Delhi District Court
State vs Salman on 27 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS- 04,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Mr. Satendra Pal Singh, DJS
State Vs. Salman
FIR No. : 1642/2014
U/s : 394/393/34 IPC
P.S. : Shakarpur
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. of the case 11278/2016
(b) Date of institution of the case 20.03.2015
(c) Date of commission of offence 13.08.2014
(d) Name of the complainant Mohd. Rehan
S/o Sh. Mohd. Rahamatullah
R/o H. No. 6218, Gali Jhrisyian,
Kasabpura, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-06
(e) Name & address of the accused Salman
S/o Sh. Imtiyaz
R/o H. No. 181-B, Shashi Garden,
Jawahar Mohalla, Patparganj, Delhi.
(f) Offence charged with U/s 394/393/34 IPC
(g) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(h) Final order Convicted
(i) Date when judgment was 01.12.2025
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 27.01.2026
Digitally
signed by
SATENDRA
SATENDRA PAL SINGH
PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.27
16:59:16
+0530
FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 1 of 17
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 13.08.2014 at about 11:00 PM near Laxmi Nagar Flyover on the main road from ITO to Laxmi Nagar, within the jurisdiction of PS Shakarpur, complainant Mohd. Rehan alleged that while his car had broken down and he was waiting for help, three persons approached him. After initially leaving, they returned and demanded his belongings. On his refusal, they allegedly assaulted him and attempted to snatch his purse, causing him simple injuries and also attempted to hurt him with blades. The complainant raised an alarm, upon which public persons gathered and one of the assailants, Raja, was apprehended at the spot, while the others fled. Police reached the spot on receipt of DD No. 98B, recorded the statement of the complainant, sent him for medical examination, and registered a First Information Report ('FIR') under Sections 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). Investigation was carried out accordingly. During investigation, co-accused Raja disclosed the involvement of Salman and Rahul. Accused Salman was later apprehended from Shashi Garden and was later, formally arrested after being declared a major by the Juvenile Justice Board ('JJB'). Since, Raja, one of the associates of the accused, was a minor, he was tried as a Juvenile before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and accused was summoned. Pursuant to appearance of the accused, he was supplied with the copy of charge sheet in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the matter was listed for consideration on Charge.
3. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and on perusal of record, prima facie case for offences punishable u/s 393/394/34 IPC was found to be made out against accused. Accordingly, the Digitally signed by SATENDRA SATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL Date:
SINGH 2026.01.27
16:59:26
+0530
FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 2 of 17
Charge was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined following four witnesses:
(i) PW-1 Mohd. Rehan/ complainant- He deposed that in the month of August 2014, he was working as labourer in Gazipur Mandi and on 13.08.2014, he was going to Gazipur Mandi by his Car bearing no. DL 3C AZ 4081 for some urgent work. At about 10:40 PM when he reached near Laxmi Nagar flyover, the engine of his car stopped and he parked his car on the roadside and was waiting for help. He further deposed that at about 11:00 PM, three boys including the accused herein came and offered to help but he refused them. Those three boys then left the spot at that time. After a short span of time all those three boys came back and asked him to hand over whatever he had. Upon being told that he had nothing, those three boys started beating him. He further deposed that one of the boys caught hold of his collar and other one started beating him. The third boy tried to take his purse from pocket of his jeans. He tried to save himself by raising alarm. He further deposed that third boy took out a blade and tried to injure him with it and accused Salman also had a blade in his hand and attempted to hit him with it. He again raised alarm and some public persons gathered at the spot, at which point all the boys started running from the spot but he managed to apprehend one of them, who tried to take his purse, at the spot. He called the police at 100 number and handed over the accused to the police. He gave his statement to the police about the incident which is Ex.PW1/A. He showed the spot to the police who prepared the site plan which is EX.PW1/B. He was then taken to LBS Hospital by the police officials. He further deposed that on Digitally signed by SATENDRA SATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.27 16:59:36 +0530 FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 3 of 17 14.08.2014, he joined the investigation of the case with the IO and that accused salman was apprehended by police vide memo Ex. PW 1/C. He correctly identifed the accused Salman who was present in the court.
ii) PW-2 ASI/Ajay Kumar- He deposed that on 24.09.2014, he was posted as Constable at PS Shakarpur and on that day, he alongwith SI/Sanjay Kumar joined the investigation of present case. Both of them visited Karkardooma Courts where accused Salman was produced. He further deposed that IO after due permission of the Court interrogated the accused Salman and arrested him in the present case formally vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, IO conducted personal search of the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/B. IO interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW2/C. He further deposed that IO took one day PC of accused. Thereafter, they alongwith the accused visited Shashi Garden to arrest the remaining co-accused but the co- accused could not be arrested. Then, medical examination of the accused was conducted and he was sent to lock up. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement in this regard.
(iii) PW-3 H C /Anil Kumar- He deposed that on 13.08.2014, he alongwith SI Sanjay was present in PS on night emergency duty, during which SI Sanjay received DD No. 98B. Thereafter, they both visited the spot near flyover main road leading towards ITO to Laxmi Nagar. He further deposed that complainant/Rehan had already caught hold of boy namely, Raja. IO recorded the statement of complainant/Md. Rehan regarding the incident and made his endorsement on the same. He further deposed that complainant received some minor injuries and accused Raja had also received some minor injuries. Both of them got medically examined in LBS Hospital. He came back at the spot and Digitally signed by SATENDRA SATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL Date:
SINGH 2026.01.27
16:59:44
+0530
FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 4 of 17
handed over the accused to the IO. IO gave him rukka which he took to PS and got the case registered with the duty officer. He collected a copy of FIR and original rukka and brought the same back to the spot. He handed over both the documents to the IO. He further deposed that in the meantime, one Juvenile Welfare Officer (JWO)/ Sh. Arvind Wali came at the spot and IO handed over all the relevant documents to him. Thereafter, he alongwith Sh. Arvind Wali, IO, complainant and accused Raja went to Shashi Garden. Raja pointed out the house of accused Salman, where complainant identified Salman as one of the snatchers. He further deposed that the version of Salman was recorded, who told his age was under 18 years. Then, documents of accused Salman's apprehension were prepared vide apprehension memo already Ex. PW1/C. The personal search of Salman was also conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/D. He further deposed that the version of Salman was prepared separately in the presence of his father. IO recorded his statement in this regard. He also correctly identified the accused present in the court.
(iv) PW-4 Inspector/Sanjay Kumar- He deposed that on 13.08.2014, he was posted as SI in PS Shakarpur and on that day, he alongwith Ct Anil was present in PS on night emergency duty from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM. At about 11:40 pm, he received DD No. 98B regarding chain snatching. Thereafter, he alongwith the constable went to the spot at main road leading from ITO to Laxmi Nagar where complainant/ Mohd. Rehan was present alongwith one Raja. He further deposed that complainant/ Mohd. Rehan caught Raja at the spot. Complainant was sent to LBS hospital for medical check-up while Raja remained with him in his custody. After some time Ct Anil alongwith complainant came back to him and handed over his MLC. He recorded statement of Digitally signed SATENDRA by SATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL Date:
SINGH 2026.01.27
16:59:51 +0530
FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 5 of 17
Mohd. Rehan and made his endorsement Ex. PW 4/A on the statement of complainant. Thereafter, Ct Anil was sent to PS with rukka for registration of case FIR. He further deposed that he inquired the complainant/ Mohd. Rehan. He also tried, to join some public persons in the investigation but due to odd hours, there was shortage of passersby and public persons. Thereafter, he inspected the spot and prepared a site plan of same in the presence of complainant. He informed the mother of Raja telephonically. He further deposed that after some time Ct./Anil alongwith Juvenile Welfare Officer (JWO)/SI Arvind came to the spot and mother of accused Raja also came there. He conducted complete inquiry from Raja in the presence of said persons. He further deposed that during the course of inquiry Raja disclosed about the involvement of accused Salman and Rahul and at the instance of Raja, they visited the house/Jhuggi of accused Salman in Shashi Garden and apprehended him from there in the presence of his parents. He further deposed that accused Rahul could not be apprehended as his whereabouts were not known. He conducted detailed inquiry from accused Salman during which he told his age under 18 years. Therefore, he recorded supplementary statement of complainant and relieved him. He prepared apprehension memo and personal search memo of accused Salman. He further deposed that version of child in conflict with law (hereinafter 'CCL') was as also prepared of accused Salman which is Ex.PW4/C. Thereafter, since both Raja and Salman claimed to be juveniles at that stage, they were sent to concerned Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). He further deposed that during inquiry accused Raja also stated to be a juvenile, therefore, FIR in this regard was prepared and filed in JJB, accused Salman was then sent to JJB wherein after age inquiry proceedings he was found to be Digitally signed by SATENDRA SATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.27 16:59:58 +0530 FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 6 of 17 a major. The concerned order of JJB board alongwith medical record and X-Ray is Ex.PW4/F (colly running into 8 pages). He further deposed that on 24.09.2014, he sought permission of court for interrogation and formal arrest of accused Salman vide application Ex. PW4/D. Thereafter, IO arrested accused Salman in the present case and also conducted his personal search. He interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement. He further deposed that he sought one day PC of accused Salman vide request Ex.PW4/E. IO accompanied by accused Salman, tried to arrest co-accused Rahul but he could not be arrested due to unavailability of his whereabouts. Thereafter, accused Salman was produced in the court from where he was sent to judicial custody. He recorded statement of all relevant witnesses and on completion of investigation, he prepared a chargesheet which was filed in the court. Also, he correctly identified the accused Salman.
5. Following documents were tendered during the evidence o f these witnesses;
(i) Ex. PW-1/A - Statement of complainant.
(ii) Ex. PW-1/B - Site plan
(iii) Ex. PW-1/C - Apprehension memo of accused Salman
(iv) Ex. PW-1/D- Personal search memo of accused Salman
(v) Ex. PW-2/A- Arrest memo of accused Salman
(vi) Ex. PW-2/B - Personal search of accused Salman
(vii) Ex. PW-2/C - Disclosure statement of accused Salman
(viii) Ex. PW-4/A- endorsement on the statement of complainant
(ix) Ex. PW-4/C- Version of child in conflict with law SATENDRA by Digitally signed SATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL Date:
SINGH 2026.01.27
17:00:04 +0530
FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 7 of 17
(x) Ex. PW-4/D- Application for interrogation and formal arrest of accused
(xi) Ex. PW-4/E- Request for One day PC of accused move by IO.
(xii) Ex. PW-4/F- JJB order alongwith medical record
(xiii) Ex. C1- FIR
(xiv) Ex. C2- DD No. 98-B
(xv) Ex. C3- MLC bearing no. 14245 of 2014 Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed.
6. As per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) versus State Of Gujarat Criminal Appeal No(s). 2973 of 2023; December 15, 2025 the list of witnesses and exhibited documents is also annexed with this judgment as Appendix A.
7. Upon completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Salman was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC., wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused, to which he stated that he had not committed any offence and he was sleeping at his house when the police officials came. He further stated that Raja had given his name to the police and he had been falsely implicated in this case. The accused did not wish to lead defence evidence.
8. Arguments were advanced by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. Case file perused.
9. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that from the ocular and documentary evidence on record, the factum of simple hurt being caused to the complainant while robbery from him being committed by the accused has Digitally signed by SATENDRA SATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL Date:
SINGH 2026.01.27
17:00:10
+0530
FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 8 of 17
been proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence accused be convicted for the offence he has been charged with.
10. On the contrary, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that the case of the prosecution is filled with contradictions. It is submitted that the accused did not commit the offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that witnesses examined by the prosecution are not trustworthy and non-examination of other independent public witness also creates serious doubt over the story of prosecution. It is also argued that there is fabrication in the narrative of the prosecution, IO did not visit the address of the accused as PW-3 in his cross examination has said that he does not remember if any departure entry for the address of accused Salman has been made. That no judicial TIP was conducted in the present matter. That there is no recovery from the accused, even the alleged blades have not recovered.
11. It is further argued on behalf of the accused that the accused has been falsely implicated in the case, just so that IO can show that he has solved the case, as his arrest in the present case has been made at the instance of co- accused and not at the spot of occurrence of the alleged incident, it is requested that since prosecution story is very doubtful, therefore the accused be acquitted of the offences charged with.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED
12. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In criminal law, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused exclusively lies on the prosecution which must prove the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt.
Digitally signed by SATENDRASATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.27 17:00:17 +0530 FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 9 of 17 The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt.
13. To punish a person under sections 394 of the Indian Penal Code it is sine qua non that the offence of robbery is committed or attempted to be committed. In this connection, Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines robbery, read as follows:
390. Robbery. - In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery - Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. When extortion is robbery - Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted. Explanation--The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
14. The essential ingredients for the offence of robbery are as follows:
1. When the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause:
a. Death, wrongful restraint or hurt or b. Fear of instant death, instant wrongful restraint or instant hurt.
Digitally
signed by
SATENDRA
SATENDRA PAL SINGH
PAL Date:
SINGH 2026.01.27
17:00:23
+0530
FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 10 of 17
2. And the above act(s) is done
a. While committing the theft
b. While carrying away the property obtained by theft or c. While attempting to carry away property obtained by theft.
15. From a reading of Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code it can be discerned that in each case of robbery there is either theft or extortion or an attempt to commit theft or extortion.
16. The words "for that end" in Section 390 clearly mean that the hurt caused must be with the object of facilitating the committing of the theft or must be caused while the offender is committing theft or is carrying away or is attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft.
17. In view of the provisions, the allegations against the present accused are that he has attempted to commit theft of the purse and belongings by use of force from the complainant by putting him under threat with the help of blades.
18. Section 393 provides for punishment for attempt to commit robbery and Section 394 provides for punishment for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt in attempting to commit robbery.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
19. As per the facts of the present case the criminal law machinery was set in motion on 13.08.2014 on recording of DD no.98B whereby information was received regarding the above stated incident. On receipt of this Digitally signed by SATENDRA SATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.27 17:00:28 +0530 FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 11 of 17 information PW-4 along with PW-3 went to the spot. PW-1 complainant Mohd. Rehan is the most material witness of the present case. He has fully supported the prosecution. PW-1, the complainant, has provided a consistent and detailed account of the incident. He deposed that on 13.08.2014, while his car broke down near Laxmi Nagar Flyover, three boys including the accused Salman approached him under the pretext of help, returned shortly, demanded his belongings, beat him, and attempted to snatch his purse using blades. He raised an alarm, apprehended one assailant (Raja) at the spot, and later identified the accused Salman during the investigation when police, led by Raja, reached Salman's house in Shashi Garden. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW-1/A) aligns with his court deposition, and he withstood cross-examination without material contradictions. The MLC (Ex. C3) confirms simple injuries on his person, consistent with the assault described.
20. There is no reason or motive for PW-1 to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. Further, nothing material could be elicited by the Ld. Counsel for accused in the cross-examination of witnesses which would discredit their testimony. The accused was apprehended at Shahshi Garden at the instance of co-accused and was correctly identified by the complainant, his apprehension memo bears signature of PW-1, establishing that he was arrested in his presence. Further he has been duly identified in the court.
21. PW-1's version finds corroboration from the testimony of police official, PW-3 (HC Anil Kumar) and PW- 4 (Inspector Sanjay Kumar, the IO) who on receiving the information about the incident reached at the spot. Hence, on the basis of above stated evidence, in the considered opinion of this court it stands established that on 13.08.2014 at about 11:00 PM accused person attempted to steal the purse and belongings of the complainant and in Digitally signed by SATENDRA SATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.27 17:00:34 +0530 FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 12 of 17 order to commit the same the complainant was attacked by the accused alongwith his associates resulting in injury to the complainant. The offence of attempt to commit robbery by the accused person has been proved and so also the hurt which had been suffered by complainant.
22. The police witnesses provide seamless corroboration. PW-3 (HC Anil Kumar) and PW-4 (Inspector Sanjay Kumar, the IO) detailed the immediate response to DD No. 98B (Ex. C2), recording of the complainant's statement, registration of FIR (Ex. C1), preparation of the site plan (Ex. PW-1/B), and apprehension of Raja at the spot. They further testified to interrogating Raja in the presence of his mother and a Juvenile Welfare Officer (as per Juvenile Justice protocols), leading to the disclosure of Salman's involvement. The team proceeded to Shashi Garden, where the complainant identified Salman, who was apprehended vide memos Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D. PW-4 also explained the initial treatment of Salman as a CCL based on his self-declared age, but the JJB inquiry (Ex. PW-4/F, including medical and X-ray records) confirmed him to be a major, leading to his formal arrest on 24.09.2014 (Ex. PW-2/A, PW-2/B, and PW-2/C) after court permission (Ex. PW-4/D). PW-2 corroborated the formal arrest and unsuccessful attempts to apprehend co- accused Rahul.
23. The defense has highlighted alleged contradictions, such as the absence of independent public witnesses and the reliance on police testimonies. However, the incident occurred around 11:00 PM on a main road during odd hours, as explained by PW-4, making it reasonable that no passersby joined the investigation despite efforts. The non-examination of public persons does not fatalize the prosecution case, as held in Appabhai & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1988 SC 696), where reliable eyewitness and police evidence suffices if it inspires confidence. Here, the complainant's Digitally signed by SATENDRA SATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.27 17:00:45 +0530 FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 13 of 17 testimony is not that of an interested witness but a natural victim-witness, and the police actions were prompt and documented, reducing the scope for fabrication.
24. In the present case complainant has fully supported the case of prosecution and there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Moreover, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the accused has not given any explanation much less a plausible one as to why the complainant and police officials would try to falsely implicate the accused.
25. Further, the defense claims false implication at Raja's instance, but this is unsubstantiated. The accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. merely denies involvement and alleges he was sleeping at home, without leading any defense evidence to rebut the prosecution's version. As to the argument that judicial TIP of the accused was not conducted, in the present case, no judicial TIP was necessary as the complainant had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused during the commission of the offence and identified him at the earliest opportunity during investigation. The prompt apprehension, complainant's identification at Salman's house (not at the police station, minimizing tutoring risks), and consistent chain of events negate false implication. Minor discrepancies, if any (e.g., exact timing or sequence of blows), are natural in human recollection and do not undermine the core story, as per State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony (1985 (1) SCC 505) , where minor variations do not discredit reliable evidence.
CONCLUSION
26. Presumption of innocence is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving guilt of the accused Digitally signed by SATENDRA SATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date:
2026.01.27 17:00:51 +0530 FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 14 of 17 always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, each and every element of the offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, independent and unimpeachable evidence, unless otherwise provided by the statute and if the story of prosecution lacks credibility or appears to be improbable the benefit of doubt must necessarily go in favour of the accused.
27. In the present case, the prosecution has established the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt: the accused, with common intention alongside Raja and Rahul, attempted to rob the complainant (by demanding belongings and trying to snatch his purse) and voluntarily caused simple hurt (by beating) and attempted to hurt by blade as evidenced by the MLC.
28. In view of the discussion made herein above and considering the facts of the present case, the court is of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused is hereby convicted for offences punishable u/s 393/34 IPC and 394/34 IPC.
29. Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence.
30. Copy of this Judgment be given dasti to the convict free of cost as per Digitally signed rules. SATENDRA by SATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL Date:
SINGH 2026.01.27 17:00:59 +0530 Pronounced in the open court ( Satendra Pal Singh) on 27th Day of January 2026 JMFC-04/East KKD Court JC) ( This judgment contains 17 pages in total. FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 15 of 17 Appendix A Witnesses Examined Prosecution Name of witnesses Description witness no. PW1 Moh Complainant/ Injured PW2 ASI/Ajay Police Kumar witness PW3 HC/Anil Police Kumar witness PW4 Inspector/ Investigating Sanjay Officer Kumar List of Documents Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/attested by Ex. PW1/A Statement of complainant PW1 Ex. PW 1/B Site plan PW1 Ex. PW 1/C Apprehension Memo PW1 Ex. PW 1/D Personal Search Memo PW1 Ex. PW 2/A Arrest Memo PW2 Ex. PW 2/C Disclosure Statement PW2 Digitally signed by SATENDRA SATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date: 2026.01.27 17:01:07 +0530 FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 16 of 17 Ex. PW 4/A Endorsement on the statement of PW4 complainant Ex. PW4/C Version of child in conflict with law PW4 Ex. PW 4/D Application for interrogation and PW 4 formal arrest of accused Ex. PW 4/E One day PC of accused PW4 Ex. PW 4/F JJC Board order alongwith medical PW4 record Ex. C1 FIR Admitted Ex. C2 DD No. 98-B Admitted Ex. C3 MLC bearing no. 009 Admitted Digitally signed by SATENDRA SATENDRA PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date: 2026.01.27 17:01:14 +0530 Pronounced in the open court ( Satendra Pal Singh) on 27th Day of January 2026 JMFC-04/ East KKD Court JC) ( This judgment contains 17 pages in total. FIR No. 1642/2014 State Vs. Salman Page no. 17 of 17