Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh@Bunti on 23 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
ASJ (FTC)-02, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR no. DLWT01-009655-2019
SC No.689/2019
FIR no.318/2019
State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr.
PS: Mundka
Under Section : 394/397/411/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act
Date of commission of offence 31.08.2019
Name of the complainant Sh. Mohan Singh S/o Sh.
Raghunath
Name of accused persons and 1.Rajesh @ Bunty S/o Sh.
address Om Prakash, R/o H.No.15,
Harijan Basti, Village
Rasulpur, Delhi.
2. Rohit S/o Sh.Jagat
Singh, R/o H.No.11,
Harijan Basti, Village
Rasulpur, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved 394/397/411/34 IPC &
25/27 Arms Act
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Accused Rajesh @ Bunty
Convicted under Section
394/34 IPC. He is further
convicted under Section
397 IPC and 25 Arms Act
1959.
Accused Rohit
Convicted under Section
394/34 IPC.
Date of judgment 23.01.2026
FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 1 of 26
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons Rajesh @ Bunty and Rohit are facing trial for offence under Section 394/397/411/34 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act, on basis of the charge-sheet filed against them in the present FIR, for committing robbery of the purse containing cash amount of Rs.10,000/- and OPPO mobile phone from the possession of the complainant Sh. Mohan Singh and causing hurt to him with a country made pistol.
PROSECUTION STORY
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.09.2019, SI Rajender Singh and Ct. Prashant received DD no.50A at PS Mundka and reached the spot i.e. road going towards Bahadurgarh, Mundka factory area, Metro Station. The complainant Mohan Singh met them at the spot. He produced the accused Bunty and one countrymade pistol .315. One motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-4SCL-2866 was also found at the spot. The complainant told the IO that he was going towards his house on scooty bearing registration no. DL-10SH-9869 at about 10:15 PM. He stopped his scooty on the service road near Mundka factory area, Metro station for answering nature's call. Two boys came from behind on a motorcycle. One of them pointed a countrymade pistol at him and the other boy took out his brown colour purse having Rs.10,000/- and his mobile phone make OPPO forcibly. When he tried to resist them, the boy carrying the pistol hit on his head with the same. However, complainant snatched the pistol and raised alarm. The accused Bunty was apprehended alongwith the motorcycle at the spot FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 2 of 26 with help of public persons. However, the other boy managed to escape with the mobile phone and purse.
3. On basis of the statement of the complainant, the present FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. The IO prepared the sketch memo of the pistol and seized the same. The accused Rohit was arrested on the next morning and the mobile phone and purse containing Rs.10,000/- of the complainant were recovered from his possession. One live cartridge was also recovered from his possession.
4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under Section 394/397/411/34 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act was filed in the Court of Ld. MM against the accused persons. After completion of proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. MM committed the case to the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the case was assigned to the Court of Learned Predecessor and was received by this court by way of transfer.
FRAMING OF CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 27.02.2020 charge under Section 394/34 IPC was framed against both accused persons namely Rajesh @ Bunty and Rohit. Separate charge under Section 397 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act was framed against accused Rajesh @ Bunty and separate charge for offence under Section 411 IPC against accused Rohit was framed by Ld. Predecessor. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 3 of 26PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. To prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in total.
7. PW1/Mohan Singh deposed that on 31.08.2019 at about 9:30 pm he left his work place for Bahadurgarh on a two- wheeler near Mundka Industrial Area, he stopped his vehicle and got down for urinating. Both the accused persons came there on motorcycle and hit him on his back with a firearm and took out his mobile phone and purse containing Rs. 10,600/-. He raised alarm and public persons gathered there and apprehended accused Rajesh @ Bunty. However, the co-accused Rohit managed to escape. PW-1 requested accused Rajesh @ Bunty to return his mobile phone and purse but he did not agree for the same. PW-1 called on 100 number. Police came there and they were taken to police station. His statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded.
8. PW-1/Mohan Singh further deposed that the co-accused was apprehended by police on the next day in the morning and his name was revealed as Rohit. The witness correctly identified accused both the accused persons before the court. He deposed that IO prepared the site plan of the spot, Ex. PW-1/B. Police prepared documents in respect of recovery of weapon and live cartridges etc. Motorcycle of the accused persons was also seized by the police. The witness identified his signatures on seizure memo of the cartridge and the pistol, sketch memo of country made pistol, sketch memo of cartridge, seizure memo of mobile phone and purse, seizure memo of motorcycle, and arrest FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 4 of 26 memo and personal search memo of both the accused persons. Same are Ex. PW-1/C to Ex. PW-I/L. He also identified his mobile phone as Ex.P1 and purse as Ex.P2. PW-1 also deposed that it was the accused Rajesh who had hit him with the country made pistol on his back/head.
9. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded at the police station at about 10.15 pm. He stated that he had refused medical. He stated that Ex. PW-1/C was prepared on the next date when other accused was arrested. It was prepared at 10:30 to 11:00 am in the police station. Ex.PW-1/E was prepared on 31.08.2019 at midnight. PW-1 further stated that he had seen both the accused persons at the spot. He denied that he had not seen any accused person due to darkness. He admitted that judicial TIP of case property was not conducted.
10. PW-2/ASI Azad Singh had recorded the information regarding robbery of mobile phone and money on 31.08.2019 at about 11:30 PM vide DD No. 50A Ex. PW2/A. PW-3/Rtd SI Rajender Singh, duty officer recorded the present FIR through computer operator on 31.08.2019, on receiving the rukka sent by SI Rajender Singh through Ct. Prashant. Computer generated copy of FIR is Ex.PW-3/A and his endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW-3/B. His Certificate U/S 65-B of the Evidence Act is Ex.PW-3/C.
11. PW-8/IO Retired SI Rajinder Singh deposed that on the FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 5 of 26 intervening night of 31.08.2019/01.09.2019 at about 11:33 p.m., he received DD no.50A (Ex.PW2/A), on which he along with PW-4/Ct.Prashant went to Industrial Area, Mundka Metro Station towards the side going to Bahadurgarh. The complainant Mohan Singh met him there along with some other public persons. Mohan produced the accused Rajesh stating that he had apprehended the said person with the help of public persons. He also produced one country made pistol/desi katta, stating that he snatched it from the accused with the help of public persons. One motorcycle having registration no. DL-4SCL-2866 was lying there. The complainant Mohan told him that the said accused Bunty along with his associates had come on the said motorcycle and had committed robbery of his articles using the said country made pistol.
12. PW-8/IO further deposed that he requested the public persons to join the investigation but they all left citing their personal difficulty without disclosing their name and addresses. He prepared the sketch of the said country made pistol Ex.PW1/E. On measuring, the total length of the said country made pistol was 7 cm, whereas the barrel was 9.5 cm long. The handle of pistol was having wood on both sides. He kept the said country made pistol in a cloth parcel and sealed it with the seal of RST. He seized the pullanda vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. The above motorcycle was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/H.
13. PW-8/IO further deposed that he recorded the statement of complainant, Ex.PW1/A and prepared tehrir, Ex.PW8/A. He FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 6 of 26 handed it over to Ct. Prashant with directions to get a case registered at PS Mundka. He prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence on the pointing out of the complainant. Same is Ex.PW1/D. After some time, Ct. Prashant came back with copy of FIR no.318/2019 and original rukka and handed it over to him. He wrote the number of FIR on all the above said memos.
14. PW-8 further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Bunty Ex.PW4/A. He disclosed the name of his associate as Rohit and that he is resident of village Rasulpur, Delhi. He arrested the accused Rajesh vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/J and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PWI/K. Thereafter, he went in search of co- accused Rohit, alogwith accused Bunty @ Rajesh, Ct. Prashant and complainant.
15. PW-8/IO further deposed that on their way to village Rasulpur, Delhi, accused Rajesh @ Bunty pointed at one person near primary school, Rani Khera village. The complainant immediately identified him as one of the robbers, who has committed the incident of robbery with him. The said person was apprehended and he disclosed his name as Rohit. He took cursory search of Rohit and from the left side pocket of his pant, one live cartridge was recovered, whereas from the back side pocket of his pant, one purse/wallet of brown colour, containing cash amount of Rs.10,600/- (17 currency notes of Rs.500/-, 1 currency note of Rs.2000/- and 1 currency note of Rs.100/-) was recovered. One mobile phone of make Oppo was also recovered FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 7 of 26 from accused Rohit. PW-8/IO seized the purse and mobile phone recovered from accused Rohit vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G. He prepared sketch of the recovered cartridge Ex.PW1/F and sealed it in a cloth pullanda and seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. Accused Rohit was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/1 and his personal search was taken vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/L. The disclosure statement of accused Rohit was recorded vide memo Ex.PW4/C. Pointing out memo Ex.PW4/D was prepared at the instance of accused persons. He identified the photocopy of photographs of motorcycle no. DL-4SCL-2866 and as Ex.PW8/B (in 2 pages). As stated by MHC (M), the said motorcycle was released to superdar Sh. Bijender S/o Surajbhan as per order dated 13.09.2019 passed by Ld. MM. PW-8 also identified the country made pistol which was seized by him as Ex.P3, and one empty cartridge in several pieces, which was seized by him when it was live cartridge, as PW8/Article-2.
16. During cross-examination, PW-8 stated that public persons refused to give any statement. He did not record their names nor gave any notice to them. He stated that the country made pistol was handed over to him by the complainant and was not recovered from possession of accused Rajesh @ Bunty. He had not prepared sample seal at the time of seizure of weapon. He admitted that he had not sealed the purse and mobile phone before seizure. He had not prepared sample seal at the time of seizure of the cartridge. He admitted that he did not mention in the seizure memos of country made pistol and cartridge that the FSL form was filled up. He admitted that judicial TIP of purse FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 8 of 26 and currency notes was not conducted.
17. PW-4/HC Prashant deposed on the same lines as PW-8/IO and corroborated his testimony regarding receiving DD no.50-A dated 31.08.2019, apprehension of accused Rajesh @ Bunty and regarding proceedings like preparation of sketch memo, arrest memo, seizure memo etc. He deposed that he had taken the tehrir Ex.PW8/A to PS Mundka and got the FIR registered.
18. PW-4 further corroborated the testimony of PW-8 with respect to apprehension of accused Rohit on identification of the complainant, recovery of the mobile phone and purse of the complainant, recovery of live cartridge from the accused Rohit and preparation of the seizure memos and arrest/personal search memos etc.
19. PW-9/Deepak Yadav, Additional DCP-II, Outer District, Delhi had accorded the sanction under Section 39 Arms Act against accused persons namely Rajesh @ Bunty and Rohit S/o Sh. Jagat Singh in case FIR no.318/2019 PS Mundka after perusing the documents placed before me i.e. certified copy of the FIR along with copy of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., the statements of witnesses recorded by IO u/s 161 Cr.P.C. as well as all the relevant documents of the case file. The sanction order under Section 39 Arms Act dated 18.03.2024 is Ex.PW9/A.
20. PW-10 Ct. Chaman deposed that on 27.09.2019 he had taken two sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of RST to FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 9 of 26 FSL Rohini from Malkhana of PS Mundka vide RC no.157/21/19, which is Mark PW10/A and copy of FSL acknowledgment dated 27.09.2019 is Mark PW10/B.
21. PW-11 ASI Pradeep Kumar deposed that on 01.09.2019, IO/SI Rajender deposited one motorcycle having number plate DL 4SCL 2866, one brown colour purse containing currency notes amounting to Rs.10,600/-, one mobile phone of make Oppo having black screen and rubber mobile cover, two sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of RST, one containing one live cartridge and the other containing country made pistol in the Malkhana as well as personal search articles of the accused vide entry at serial no.1380 in register no.19. Same is Ex. PW11/A (OSR). He further deposed that on 17.09.2019, the above said motorcycle was released to the Superdar namely Vijender vide Ex.PW11/A. He further deposed that on 27.09.2019 vide RC no.157/21/19, both the above said sealed parcels were sent to FSL, Rohini and his endorsement in register no. 19 is at portion Y on Ex.PW11/A. On 06.02.2024, the FSL result was received from FSL in the Malkhana through Ct. Kuldeep and the endorsement made by the then MHC(M) is at point Z on Ex.PW11/A. The photocopies of the RC no.157/21/19 is Ex.PW11/B (OSR) and photocopy of FSL acknowledgment is Ex.PW11/C (OSR).
22. During cross-examination, he stated that the seals on the parcels were not broken/opened by any person during the period they remained in the Malkhana. He denied the suggestion that the FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 10 of 26 seals on pullandas were tampered with by the IO in the Malkhana.
23. PW-6/ASI Sunil Kumar deposed that on 19.09.2019 present case file was marked to him for further investigation. He got deposited the exhibits at FSL office on 27.09.2019 through Ct. Chaman Lal. On 17.10.2019, he prepared the challan and filed it in the court.
24. PW-5/Prerna Lakra, Senior Scientific Officer, (Ballistics), FSL deposed that she had examined the contents of two sealed parcels, parcel nos. 1 and 2 sealed with the seal of RST, received in FSL through Ct. Chaman. The first parcel contained one country made pistol .315" bore and was marked as exhibit 'F1' by her. The second parcel contained one 8mm/.315" Cartridge and was marked as exhibit 'A1' by her. After examination, she prepared her report, Ex.PW5/A and gave the following opinion -
(i) The country made pistol .315" bore as Ex.'F1' is designed to fire standard 8mm/.315" cartridges. It was in working order. Test fire was conducted successfully.
(ii)The 8mm/.315" cartridge Ex.A1 was live one and could be fired through .315" caliber firearm.
(iii)The 8mm/.315" cartridge Ex. A1 was test fired through the country made pistol .315" bore, Ex F1. During test firing the cartridge Ex.A1 bursted.
(iv) The Ex. F1 is a firearm and Ex. A1 is ammunition as defined in the Arms Act 1959.
FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 11 of 2625. During her cross-examination, PW-5 denied that the exhibits were not sealed when she received the same.
26. PW-7/SI Karamveer had filed supplementary challan after receiving the FSL result and after obtaining the permission of PW-9/Sh Deepak Yadav, Addl. DCP-II under Section 39 Arms Act, which is Ex.PW9/A.
27. After conclusion of Prosecution Evidence, statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused persons denied the entire prosecution evidence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present and that they were lifted from there house by officials of PS Mundka and falsely implicated in the present case.
28. The accused did not lead any defence evidence despite opportunity and case was listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
29. Detailed oral submissions have been made by Learned APP for state as well as by Learned defence counsel.
30. Ld. Counsels for accused Rajesh @ Bunty submits that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police official in connivance with the complainant. There are material discrepancies and improvements in the testimony of PW-1. In his complaint Ex.PW1/A he has stated that his purse was having Rs.10,000/- while in his testimony before the court FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 12 of 26 he deposed that his purse contained Rs.10,605/-. Similarly, in the statement Ex.PW/A, the complainant stated that he was hit on his head while in his testimony he deposed that he was hit in the back.
31. He has submitted that there are various lapses in the investigation by the IO. It is further submitted that as per PW-1, public persons were present at the spot and they had helped him in nabbing the accused Rajesh. However, IO failed to record any statement of the said public persons nor he noted down their names and other details. Also, there is no MLC of the complainant on the record. Mobile phone and the purse were produced by MHC (M) in an unsealed condition. Also, no judicial TIP of the purse and the mobile phone was conducted. He has further submitted that the countrymade pistol Ex.P-3 has been falsely planted on the accused Rajesh @ Bunty. It is further submitted that no FSL form was prepared by IO at any point of time. Further, as stated by the IO, no sample seal was prepared or deposited in the Malkhana then how can sample seal was sent to the FSL.
32. Ld. counsel for accused Rohit has also submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. No judicial TIP of the accused Rohit was also conducted. Further, the complainant/PW-1 failed to tell the denomination of the currency notes.
33. On the other hand, Ld. Additional PP for State has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 13 of 26 charges against the accused persons. PW-1/complainant Mohan Singh has duly supported the prosecution case. Further, accused Rajesh @ Bunty was apprehended at the spot while the accused Rohit was apprehended only after a few hours from the incident. The purse and mobile phone of the complainant were also recovered from the possession of the accused Rohit. She has further submitted that the discrepancies as pointed out in the testimony of PW-1 are minor ones and do not discredit the prosecution case. It has further been submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that even if there was any lapse in the investigation, it cannot be a ground of acquittal of the accused persons, especially when they have duly been identified as the culprits by PW-1 before the court.
COURT FINDINGS
34. I have heard the final arguments addressed on behalf of the accused persons and the State and perused the entire record carefully.
35. The accused persons namely Rajesh @ Bunty and Rohit have been charged for offence under Section 394/34 IPC fro committing robbery of the mobile phone and purse containing Rs.10506/- from the possession of the complainant after causing hurt to him. The accused Rajesh has also been charged for offence under Section 397 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act for using a countrymade pistol while committing the said robbery. Accused Rohit has been charged with offence under Section 411 IPC as the mobile phone and purse of the complainant were recovered from his possession.
FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 14 of 2636. The offence of robbery is defined under Section 390 IPC. Theft or extortion is robbery if in order to commit of the said theft, or in committing the theft, or in carry away or attempting to carrying away property obtained by 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 instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. To prove a robbery under Section 390 IPC, prosecution has to establish that :
i) in order to commit theft, or while committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft;
ii) The accused voluntarily causes or attempt to cause to any person death, or hurt, or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
37. The offence of theft is defined under Section 378 IPC as per which whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
38. Section 394 IPC and Section 397 IPC are aggravated forms of the offence of robbery. Section 394 IPC is attracted when hurt is caused voluntarily in committing robbery or while attempting to commit robbery. This section is applicable to the person who has actually caused the hurt as well as the other accused persons FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 15 of 26 who have not actually caused the hurt but were jointly concerned in causing hurt. Hence, the perpetrator of hurt as well as to the others who were jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit robbery are constructively liable under this section.
39. Section 397 IPC prescribes punishment for use of deadly weapon or causing grievous hurt to a person, or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt while committing robbery. Unlike Section 394 IPC, the concept of vicarious/constructive liability is not applicable to Section 397 IPC. Section 34 has no application to a case covered by Section 397 IPC. Section 397 IPC relates only to the offender who actually uses the deadly weapon. Guilt of the accused under this section can be attributed only to the offender who uses deadly weapons or causes grievous hurt to anyone during the course of commission of robbery. To prove the charge under Section 397 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had used a deadly weapon while committing the robbery as alleged.
40. 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.
41. Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 prescribes punishment for possession of any prohibited arms and ammunition. Section 27 Arms Act prescribes punishment for using arms and ammunition without license or prohibited arms and ammunition.
FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 16 of 2642. In the present case, the star witness of the prosecution is PW-1/Mohan Singh, being the victim and the sole eye-witness. He has given a detailed and reliable account of the entire incident. He has also identified both accused persons before the court. He specifically identified the accused Rajesh @ Bunty as the person who was carrying countrymade pistol and had hit him with the said pistol.
43. It is a settled law that ocular evidence of the injured witness or the victim is the best evidence. In the case titled as "Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P." 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1027, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. It was observed, "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." Similarly, in the case titled as "State of U.P. v. Naresh" 2011 SCC OnLine SC 450, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under, "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 FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 17 of 26 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])"
44. The testimony of PW-1 has been assailed by Ld. defence counsel on the ground that it suffers from various contradictions and improvements. He has submitted that in his complaint Ex. PW1/A, the complainant stated the amount in his purse to be Rs.10,000/-, however in his testimony before the court, he stated it to be Rs.10,605/-. Also, he did not mention in his statement Ex.PW1/A that he was going to Bahadurgarh; or about the denomination of the currency notes.
45. It is well-settled that minor discrepancies, which do not strike at the root of the prosecution story should not be considered by the court, if the evidence otherwise appears to be trustworthy and reliable. In the case titled as "Kusti Mallaiah v. State of A.P." 2013 SCC OnLine SC 490, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, "18. At this juncture, it is also apt to reproduce a passage from State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony [(1985) 1 SCC 505 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 105] wherein it has been laid down as follows :
"10. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 18 of 26 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 scrutinise 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."
46. Similarly, in Appabhai .Vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1988 SC 694 Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the courts while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation, and which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. discrepancies should not be given importance. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter to demolish the entire prosecution story. The Courts should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy.
47. In the present case, the contradictions as pointed out by Learned Counsel are minor ones and do not strike at the root of the prosecution case. The testimony of PW-1 has a ring of truth on a whole and cannot be discarded on basis of these minor FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 19 of 26 contradictions. The improvements made by PW-1 in his testimony merely elaborate the incident. He has not added anything new to the original version, nor has he made any contradictory statement in his testimony before the court. The improvements made by him are only explanatory ones. Hence, this argument of Ld. defence counsel is untenable.
48. The complainant/PW-1 Mohan Singh, who is the sole eye- witness, has given a trustworthy and reliable account of the incident of robbery as alleged. He has duly identified both the accused persons as the persons who had hurt him and robbed him of his purse and mobile phone. He specifically identified the accused Rajesh as the person who was carrying the countrymade pistol and had hit him on his head/back with it. There are no major discrepancies in his testimony. The defence has not been able to impeach the credibility of this witness or veracity of his statement despite a lengthy cross-examination. In fact, in his cross-examination PW-1 once again stated that he had seen the accused persons at the spot. There is no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons. Why would the complainant falsely implicate the accused persons and let the real culprits go scot-free.
49. Another argument raised by Ld. counsel is that there are various lapses in the investigation conducted by IO. It has been submitted that no sample seal was prepared by the IO nor any FSL form was prepared by him at any point of time. Hence, possibility of planting of the firearm on the accused Rajesh @ FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 20 of 26 Bunty cannot be ruled out. Further, there is difference in the time of preparation of the sketch memo and seizure memo of the firearm in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-8/IO. He also failed to record statement of public persons despite their presence at the spot.
50. It is well settled law that the faulty investigation does not give right to the accused to seek acquittal against the charge framed. In the case titled as 'Father Shepherd v. State of NCT of Delhi' 2007 (2) CC cases (DHC) 472 it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, "Merely, because the investigation has been conducted in a slipshod and defective manner and some lacunae have been left by the Investigating Officer, an accused cannot be acquitted. Conviction or acquittal of an accused depends upon the evidence adduced in the Court."
51. Further, in the case titled as 'State of West Bengal v Mir Mohd. Omar & Ors' JT 2000 (9) SC 467 it was held by hon'ble Supreme Court, "If offenders are acquitted only on account of flaws or defects in investigation, the cause of criminal justice becomes the victim. Effort should be made by courts to see that criminal justice is salvaged despite such defects in investigation. Courts should bear in mind the time constraints of the police officers in the present system, the ill-equipped machinery they have to cope with and the traditional apathy of respectable persons to come forward for giving evidence in criminal cases which are realities, the police force have to confront with while conducting investigation in almost every case."
52. In the present case, PW-1/ Mohan Singh has specifically FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 21 of 26 deposed that accused Rajesh @ Bunty was carrying a country made pistol and had hit him with the same on his back/head. He specifically identified the accused Rajesh as the one who had hit him with the pistol. He also deposed that he has snatched the same from the said accused and apprehended him with help of public persons. The said pistol was handed over to the IO by PW-1. The seizure memo as well as sketch memo of the said pistol, Ex.PW1/C and Ex. PW-1/E respectively bears the signatures of PW-1/Mohan Singh and he has duly identified his signatures thereupon. Hence, the prosecution story cannot be disbelived due to difference in timing of preparationof exhibits or not sealing the stolen articles by IO.
53. Also, it is a settled law that it is not the quantity but quality of the evidence which is to be considered by the court. In the case titled as "Vadivelu Thevar and Anr v State of Madras" AIR 1967 SC 614 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, "(1) As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.
(2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character.
(3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 22 of 26 and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes."
54. Hence, since the testimony of PW-1 has remained unimpeaced, the court is of the considered opinion that non- joining of other public witnesses by the IO does not affect the case of the prosecution.
55. Further, the country made pistol recovered from the possession of the accused Rajesh @ Bunty was sent to FSL lab for examination. As per the FSL result Ex.PW5/A, the said pistol was opined to be a firearm as defined in the Arms Act 1959. The sanction under Section 39 Arms Act has also been accorded by PW-9/Sh. Deepak Yadav, DCP concerned.
56. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has successfully proved that the accused Rajesh @ Bunty was in possession of a firearm at the time of the alleged incident and had used the same to cause hurt to the complainant/PW-1 Mohan Singh on his head. Hence, the accused Rajesh @ Bunty is liable to be convicted under Section 394/34 IPC as well as U/S 397 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act 1959. However, the accused did not use the countrymade pistol to shoot at the complainant or any other person. He used the butt of the pistol to hit PW-1 on his head/back. Hence, he cannot be convicted under Section 27 Arms Act, 1959.
57. As far as accused Rohit is concerned, PW-1 Mohan Singh FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 23 of 26 has duly identified him before the court as one of the assailants who had wrongfully restrained him and forcibly taken out his mobile phone and purse containing money. He also deposed that the said assailant escaped with his mobile and purse. He also deposed that the accused Rohit was arrested on the next day in morning. The purse and mobile phone of PW-1/complainant were also recovered from the possession of the accused Rohit which the said witness duly identified as Ex.P-1 and P-2 respectively.
58. An argument has been raised by Ld. defence counsel that no judicial TIP of the accused Rohit or of the case property was conducted. However, as argued by Learned APP for state, there was no need to conduct judicial TIP of the accused Rohit or of the case property as the accused was apprehended after being identified by the complainant, and the case property was recovered from his possession in presence of the complainant. IO/PW-8 SI Rajender Singh had deposed that accused Bunty @ Rajesh led them to village Rasulpur and when they reached the said village, accused Rohit was apprehended on being identified by the complainant. PW-1 has also deposed that the accused Rohit was arrested on the next morning. He also identified his signatures on the seizure memo of the purse and mobile phone Ex. PW-1/G, sketch memo of the live cartridge recovered from the possession of accused Rohit Ex. PW-1/F and his arrest memo Ex. PW-1/I. He has also not been cross-examined by the defence on this aspect. No suggestion has been given to PW-1 that he did not accompany IO to apprehend Rohit or that the accused Rohit was not apprehended in his presence. No suggestion was given to FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 24 of 26 PW-1 regarding preparation of the above-said memos or regarding his signatures thereupon.
59. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has led cogent and reliable evidence to prove the ingredients of offence u/s 394/34 IPC against the accused Rohit. It has been proved that he alongwith co-accused Rajesh @ Bunty, in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of the mobile phone and purse of the complainant, and while committing the said robbery, caused hurt to the complainant. Hence, the accused Rohit is liable to be convicted under Section 394/34 IPC.
FINAL DECISION
60. In view of the above discussion, accused Rajesh @ Bunty S/o Sh. Om Prakash and accused Rohit S/o Sh. Jagat Singh are convicted for offence punishable under Section 394 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The accused Rajesh @ Bunty is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and 25 Arms Act 1959.
61. The accused Rohit has also been charged with offence under Section 411 IPC. However, since the accused Rohit has already been convicted under Section 394/34 IPC, he cannot be separately convicted for offence under Section 411 IPC with respect to the recovery of robbed mobile phone and purse of the complainant.
FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 25 of 2662. 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 signedby SAUMYA SAUMYA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:41 +0530 Announced in the open court (Saumya Chauhan) today i.e. 23rd January, 2026 ASJ (FTC)-02, West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 26 pages and each page bears my signatures. SAUMYA Digitally signed by SAUMYA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:49 +0530 (Saumya Chauhan) ASJ (FTC)-02, West Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi 23.01.2026 FIR no. 318/19 State Vs. Rajesh @ Bunty & Anr. Page 26 of 26