender Kumar Witness of filing RFSL result.
21 PW 21 ASI Narender Investigating Officer.
Singh
2. Chart of Exhibited Documents
Srl. Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested
No. No. by
1 PW 1/A Statement of complainant/eye PW 1 Amit Yadav
witness Amit Yadav
2 PW 1/B Site plan PW 1 Amit Yadav
3 PW 3/A Computerized copy of FIR No. No. PW 3 ASI Giri Raj
48/2023 U/s 392/397/34 IPC Prasad Meena
4 PW 3/B Endorsement on rukka PW 3 ASI Giri Raj
Prasad Meena
5 PW 3/C Certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A. PW 3 ASI Giri Raj
Prasad Meena
6 PW 4/A Spot inspection report PW 4 SI Puran Ram
7 PW 5/A Certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A. PW 5 HC Dharam
Raj
8 PW 6/A Copy of original admission form of PW 6 Mohd. Inam
(OSR) Amaan
9 PW 6/X Photostat copy of birth certificate PW 6 Mohd. Inam
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 36 of 39.
attached with the admission form
10 PW 7/A GD No. 49 A PW 7 ASI Dev
Kumar
11 PW 8/A Statement u/s 164 Cr. PC of Ms. PW 8 Adeeba Asif
Adeeba Asif
12 PW 9/A MLC of injured/victim Ramji PW 9 Dr. Purvi
Yadav Dhanraj Mankar
13 PW 9/B MLC of accused Azeem PW 9 Dr. Purvi
Dhanraj Mankar
14 PW 10/A Bill of mobile phone in question PW 10 Sh. Sheesh
Ram Yadav
15 PW 11/A Seizure memo of Blood in Gauze PW 11 HC Sunil
and Earth control (Ex. 1, Ex. 2 and Kumar
Ex. 3)
16 PW 11/B Seizure memo of Blood sample and PW 11 HC Sunil
sample Seal of injured/victim Ramji Kumar Yadav 17 PW 11/C Seizure memo of Blood stained PW 11 HC Sunil shirt of injured/victim Ramji Yadav Kumar 18 PW 12/A Statement u/s 161 Cr. PC of PW 12 PW 12 Shahzad Shahzad 19 PW 13/A Disclosure statement of accused PW 13 HC Pawan Azeem Kazla 20 PW 13/B Seizure memo of mobile phone PW 13 HC Pawan POCO Kazla 21 PW 13/C Seizure memo of Mobile Phone PW 13 HC Pawan (Total 4) u/s 102 Cr. PC Kazla 22 PW 13/D Seizure memo of Scooty PW 13 HC Pawan DL14SR5426 (Yamaha) Kazla 23 PW 13/E Seizure memo of cloths of Azeem PW 13 HC Pawan Kazla 24 PW 13/F Disclosure statement of Aman @ PW 13 HC Pawan Ammu Kazla 25 PW 13/G Seizure memo of surgical blade PW 13 HC Pawan Kazla 26 PW 13/H Arrest Memo of accused Mohd. PW 13 HC Pawan Azeem Kazla 27 PW 13/I Arrest Memo of accused Aman @ PW 13 HC Pawan Ammu Kazla 28 PW 13/J Personal Search Memo of accused PW 13 HC Pawan Mohd. Azeem Kazla 29 PW 13/K Personal Search Memo of accused PW 13 HC Pawan FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 37 of 39.
Aman @ Ammu Kazla
30 PW 14/A Certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A PW 14 Ct. Gaurav
31 PW 14/B Pen Drive make HP USB PW 14 Ct. Gaurav
32 PW 14/C Four Images PW 14 Ct. Gaurav
Colly
33 PW 15/A Report No.RFSL, PW 15 Saurabh
DLH/523/BIO/171/2023 BIO Pathak
No.168/23 dated 13.11.2023
34 PW 16/A Certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A PW 16 ASI Bikram
Singh
35 PW 17/A CAF with photocopy of Adhar Card PW 17 Prakash Saxen
36 PW 17/B CDR of Mobile No.XXXXX07006 PW 17 Prakash Saxen
37 PW 17/C Certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A PW 17 Prakash Saxen
38 PW 18/A Reply of Sh. Rajiv Vashisht PW 18 Ajay Kumar
39 PW 18/B CAF alongwith photocopy of ID PW 18 Ajay Kumar
40 PW 18/C CDR of Mobile No. XXXXX60537 PW 18 Ajay Kumar
41 PW 18/D Certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A PW 18 Ajay Kumar
42 PW 18/D Certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A PW 18 Ajay Kumar
(sic) PW
18/E
43 PW 21/A Endorsement on Ex. PW 1/A PW 21 ASI Narender
Singh
44 PW 21/B Sketch of site plan of recovery of PW 21 ASI Narender
scooty Singh
45 PW 21/C Notice u/s 133 MV Act PW 21 ASI Narender
Singh
46 PW 21/D Reply of Ms. Adiba Asif to Notice PW 21 ASI Narender
u/s 133 MV Act Singh
3. Chart for material objects/Munddamals Srl. Material Object Description of the Exhibit Proved No. Number by/Attested by 1 Ex. P-2/1 Shirt of injured/victim Ramji PW 2 Ramji Yadav Yadav 2 Ex. P-2/2 Surgical blade PW 2 Ramji Yadav 3 Ex. P-2/3 One T-shirt and one lower of black PW 2 Ramji (colly) colour belonging to accused Yadav Azeem FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026 PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 38 of 39.
4 Ex. P-2/4 Mohine Phone make POCO of PW 2 Ramji
injured/victim Yadav
5 Ex. P-5/1 to Photographs PW 5 HC Dharam
Ex. P-7 Raj
6 Ex. P-5 (colly) Mobile phones make Samsung PW 13 Pawan
Note-10 Plus Galzi, HOPE F-2 Kazla
Keypad, Jio keypad phone and one
I-phone
7 Ex. PX-1 TIP of Mohd. Azeem Admitted by both
accused persons
on 02.08.2025
8 Ex. PX-2 Statement u/s 164 Crpc. of Adeeba Admitted by both
Asif accused persons
on 02.08.2025
Digitally
signed by
Pitamber Dutt
Pitamber
Announced in the open Court today Dutt
Date:
2026.02.25
i.e. on 25.02.2026 17:02:56
+0530
(PITAMBER DUTT)
Principal District & Sessions Judge,
New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts New Delhi.
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 39 of 39.