Delhi District Court
State vs Vikrant Kumar on 28 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
ASJ (FTC)-02, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-000499-2018
SC 35/2018
STATE Vs. VIKRANT KUMAR
FIR No.693/2017
PS:(Ranhola)
U/s : 394/397/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
Date of commission of offence 09.10.2017 Date of Committal in the Court of 17.01.2018 Sessions Name of the complainant Sh. Anuj Kumar Name of accused and addresses Vikrant Kumar Offence complained of or proved Under Section 394/397/34 IPC Plea of the accused Not pleaded guilty.
Final Order Conviction u/s 394/397/34 IPC Date of announcing of judgment 28.02.2025 BRIEF FACTS
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 09.10.2017 at about 08:30 a.m. at gali near House no. 12, Phase-III, Sainik Vihar, Mohan Garden, Delhi, accused Vikrant Kumar along with his 2-3 associates restrained the State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 1 of 25 complainant Anuj Kumar and committed robbery of his mobile phone make Oppo A-37 from his possession by voluntarily causing hurt to him with a sharp pointed object. The complainant was taken to hospital but he was in extreme pain. Hence, his statement could not be recorded. It is further the story of the prosecution that on 12.10.2017, the complainant was going to PS Ranhola alongwith his father and brother. He spotted the accused on his way and his brother called the police. Police officials reached there and arrested the accused at the instance of the complainant. On basis of the statement of the complainant, present FIR was registered under Section 394/397/34 IPC against accused Vikrant Kumar.
INVESTIGATION & OTHER PROCEEDINGS
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet U/s 394/397/34 IPC was filed in the Court of Ld. MM against the accused. After completion of proceedings U/s 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. MM committed the case to Learned Sessions Court. Thereafter, the case was assigned to the Court of Ld. Predecessor and was received by this court by way of transfer.
CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 21.08.2018, charge under Section 394/397/34 IPC was framed against the accused by Ld. Predecessor Court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 2 of 25PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. To prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in total.
5. PW-1/complainant Anuj Kumar deposed that on 09.10.2017 he was going towards his house from the house of his cousin Navneet. At about 08.30 am, when he reached in the street near his house, 3-4 boys came there and snatched his mobile phone from the pocket of his pant and ran away. He followed them. Those boys stopped near MCD school situated near the spot. He asked them to return his mobile phone, on which one of the boys gave him knife blows and tried to inflict knife blows on his abdomen. However, the witness saved himself with his hands, due to which, he received injuries on his hands. Thereafter, those boys fled away from the spot. He returned to his house. His brother called on 100 number. PCR officials reached there and took him to DDU Hospital where he was medically examined. In the hospital, some police officials also came and inquired about the incident from him. He told about the incident to police in brief as he was unable to speak properly due to severe pain. He was discharged from the hospital on the same day.
6. PW-1 further deposed that on 12.10.2017, in the morning he was going towards P.S. Ranhola alongwith his father and brother to lodge complaint. On the way, he saw 3-4 persons standing in a plot. He identified accused Vikrant State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 3 of 25 as the culprit who had robbed him. His brother Sanjeev called on 100 number. PCR officials reached there and accused Vikrant was apprehended at his instance. Accused was taken to PS Ranhola where statement of PW-1 was recorded. Same is Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that as he was in severe pain from 09.10.2017 to 12.10.2017 and since his father was also not at home, he could not give his statement to the police in that duration. He pointed out the place of occurrence to police vide site plan Ex.PW1/B. He deposed that the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/D. The attested copy of the receipt of his mobile phone is Mark A. The original bill/receipt was in the custody of shopkeeper from whom, he had purchased the mobile phone on hire-purchase basis. He deposed that accused Vikrant and his one associate had given him knife blows at the time of incident. Accused's associate had caught hold of him at the time of robbing. He identified the accused as the person who had snatched his mobile phone and who had tried to give knife blows on his stomach. However, he saved himself using his hands and hence received injuries on his hands.
7. During cross examination, PW-1 stated that he lives with his brother and sister-in-law. His brother called PCR immediately. He told his brother by gestures as he was not able to speak. The PCR came within 5 minutes. He could not tell the doctor about the occurrence as he was not able to speak till then. He had told the police that after the State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 4 of 25 assailants snatched his mobile phone and started running, he followed them and near MCD school, he asked them to return his mobile phone, on which one of them, gave his knife blows. He had told to the police that the boy tried to inflict the knife blows in his abdomen. Witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PWI/A where these facts were not recorded. He denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place and accused was not involved in stabbing him or that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
8. PW-2 Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma, cousin of the complainant deposed that on 10.10.2017 he came to know about the incident which had taken place with his cousin Anuj on 09.10.2017. On 12.10.2017, he was going towards his house from Vikas Nagar alongwith Anuj. On the way, Anuj noticed that two persons were taking rest under the swing in a plot and on seeing them, Anuj told him that one of them was the same person who had robbed him. PW-2 tried to contact ASI Arun on his mobile phone. However, ASI Arun did not pick his call. Therefore, he called on 100 number. PCR officials reached there and at the instance of Anuj, accused Vikrant was apprehended.
9. PW-3 Sh. Mukta Prasad, father of the complainant deposed that on 09th of October about two years back, he received information that his son Anuj Kumar sustained knife injury and his mobile phone was snatched by some State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 5 of 25 persons. He came to Delhi. After one or two days, he alongwith Anuj and his nephew Ramesh Kumar were roaming at around 10.00-11.00 AM and when they reached near one park, where they saw the accused sitting on a motorcycle. Anuj identified the accused and his associates as the assailants who had stabbed him and snatched his mobile phone. Probably Anuj called the police 100 number. Police arrived at the spot and at the instance of Anuj, accused was arrested.
10. PW-4 ASI Arun Kumar alongwith Ct. Rajeev reached the spot on 09.10.2017 on receiving DD No. 12A. Since victim had been shifted to DDU hospital, he went to DDU hospital and obtained the MLC of the victim. Anuj Kumar had already left the hospital after treatment. He went to his house but the victim Anuj Kumar did not give any statement on that day due to pain. Hence, DD No. 12A was kept pending. On 12.10.2017, on receiving DD No.22A, he alongwith Ct. Jitender went to Vikas Kunj, Vikas Nagar, Delhi where Anuj Kumar met him alongwith his father and brother and handed over the accused to him. He recorded statement of Anuj Kumar, prepared the Rukka and handed it to Ct. Jitender for registration of FIR. After, registration of FIR, investigation was handed over to SI Jasbir Malik who also reached at the spot. One motorcycle bearing No. DL-12SC-6048, front number plate of which was broken, was seized from the possession of accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 6 of 25
11. PW-5 Sh. Ravinder Kumar was the owner of motorcycle bearing no. DL-12-SC-6048 allegedly used by the accused at the time of commission of offence. He deposed that his motorcycle was stolen from a park in Vikas Puri in August and he got an FIR was registered regarding the same. He produced the original RC of his motorcycle.
12. PW-7 SI Sunil Kumar had received the call of Ramesh on 100 number on 12.10.2017 at Channel no.150 in CPCR, PHQ at around 9.30 a.m. The caller Ramesh informed that he had caught the persons who had robbed his brother of his mobile phone. The place of incident was told by him to be Sanik Vihar, Part-II, Vikas Kunj, Kakrola ki or jane wali side, Mohan Garden, Ranhola, near Yadav Building Material. He prepared the PCR form regarding the said call which is Ex.PW7/A. He sent the said call to concerned PS as well as to the PCR for necessary action.
13. PW-8 Dr. Kushal Monga had examined the complainant Anuj on 14.05.2018 and had given the opinion regarding nature of injury as 'grievous' on the basis of injury mentioned at point A in the MLC Ex.PW8/A, written by Dr. Neelam, Junior Resident. His findings are on the back side of the MLC Ex.PW8/A at point A to A1.
14. During cross examination, PW-8 denied the suggestion that the injuries as mentioned in the MLC can be self- inflicted injuries. However, he admitted that it is possible State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 7 of 25 that the said injuries could be given by any instrument other than knife. At the time of examination of the said patient, the injuries had already healed. The opinion of 'grievous injury' is usually given when there is a permanent disability or permanent disfigurement/loss of limb or if the injury was such that it could have led to permanent disability or permanent disfigurement/loss of limb.
15. PW-9 W/HC Anju Bala was posted in CPCR, PHQ and on 09.10.2017 she received an information at around 9:13:16 from mobile number 9818983347 that brother of caller has been stabbed by some person and had been injured. The place of incident was mentioned as plot no.12 Sainik Vihar Phase-III near MCD School Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. She filled up PCR Form regarding the aforesaid call and passed on the said information to the concerned police station. The PCR form is Ex.PW9/A.
16. PW-10/IO SI Jasbir Malik deposed that on 12.10.2017 he received investigation of this case. He along with Ct. Jitender reached the place of occurrence where he met ASI Arun Kumar, who produced the complainant Anuj Kumar as well as accused before him. The complainant told him that his mobile phone make OPPO Model A37 Gold colour was robbed by the accused alongwith his two associates on 09.10.2017 and that when he was going with his brother on 12.10.2017, he had seen the accused sitting State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 8 of 25 on a bike in a nearby vacant plot and had made PCR call after apprehending the accused. ASI Arun Kumar produced one motorcycle bearing registration no.DL 12SC 6048 of make Hero Expro which was was found stolen from Vikas Puri as per the search result. He seized the said motorcycle under Section 102 Cr.P.C. vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A and prepared the site plan of place of occurrence at the instance of complainant. He recorded the statements of father and brother of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He arrested the accused and conducted his personal search. Disclosure statement of accused was also recorded. The pointing out memo of the place of occurrence Ex.PW10/A was prepared by the witness at the instance of accused. His age memo is Ex.PW10/B. During investigation, he collected the copies of the relevant DDs and PCR form which are Ex.A1, A2, A5, Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW9/A. He also obtained the copy of the cash memo of the stolen/robbed mobile phone of the complainant. He obtained the opinion regarding nature of injury on the MLC of complainant and filed the said MLC in the court on 18.05.2018 vide application Ex.PW10/D.
17. During cross examination, PW-10 stated that he reached at the spot by his car with Ct. Jitender at about 01:30 P.M. on 12.10.2017. He denied that accused Vikrant has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the complainant. He denied that accused was falsely implicated due to previous enmity between the accused and the complainant.
State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 9 of 2518. Vide his statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C, accused admitted the factum of registration of DD no. 12A dated 09.10.2017 (Ex.A1) and DD no. 22A dated 12.10.2017 PS Ranhola (Ex.A2); FIR no. 693/2017 PS Ranhola along with certificate under Section 65 B Indian Evidence Act (Ex.A3 colly) and endorsement on Rukka at point 'X' of the main complaint (Ex.A4); and the certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act having no.6865/CF (ACDS)/IC TECH.CPCR PHQ dated 02.01.2018 (Ex.A5).
19. After conclusion of Prosecution Evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the entire prosecution evidence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that the complainant was known to him beforehand as they used to reside in the same locality. He alleged that the complainant wanted to extort money from him as he was previously involved in some other criminal cases, and had threatened to falsely implicate him in criminal case. When the accused refused to give him money as per his demand, the complainant filed this false case against him in connivance with police. He could not file any complaint against the complainant as he was hand in glove with the police.
20. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence despite opportunity and the case was listed for final arguments.
State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 10 of 25Ld. Counsel for accused as well as learned Additional PP for state have advanced detailed oral submissions.
21. Learned defence counsel has submitted that there are various discrepancies in the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and various improvements have been made by PW-1 in his statement recorded before the court. In his complaint Ex.PW1/A, he had stated that the accused had assaulted him with some sharp object, however, in his examination- in-chief he stated that the assault was made using a knife. Further, the incident has allegedly taken place on 09.10.2018, but the FIR was registered only on 12.10.2018 and this delay has not been explained by the IO. Further, the PCR officials, who had taken the injured to the hospital have not been examined as PWs by the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case and accused is entitled to be acquittal.
22. Per contra, Learned Addl. PP for the state has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. She has submitted that the discrepancies in the testimony of PWs are minor ones and do not affect the prosecution case. Testimony of the complainant/PW-1 has remained intact on all the material points and has been further corroborated by the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 as well as the medical evidence. She has further submitted that delay in obtaining the doctor's opinion regarding injuries suffered by PW-1 are of no consequences as the State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 11 of 25 nature of injury is immaterial for offence under Section 394 or Section 397 IPC. Non-recovery of weapon of offence is also not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The complainant has duly identified the accused. Hence, the accused is liable to be convicted.
Court findings
23. I have heard the final arguments addressed on behalf of the accused as well as the State and perused the entire record carefully.
24. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a criminal trial, a duty is cast upon the prosecution that it has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even an iota of doubt in the prosecution story entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt.
25. The accused has been charged under Section 394/397 IPC.
Section 394 IPC reproduced as under:-
"If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to be fined."
26. Section 397 IPC is reproduced as under:-
"If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, so attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 12 of 25 which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years."
27. Both Section 394 and 397 IPC prescribes punishment for aggravated forms of the offence of robbery. Section 394 IPC contemplates causing of harm during commission of robbery or in attempting to commit robbery. Section 397 IPC talks about individual liability and is attracted only against the person who has used the deadly weapon while committing the robbery.
28. As per Section 34 IPC, when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
29. In the present case, the star witness of the prosecution is PW-1 i.e. the complainant/injured Anuj Kumar. He has deposed that on 09.10.2017, the accused alongwith his associates had snatched his mobile phone from the pocket of his pants and ran away. He followed them and asked them to return his mobile, on which he gave knife blow to him. His hands got injured when he tried to save himself. On 12.10.2017, when he was going to PS Ranhola along with his father and brother, he saw the accused along with 3-4 persons in a plot. He has duly identified the accused as the person who had snatched his mobile and given knife blows to him.
State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 13 of 2530. It is a settled law that ocular evidence of the victim or the injured is considered the best evidence. In the case titled as "State of U.P. v. Naresh", (2011) 4 SCC 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed:-
"27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107], Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262])."
31. In the case titled as "Balu Sudam Khalde Vs. State of Maharashtra" MANU/SC/0328/2023 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India gave observation as to how the testimony of an injured person is to be considered. It was held, "26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the Accused.State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 14 of 25
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the Accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the Accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence."
32. In light of the aforesaid judgments, let us examine the testimony of PW-1 Anuj Kumar. He has given a detailed, reliable and truthful account of the incident. He specifically deposed that the accused alongwith 2-3 persons had restrained him in a gali and demanded his belongings. He also identified the accused as the person who had given him State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 15 of 25 knife blows on his abdomen. He deposed that he got injuries on his hand when he tried to save himself from the knife blows which were aimed at his abdomen. PW-1 was subjected to a detailed cross examination by Learned defence counsel. However, apart from a few minor contradictions, there is no major contradiction in his testimony so as to discard his testimony or disbelieve the same. The defence had not been able to impeach the veracity of the statement of PW-1 or to shake his credibility.
33. It is the defence of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials in connivance with the complainant as the complainant wanted to extort money from him. However, no such suggestion has been given to the complainant/PW-1 that he was previously known to the accused or that he had demanded money from him or threatened to falsely implicate him in criminal case. No suggestion has been given that PW-1 had acted in connivance with the police to falsely implicate the accused as he failed to give money to PW-1. Also, it appears highly improbable that the complainant would injure himself with a knife, only with a view to falsely implicate the accused.
34. The prosecution story is further supported by the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3. Both these witnesses had accompanied PW-1 on 12.10.2017, when he was going to the police station and had spotted the accused on their way. They had State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 16 of 25 both identified the accused before the court. PW-2 had called the police and this factum is proved by the PCR form Ex.PW7/A, wherein the name of the caller is mentioned as Ramesh Sharma and the information given by him is 'caller ke bhai ke sath jinhone lootpat ki thi ve log yaha per hai jinko pakdwana hai'. In the same PCR form it is further mentioned that the PCR van had reached the spot and reported that four boys were present at the spot on an empty plot and they tried to escape on seeing the police. They were apprehended by the PCR van officials. One of the boys so apprehended was the accused Vikrant, whose name is mentioned as Gollu S/o Vijay Kumar in the PCR form Ex. PW7/A. Hence, the presence of PW-2 at the place from where the accused was apprehended and the factum of his calling the PCR has been duly proved by the prosecution.
35. Ld. counsel for the accused has submitted that PW-1 deposed that the accused persons were sitting in a park, while PW-2 deposed that they were sitting on a swing, while PW-3 deposed that they were sitting on a bike, which is a major discrepancy. However, the court does not agree with this contention. These are only minor discrepancies and do not affect the root of the prosecution case.
36. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the case titled as "Vijay @ Chinee v. State of M.P. (2010) 8 SCC191" it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 17 of 25 "19. It is settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, may not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety.
20. In State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash [(2007) 12 SCC 381 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 411], while dealing with a similar issue, this Court held that : (SCC p. 384, para 12) "12. ... Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be levelled as omissions or contradictions." In State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony [(1985) 1 SCC 505 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 105 : AIR 1985 SC 48], this Court laid down certain guidelines in this regard, which require to be followed by the courts in such cases. The Court observed as under : (SCC pp. 514- 15, para 10) "10. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 18 of 25 of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross-examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer."
37. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed in the case titled as "Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra"(2010) 13 SCC 657, "30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide State v. Saravanan [(2008) 17 SCC 587 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 580 : AIR 2009 SC152])
38. Coming to the case in hand, the discrepancies pointed out by learned defence counsel in the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are minor discrepancies and do not affect the prosecution story so as to discard it. The testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are consistent with each other and there is a ring of truth in their testimonies as a whole. There is no reason for the witnesses to let the real culprit roam free and falsely implicate the accused.
39. The testimony of PW-1 is sufficiently corroborated by the medical record as well. The MLC Ex.PW8/A dated 09.10.2017 shows that there is alleged history of physical assault by knife and the injured/PW-1 had received two State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 19 of 25 Clear Lacerated Wounds (CLW), approx. 4 X 0.5 cm over his left palm. He was given medicines and his wounds were sutured.
40. Another arguments raised by Ld. counsel of accused is that the nature of injury was given a 'grievous' by PW-8/Dr. Kushal Monga on 14.05.2018, i.e. after more than 07 months from the date of incident, hence, it cannot be relied upon.
41. In the present case, PW-8 Dr. Kushal Monga admitted in his cross examination that at the time of examination of patient Anuj for the purpose of opinion regarding injury, the injuries had already healed. Further, he also deposed that he had opined the nature of injury as grievous on the basis of the injury mentioned at point A in the MLC Ex.PW8/A i.e. the clear lacerated wounds suffered by the injured. Even otherwise for the purpose of proving Section 394 IPC, the nature of injury is immaterial. The essential ingredient of Section 394 IPC is that hurt should have been caused voluntarily during robbery or in attempt to commit robbery. Hence, the delay in obtaining the nature of injury has no bearing on the present case.
42. Another argument raised by Learned defence counsel is that the weapon of offence was not recovered. However, it is a settled rule of law that non-recovery of the weapon of offence is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. In the State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 20 of 25 case titled as 'State through the Inspector of Police vs. Laly and Ors.' MANU/SC/1341/2022, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the Accused. If there is direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted. Similarly in the case titled as 'Mekala Sivaiah Vs. State of Andra Pradesh' AIR 2022 SC 3378, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when there is ample ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, mere non recovery of weapon from the appellant would not materially affect the case of prosecution.
43. Yet another argument raised by learned defence counsel is that since the alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife was never recovered, it has not been proved that the accused had used a deadly weapon and hence offence under Section 397 IPC has not been proved. However, it is a well-settled law that conviction under Section 397 IPC is not based on consequential recovery of the weapon but on the user. If the Court is satisfied that a deadly weapon is used by the accused, then Section 397 IPC is clearly attracted. If the accused had shown a deadly weapon and instilled fear of instant hurt or death while committing robbery, it is sufficient to constitute "use of deadly weapon" within the ambit of Section 397 IPC. Non- recovery of weapon is not material. What is essential to satisfy the word "Uses" under this provision is that a deadly weapon was within the vision of the victim so as to State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 21 of 25 be capable of creating a terror in his mind. It is also been held in a plethora of cases that the size or dimension of the knife are not required to be looked into for the purpose of Section 397 IPC. Even a kitchen knife or paper knife is considered a deadly weapon for the purpose of this section. In the case titled as "Phool Kumar v Delhi Administration", (1975) 1 SCC 797, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as below, "When the offence of robbery is committed by an offender being armed with a deadly weapon which was within the vision of the victim so as to be capable of creating a terror in his mind, the offender must be deemed to have used that deadly weapon in the commission of the robbery."
44. In the present case, PW-1 has specifically deposed that the accused was the person who had inflicted knife blows to him. Hence, the accused not only showed a knife to the complainant to instill fear in him to part with his property, but also used the knife to inflict injuries on him. Hence, the offence under Section 394 IPC as well as Section 397 IPC has been duly proved. Non-recovery of the knife used to inflict the said injuries is immaterial.
45. Yet another argument raised by Learned defence counsel is regarding delay in registration of FIR. However, it is a settled position in law that mere delay in lodging an FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case and discard it. The delay in lodging the FIR puts the Court on its guard to search if any plausible explanation has been offered and if offered whether it is satisfactory. However, State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 22 of 25 this delay should be well-explained. In the case titled as 'State of H.P. V Gian Chand' AIR 2001 SC 2075, it was observed by Hon'ble Suprme Court, "Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the Court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case."
46. In the present case, there is a delay of only three days in registration of the FIR. However, as per the PCR form Ex.PW9/A, a call was received from one Rakesh Kumar on 09.10.2017 at around 09:20 a.m. that his brother has been injured as someone had hit him with a knife. PCR van reached the spot and took the injured to the hospital. As per the PCR form Ex.PW9/A, "Injured ने बताया कि गली से निकल रहा था-इसको घेर लिया-3-4 लड़के थे खाली प्लाट में ले गए और मोबाइल ना देने पर हाथ की उँगली पर लग रहा है चाकू मार रहे थे पेट में इसने चाकू पकड़ लिया तब injured हुआ था-लड़के इसका मोबाइल ले कर भाग गए"
47. It is also seen that DD entry no. 12A, Ex.A1 was recorded on basis of the said information. PW-1 has himself deposed that he was in extreme pain and refused to give statement on 09.10.2017. As deposed by PW-4 ASI Arun State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 23 of 25 also, since the complainant refused to give statement, DD no.12A was kept pending. It was on 12.10.2017, i.e 3 days after the incident that the injured went to the police station with his father and cousin. It has been proved that on his way to the PS, he spotted the accused and they called the police. PCR form Ex.PW7/A and DD entry no.22A Ex.A2 have already been proved in that respect. Hence, the court is of the considered opinion that the delay in lodging the present FIR is for the reason that the injured's statement could not be recorded on the date of incident itself as he was in severe pain. There is no reason to doubt the prosecution case on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR.
48. In view of the above discussion this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the allegations made against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has been proved that the accused had committed theft of the mobile phone of the complainant from his possession without his consent, after putting him in fear of instant hurt by showing him a knife. It has further been proved that the accused had caused hurt to the complainant by inflicting knife injuries on his hand while escaping with his mobile phone. Hence, the prosecution has successfully proved the charges against the accused and the accused is liable to be convicted.
49. Hence, the accused is convicted for offence under Section 394/397/34 IPC.
State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 24 of 2550. Now to come up for arguments on the point of sentence on 04.03.2025.
51. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused alongwith coversheet as per practice direction by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi contained vide no.124/Rules/DHC dated 10.12.2024. Digitally signed by SAUMYA SAUMYA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2025.03.04 14:07:07 +0530 Announced in the open court (Saumya Chauhan) today i.e. 28.02.2025 ASJ/FTC)-02, West Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 25 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by SAUMYA SAUMYA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2025.03.04 14:07:13 +0530 (Saumya Chauhan) ASJ/FTC)-02, West Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 28.02.2025 State Vs. Vikrant Kumar SC No.35/18 FIR No. 693/17 Page 25 of 25