Delhi District Court
State vs Adil And Ors on 8 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CNR No. DLSH01-000449-2020
SC No. 15/2020
FIR No. 238/2019
PS : Shahdara
U/s : 328/379/411/34 IPC
STATE
VS.
(1) ADIL,
S/o Sh. Noora,
R/o Madeena Masjid, Ashok Vihar,
Loni, Ghaziabad, UP.
(2) AMIT KUMAR,
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o H.No. G-796, Ram Park,
Khanpur Road, Loni,
Ghaziabad, UP.
(3) SALMAN,
S/o Sh. Islam,
R/o 30 Foota Road, Ashok Vihar,
PS Loni, Ghaziabad, UP.
(4) RAHISUDDIN @ SHAVEZ,
S/o Sh. Atiq Mohammad,
R/o Alvi Nagar, Loni Dehat,
Ghaziabad, UP.
.... Accused persons
State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 1 of 34
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.10.08
15:28:06 +0530
Date of Institution of case 17.01.2020
Date of case reserved for Judgment 27.09.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 08.10.2025
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, on 19.09.2019, complainant Neeru went to PS Shahdara and alleged that her husband Kundan used to ply passenger e-rickshaw from Mandoli to Shahdara Railway Station and on 18.09.2019 at about 7 AM, he left the house to ply said e-rickshaw bearing no. DL5ER6914, but did not return and his mobile phone 8800529014 was switched off and she went to enquire about him on 19.09.2019 near Shahdara Metro Station where her husband's friend Anil, who used to ply e-rickshaw, met her and told that on 18.09.2019 at about 10 AM, he had seen her husband Kundan taking away passengers in e-rickshaw near bus stand Shahdara, Sabji Mandi. She went to JPC Hospital in search of her husband and came to know that on 18.09.2019, he was admitted there under the influence of some substance from where he was referred to GTB Hospital where he was found admitted and somebody had given him intoxicated substance and had stolen his e-rickshaw and mobile Samsung J2.
2. The present FIR was registered vide FIR No. 238/2019 dated 20.09.2019 in PS Shahdara u/s 328/379 IPC.
State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 2 of 34 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.10.08 15:28:14 +0530 After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons namely Adil, Amit Kumar, Salman and Rahisuddin @ Shavez u/s 328/379/411/34 IPC and after filing of charge sheet, cognizance of offences was taken against the accused persons.
CHARGE
3. Charge for the offences punishable u/s 328/379/411/34 IPC was framed against accused persons namely Adil, Amit Kumar, Salman and Rahisuddin @ Shavez by Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 29.04.2023. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
4. Admission/denial of documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C. (330 NMSS) was conducted on 30.07.2025. Accused persons, vide their separate statements recorded on the abovesaid date, had not disputed the following documents:
(i) FIR No. 238/2019 dt. 20.09.2019, PS Shahdara, Ex.PA1.
(ii) Certificate u/s 65B IEA regarding the FIR, Ex.PA2.
(iii) Arrest memo of accused Adil dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PA3.
(iv) Arrest memo of accused Amit Kumar dated 20.09.2019 Ex.PA4.
(v) Arrest memo of accused Salman dated 20.09.2019, Ex.PA5.
(vi) Arrest memo of accused Rahisuddin, dated 20.09.2019, Ex.PA6.
(vii) Personal search of accused Adil dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PA7.
(viii) Personal search of accused Amit Kumar dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PA8.
(ix) Personal search of accused Salman dt.20.09.2019, Ex.PA9.
(x) Personal search of accused Rahisuddin dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PA10.State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 3 of 34
KUMAR Digitally signed by
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.10.08
15:28:19 +0530
(xi) Bill of mobile phone make Samsung J2 dt. 10.08.2018 sold by RG Sales, Ex.PA11.
(xii) TIP proceedings of accused Rahisuddin, dt. 18.10.2019, Ex.PA12.
(xiii) TIP proceedings of accused Salman, dt. 18.10.2019, Ex.PA13.
(xiv) TIP proceedings of accused Amit Kumar dt. 18.10.2019, Ex.PA14.
(xv) TIP proceedings of accused Adil dt. 18.10.2019, Ex.PA15.
(xvi) Road Certificate dt. 19.11.2019 of PS Shahdara, Ex.PA16. (xvii) Road Certificate dt. 26.09.2019, Ex.PA17. (xviii) Road Certificate dt. 29.09.2019, Ex.PA18. (xix) Road Certificate dt. 23.09.2017, Ex.PA19. (xx) Copy of MLC No. 18850 of the victim Kundan Kumar Jaiswal dt. 18.09.2019 of JPC Hospital, Ex.PA20. (xxi) Entries in Register No. 19 and 21 regarding case property, Ex.PA21.
In view of above-said admission, the requirement of evidence of following witnesses was dispensed with :
(a) SI Jai Ram Meena (mentioned at Sl. No. 2 in the list of witnesses).
(b) Owner RG Sales (mentioned at Sl. No. 6 in the list of witnesses)
(c) Ms. Kadambri Awasthi, Ld. MM, SHD, KKD, Courts, Delhi (mentioned at Sl. No. 7 in the list of witnesses).
(d) Ct. Prakash (mentioned at Sl. No. 15 in the list of witnesses).
(e) MHC(M) PS Patel Nagar (mentioned at Sl. No. 16 in the list of witnesses).
(f) MHC(M) PS Wazirabad (mentioned at Sl. No. 17 in the list of witnesses).
(g) MHC(M) PS Vivek Vihar (mentioned at Sl. No. 18 in the list of witnesses).
(h) Dr. Shalini Gupta (mentioned at Sl. No. 8 in the list of witnesses).
(i) SI Shripal (mentioned at Sl. No. 9 in the list of State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 4 of 34 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.10.08 15:28:24 +0530 witnesses).
(j) MHC(M) PS Shahdara (mentioned at Sl. No. 14 in the list of witnesses).
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution examined 7 witnesses in its favour to prove the case.
6. PW1 Neeru deposed that on 18.09.2019, at about 07:00 AM, her husband left their house on his e-rickshaw, whose registration number was of Delhi and last number was 14, but she did not remember its complete number and he did not return till 08:00 pm, which was the usual time of his return. PW1 called many times at his mobile number, but in vain. On 19.09.2019, they managed to connect a whatsapp call at his mobile number. On inquiry, the person, who picked up the call, disclosed that he had purchased the said mobile. PW1 asked him to return the mobile phone, but that person stated that PW1 should give him Rs. 2,000/- for the same. Thereafter, in the morning, PW1 went to PS Welcome and police officials accompanied PW1 to the Bhajanpura Red Light, Delhi.
7. PW1 further deposed that on making a call, that person stated that he was wearing yellow colour T-shirt and short, so that he could be identified. PW1 met that person, police officials, who were standing nearby in civil dress, apprehended that person. The mobile phone of her husband was found in his possession. Thereafter, he was taken to PS Welcome and that person was interrogated by the police and he disclosed that he could lead them to the person from whom, he had purchased the said mobile phone. Then, that person made a call to the person State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 5 of 34 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.10.08 15:28:29 +0530 from whom he had purchased the said mobile. After sometime, they along with above said apprehended person went to Bhajanpura Red Light where two persons came there.
8. PW1 further deposed that then all above said three persons were interrogated by the police and they disclosed that they had committed theft of e-rickshaw of her husband after administering some stupefying/intoxicated substance and they further disclosed that they threw away her husband Kundan near Naala foothpath, Seelampur Metro Station, Delhi. They went there and came to know that police official had moved one person to the GTB Hospital. PW1 went to GTB Hospital where her husband Kundan Kumar Jaiswal was found in ICU. PW1 had correctly identified her signature at point A on her complaint/statement, Ex.PW1/A. PW1 had correctly identified accused Amit Kumar, who was one of the above said two persons, who came at the Bhajanpura Red Light, Delhi after they were called by the person and from whom the mobile phone of her husband was recovered.
9. PW1 had correctly identified 4 photographs of e- rickshaw bearing no. DL5ER6914 (blue colour), Ex.P1. PW1 had admitted in her cross-examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP that e-rickshaw number of her husband was DL5ER6914 and the mobile phone of her husband was 8800529014. PW1 had correctly identified the accused Salman, as the person from whom, mobile phone of her husband was recovered.
10. PW3 Anil Kumar deposed that he was running e- rickshaw. On 18.09.2019, at about 10:00 am, he saw his friend/e-
State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 6 of 34 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.10.08 15:28:34 +0530 rickshaw driver Kundan taking away passengers in his e- rickshaw near Sabji Mandi, Bus Stand Shahdara. On 20.09.2019, PW3 was called by the police officials to reach at Sabji Mandi Shahdara where Neeru, W/o Kundan was present along with police officials.
11. PW4 Shailendra Yadav deposed that he was working as SSO at FSL Rohini in Chemistry Division since March, 2016. On 19.11.2019, two sealed parcels along with sample seal i.e. 'RS' were received at the office of FSL Rohini and the same were marked to him for examination. From 21.11.2019 to 12.12.2019, PW4 conducted the examination of above said sealed parcels. After examination, he came to the conclusion that the exhibits 1 and 2 were found to contain 'Lorazepam' which was a scheduled sedative drug, generally used for insomnia. After examination, PW4 prepared his detailed examination report bearing No. SFSL DLH/11622/CHEM/ 3768/19 dt. 12.12.2019, Ex.PW4/A bearing his signature at point A on each page.
12. PW5 Kundan Kumar Jaiswal deposed that he was running e-rickshaw in the area of Shahdara, Delhi. In the month of September, 2019, at about 08:30-09:00 am, he was sitting on his e-rickshaw No. DL5ER6914 near Shahdara Railway Station. One person came from behind and put one cloth on his face and he got unconscious. When he regained his consciousness, he found himself at his home. PW5 received injuries on his hand. His mobile phone make Samsung, some cash and his aforesaid e- rickshaw were found stolen. PW5 had taken the said Samsung mobile, but he could not produce the same as he did not know its State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 7 of 34 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.10.08 15:28:40 +0530 whereabouts. PW5 had also received said e-rickshaw on superdaari vide superdaarinama dt. 17.10.2019, Ex.PW5/A. PW5 admitted in his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP that the incident occurred on 18.09.2019. Judicial TIP of accused persons namely Rahisuddin @ Shakir, Salman, Amit Kumar and Adil, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F were conducted and he correctly identified his signature at point A respectively. PW5 had correctly identified accused Rahisuddin and Amit Kumar during judicial TIP.
13. PW6 HC Arvind Kumar deposed that on 20.09.2019, he was posted as Constable at PS Shahdara and on that day, he along with Ct. Pradeep, Ct. Nagender, IO/ASI Rambir and secret informer joined the investigation of the present case. They reached Balbir Nagar Puliya, Loni Road, Delhi. After sometime, the secret informer pointed towards one green colour e-rickshaw and disclosed that the persons sitting on it, were involved in the commission of offence relating to the present FIR i.e. committing theft with the complainant after giving him intoxicated substance. PW6 further deposed that they apprehended four persons sitting on that e-rickshaw. On interrogation, name of the accused persons came to be known as Amit, Rahisuddin @ Shavez, Salman @ Riyan. Accused Amit was driving the above said e- rickshaw, who was interrogated about the registration documents of that e-rickshaw, but he failed to provide the same.
14. PW6 further deposed that IO checked the details about that e-rickshaw in ZIPNET and it was found to be stolen in case FIR No. 22475/18, PS Vivek Vihar. Delhi. From the search State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 8 of 34 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.10.08 15:28:46 +0530 of accused Salman, one mobile phone make J2 Samsung (golden colour), IMEI No. 357977099080432 was recovered and one strip containing 30 tablets of Lorazepam was found from the wearing pant of accused Adil. One other strip containing 30 tablets of Lorazepam was found from the wearing pant of accused Rahisuddin. On interrogation, accused persons disclosed that they had stolen e-rickshaw and mobile phone from one person two days earlier after giving him intoxicated ladoo. Thereafter, ASI Rambir seized the aforesaid e-rickshaw bearing no. DL13ER1131 (green colour) vide seizure memo dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/A.
15. PW6 further deposed that IO/ASI Rambir seized the above said mobile phone recovered from accused Salman vide seizure memo dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/B. Above said recovered strips from accused Rahisuddin and Adil, were seized vide seizure memo, dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D. Accused Adil, Salman, Amit Kumar and Rahisuddin were arrested vide arrest memos dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW6/F, Ex.PW6/G and Ex.PW6/H, they were personally searched vide memos dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/I, Ex.PW6/J, Ex.PW6/K and Ex.PW6/L and their disclosure statements were recorded vide statements dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/M, Ex.PW6/N, Ex.PW6/O and Ex.PW6/P respectively. They all took them to the spot i.e. Sabji Mandi, Shahdara Metro Station, Delhi and IO prepared the pointing out memo dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/Q and they disclosed that they could get recover the stolen e-rickshaw i.e. DL5ER6914 (blue colour) and some other stolen e-rickshaws State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 9 of 34 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.10.08 15:28:52 +0530 from Balram Nagar, near Shiv Mandir, Loni Ghaziabad, UP.
16. PW6 further deposed that thereafter, accused Adil and other accused persons took them to the above said place i.e. near Shiv Mandir, Balram Nagar, Loni Ghaziabad, UP and got recovered 6 e-rickshaws including the e-rickshaw bearing no. DL5ER6914 (stolen from victim of the present case). IO seized the aforesaid e-rickshaws vide seizure memo, dt. 21.09.2019, Ex.PW6/R. Accused persons also disclosed that they could get recover two other stolen e-rickshaws from Lal Bagh Mandi, Loni Ghaziabad, UP and took them there and they got recovered two e-rickshaws i.e. DL10ER3070 and DL1ERB1044 in front of the park, Lal Bagh Mandi, Loni Ghaziabad, UP, which were seized by IO vide seizure memo dt. 21.09.2019, Ex.PW6/S. They all were kept in muffled face and sent to lock-up after medical examination. IO/ASI Rambir deposited the above said e- rickshaws, mobile and strips in the malkhana. PW6 had correctly identified 4 photographs of e-rickshaw bearing no. DL 5ER 6914 (blue colour), Ex.P1, which was got recovered by the all accused persons. PW6 had correctly identified accused Adil, Amit, Rahisuddin @ Shavez and Salman in the Court.
17. PW7 SI Rambir Singh deposed that on 19.09.2019, he was posted as ASI at PS Shahdara and on that day, he was on emergency duty and duty hours were from 08:00 am to 08:00 pm. PW7 was present at PS, one lady namely Neeru, w/o Kundan came to him and disclosed about her missing husband, who left his house in the morning of 18.09.2019. PW7 along with Ct. Ram Avtar and aforesaid lady/complainant went to JPC Hospital State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 10 of 34 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.10.08 15:28:57 +0530 where he collected the MLC of victim Kundan Kumar and came to know that he had been admitted to GTB Hospital on the reference of doctor. Thereafter, they went to GTB Hospital where they met victim Kundan and he was declared unfit for the statement by the doctor. PW7 recorded the statement/complaint of Neeru dt. 19.09.2019, Ex.PW1/A. PW7 prepared the rukka, Ex.PW7/A and handed over the same to Ct. Ram Avtar for registration of FIR, who went to PS and PW7 along with complainant went to the spot i.e. the place where victim Kundan was seen for the last time by e-rickshaw driver Anil and prepared the site plan, dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW7/B.
18. PW7 further deposed that Ct. Ram Avtar came at Sabji Mandi Shahdara, Near Shahdara Metro Station (place of occurrence) and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to PW7. Thereafter, PW7 along with complainant and public witness Anil made inquires from the nearby shopkeepers and residents, but in vain. PW7 recorded the statement of Anil Kumar and complainant Neeru u/s 161 Cr.PC and PW7 along with Ct. Ram Avtar returned to the PS and recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. On 20.09.2019, he along with Ct. Pradeep, Ct. Nagender, HC Arvind Kumar and secret informer reached Balbir Nagar Puliya, Loni Road, Delhi on the secret information regarding the accused persons, who committed theft with the victim of the present case on 18.09.2019. After sometime, the secret informer pointed towards one green colour e-rickshaw and disclosed that the persons sitting on it, were involved in the commission of offence relating to the present FIR i.e. committing theft with the State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 11 of 34 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.10.08 15:29:04 +0530 victim Kundan after giving him intoxicated substance.
19. PW7 further deposed that he along with aforesaid police staff apprehended four persons sitting on that e-rickshaw. On interrogation, name of the accused persons came to be known as Amit, Rahisuddin @ Shavez, Salman @ Riyan. Accused Amit was driving the above said e-rickshaw and he was interrogated about the registration documents of that e-rickshaw, but he failed to provide the same. PW7 checked the details about that e- rickshaw in ZIPNET and it was found to be stolen in case FIR No. 22475/18, PS Vivek Vihar. Delhi. From the search of accused Salman, one mobile phone make J2 Samsung (golden colour), IMEI No. 357977099080432 was recovered and one strip containing 30 tablets of Lorazepam was found from the wearing pant of accused Adil. One other strip containing 30 tablets of Lorazepam was found from the wearing pant of accused Rahisuddin.
20. PW7 further deposed that on interrogation, accused persons disclosed that they had stolen e-rickshaw and mobile phone from one person two days earlier, after giving him intoxicated ladoo. Thereafter, PW7 seized the aforesaid e- rickshaw bearing no. DL13ER1131 (green colour) vide seizure memo dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/A bearing his signature at point B and signature of Ct. Nagender and Ct. Pradeep at point C and D. PW7 seized the above said mobile phone recovered from accused Salman vide seizure memo dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/B bearing his signature at point B and signature of Ct. Nagender and Ct. Pradeep at point C and D. Above said recovered strips from State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 12 of 34 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.10.08 15:29:10 +0530 accused Rahisuddin and Adil, were seized vide seizure memo, dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D bearing his signature at point B and signature of Ct. Nagender and Ct. Pradeep at point C and D respectively, after sealing the same with the seal of 'RS'.
21. PW7 further deposed that accused Adil, Salman, Amit Kumar and Rahisuddin were arrested vide arrest memos dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW6/F, Ex.PW6/G and Ex.PW6/H bearing his signature at point B and signature of Ct. Nagender and Ct. Pradeep at point C and D respectively, their personal search was conducted vide memo dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/I, Ex.PW6/J, Ex.PW6/K and Ex.PW6/L bearing his signature at point B and signature of Ct. Nagender and Ct. Pradeep at point C and D respectively and their disclosure statements were recorded vide statements dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/M, Ex.PW6/N, Ex.PW6/O and Ex.PW6/P bearing his signature at point B and signature of Ct. Nagender and Ct. Pradeep at point C and D respectively. Thereafter, all of them took them to the spot i.e. Sabji Mandi, Shahdara Metro Station, Delhi and PW7 prepared the pointing out memo dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/Q bearing his signature at point B and signature of Ct. Nagender and Ct.
Pradeep at point C and D. Accused persons disclosed that they all could get recover the stolen e-rickshaw i.e. DL5ER6914 (blue colour) and some other stolen e-rickshaws from Balram Nagar, near Shiv Mandir, Loni Ghaziabad, UP.
22. PW7 further deposed that thereafter, accused persons took them to the above said place i.e. near Shiv Mandir, Balram Nagar, Loni Ghaziabad, UP and got recovered 6 e-rickshaws State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 13 of 34 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.10.08 15:29:16 +0530 including the e-rickshaw bearing no. DL5ER6914 (stolen from victim of the present case). PW7 seized the aforesaid e-rickshaws vide seizure memo, dt. 21.09.2019, Ex.PW6/R. Accused persons also disclosed that they could get recover two other stolen e- rickshaws from Lal Bagh Mandi, Loni Ghaziabad, UP and took them there and they got recovered two e-rickshaws i.e. DL10ER3070 and DL1ERB1044 in front of the park, Lal Bagh Mandi, Loni Ghaziabad, UP and the same were seized by PW7 vide seizure memo dt. 21.09.2019, Ex.PW6/S. PW7 prepared the site plan of place of recovery of e-rickshaw i.e. No. DL13ER1131, dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW7/C. Accused persons were kept in muffled face and sent to lock-up after their medical examination. PW7 deposited the above said e-rickshaws, mobile and strips in the malkhana.
23. PW7 further deposed that on 21.09.2019, he recorded the statement of owner of stolen mobile phone namely Nem Singh u/s 161 Cr.PC and SI Shri Pal (PCR), who took the victim Kundan to JPC Hospital u/s 161 Cr.PC. On 10.10.2019, he recorded the statement of victim Kundan Kumar Jaiswal u/s 161 Cr.PC. On 14.10.2019, PW7 moved an application for judicial TIP of all the accused persons, Ex.PW7/D. On 18.10.2019, judicial TIP of accused Rahisuddin, Amit Kumar, Salman and Adil were conducted, during which victim Kundan correctly identified the accused Rahisuddin and Amit Kumar. On 19.11.2019, the recovered strips of tablets Lorazepam were sent to FSL Rohini vide RC No. 121/21/19 through Ct. Prakash, Ex.PA16, on his directions. PW7 recorded the statement of Ct.
State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 14 of 34
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT
Date:
RAJAT 2025.10.08
15:29:21
+0530
Prakash u/s 161 Cr.PC. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and submitted it before the Court. PW7 had correctly identified 4 photographs of e-rickshaw bearing no. DL 5ER 6914 (blue colour), Ex.P1 which was got recovered by accused persons. PW7 had correctly identified accused Adil, Amit, Rahisuddin @ Shavez and Salman in the Court. STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS u/s 351 BNSS/313 Cr.P.C.
24. Statements of the accused persons namely Adil, Amit, Rahisuddin @ Shavez and Salman were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC on 20.09.2025 and they denied the incriminating evidence put to them and stated that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and they were falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case without any fault on their part. They are innocent person and praying for acquittal.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDING ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED PERSONS
25. Ld. counsel for the accused persons argued that they are falsely implicated by the police and they are innocent and and even the complainant/victim failed to identify any of the above accused, as the persons, who robbed his e-rickshaw and mobile and in the Judicial TIP also, victim Kundan failed to identify accused Salman and Adil and falsely identified Amit and Rahisuddin as they were shown to him prior to TIP. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of any of the accused persons and false recovery has been planted upon them. Only few State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 15 of 34 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 15:29:27 +0530 Date: 2025.10.08 tablets of Lorazepam were used by the FSL expert for examination and rest were returned to the IO/SHO, but the prosecution could not produce the remaining Lorazepam tablets and they did not destroy the same, which creates doubts on the case of prosecution. No intoxicating substance or Lorazepam tablet was administered by accused persons to the victim nor he has deposed so and thus, charge u/s 328/379/411/34 IPC could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as PW1/complainant Neeru, PW2 Nem Singh, PW3 Anil Kumar and PW5 Kundan Kumar Jaiswal had turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution even after they were cross- examined by Ld. APP and failed to identify any of the accused and there are material contradictions, omissions and improvements in their testimonies and no incident as alleged had ever occurred.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
26. Ld. APP for State has argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as PW1/complainant Neeru deposed about the missing of her husband on 18.09.2019 and she proved her complaint, Ex.PW1/A regarding missing of her husband with e-rickshaw and correctly identified accused Amit, who came to Bhajanpura Red Light to give stolen mobile phone of her husband in lieu of Rs. 2,000/- and she correctly identified the e-rickshaw of her husband. Accused persons had stolen the e-rickshaw of Kundan after administering him intoxicating substance i.e. Lorazepam tablets and the same is proved by PW4, who deposed that it is a sedative drug and his State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 16 of 34 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.10.08 15:29:34 +0530 report proved that same was given to victim Kundan. The police witnesses have corroborated the version of the prosecution and correctly identified the accused and proved the recovery of e- rickshaw at the instance of accused persons and some other e- rickshaws were also recovered and at the instance of accused Rahisuddin and Adil, one pack of 30 Lorazepam tablets was recovered from each of them. Stolen mobile phone of victim was recovered from accused Salman. The accused persons have not revealed their substantial defence either in SA or in the cross- examination of witnesses.
27. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.
28. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses including three were public-cum-eye-witnesses of the case i.e. PW1, PW2 and PW5.
29. The charge against accused persons are u/s 328/379/411/34 IPC.
Section 328 IPC. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence:- Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 378 IPC. Theft.- 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.
State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 17 of 34KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.10.08 15:29:40 +0530 Section 411 IPC. Dishonestly receiving stolen property:- Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 34 IPC. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:-
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.
30. The present case was registered on the complaint of complainant Neeru, who alleged that her husband Kundan used to ply passenger e-rickshaw from Mandoli to Shahdara Railway Station and on 18.09.2019 at about 7 AM, he left the house to ply said e-rickshaw bearing no. DL5ER6914, but did not return and his mobile phone 8800529014 was switched off and she went to enquire about him on 19.09.2019 near Shahdara Metro Station where her husband's friend Anil, who used to ply e-rickshaw, met her and told that on 18.09.2019 at about 10 AM, he had seen her husband Kundan taking away passengers in e-rickshaw near bus stand Shahdara Sabji Mandi. She went to JPC Hospital in search of her husband and came to know that on 18.09.2019, he was admitted there under the influence of some substance from where he was referred to GTB Hospital where he was found admitted and somebody had given him intoxicated substance and had stolen his e-rickshaw and mobile Samsung J2.
State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 18 of 34 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 15:29:45 Date: 2025.10.08 +0530 PUBLIC WITNESSES
31. The complainant was examined as PW1 and she identified her signature on her complaint, Ex.PW1/A and during her testimony, she reiterated that her husband Kundan had left the house on 18.09.2019 at 7 AM on his e-rickshaw, but she did not remember its number and stated only last two digits as 14 and he did not return till 8 PM and his mobile was switched off and on 19.09.2019, PW1 managed to connect whatsapp call on his mobile number and the other person picked up the phone, who stated that he had purchased the said mobile and for its return, PW1 had to give him Rs. 2,000/- and next day, she went to Bhajanpura Red Light with police where accused Amit was apprehended with the mobile of her husband and she correctly identified him in the Court, but on the contrary, PW6 HC Arvind Kumar, who was part of the investigation, deposed that said mobile phone of victim make J2 Samsung was recovered from accused Salman and it was not recovered from the Bhajanpura Red Light, which are contrary version.
32. PW1 further deposed that after accused Amit was apprehended, he disclosed that he could led them to person, from whom he had purchased the said mobile and he called two more persons at Bhajanpura Red Light and all of them had admitted theft of e-rickshaw from husband of PW1 and that after administering intoxicating substance, they threw PW Kundan in Nala near Seelampur Metro Station. PW1 failed to identify accused Salman and the said mobile phone could not be put to State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 19 of 34 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.10.08 PW1 as the same was taken on Superdari and not available.
33. PW1 was declared hostile and in her cross- examination by Ld. APP she admitted that the number of her husband's e-rickshaw was DL5ER6914. PW1 denied that she had stated to IO in her complaint dated 19.09.2019 that on 19.09.2019, she went to Shahdara Metro Station and met Anil Kumar, who disclosed that he had seen Kundan taking passengers near Sabji Mandi Bus Stand on 18.09.2019 or that she along with other e-rickshaw driver went in search of her husband and reached JPC Hospital and then to GTB Hospital where her husband was found admitted or that she had stated that unknown person had stolen the e-rickshaw and mobile phone of her husband and she denied the contents of Ex.PW1/A even though she was confronted with the same and she denied that she had signed the same after reading the same and on 20.09.2019, she along with Anil Kumar went to the spot where IO prepared site plan at her instance. PW1 also denied the contents of her statement, u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW1/B, even after she was confronted with the same. Thus, PW1 had disowned the contents of her complaint, Ex.PW1/A and statement, Ex.PW1/B and as such the said complaint as well as the consequent FIR, Ex.PA1 could not be proved by the prosecution.
34. PW1 has made material improvements and omissions in her testimony from her previous complaint as well as statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and had given contradictory statement to PW6 qua recovery of Samsung mobile phone of her husband and also the place from where it was recovered. PW1 had also State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 20 of 34 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 15:29:57 Date: 2025.10.08 +0530 not identified other accused persons. In her cross-examination by accused, PW1 admitted that she was not present with her husband at the spot at the time of alleged incident, which coupled with her complaint and testimony shows that she was not an eye- witness.
35. PW2 Nem Singh has not deposed anything about the case and against the accused and deposed that he did not know anything about this case. PW2 was declared hostile and in his cross-examination by Ld. APP, he denied that on 10.08.2018, he purchased a mobile phone make Samsung, J2, IMEI No. 357977099080432 and 357978099080430 (golden white colour) from RG Sales, Mobile Phone, Sangam Vihar, Loni Ghaziabad, UP for Rs. 8,000/- or that he handed over the same to his known person (his friend) Kundan Kumar Jaiswal for using the same for some time and he was using the same in the month of September, 2019. PW2 denied the contents of his statement, u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW2/A, even after he was confronted with the same.
Accused persons had admitted the said bill of mobile phone, Ex.PA11, but it does not prove that PW5 using the said mobile phone as it was purchased by Nem Singh.
36. PW3 Anil Kumar deposed that on 18.09.2019, at about 10 AM, he saw his friend/e-rickshaw driver Kundan taking passengers in his e-rickshaw near Sabji Mandi, Bus Stand Shahdara and on 20.09.2019, he was called by the police officials to reach at Sabji Mandi Shahdara where wife of his friend namely Neeru was present along with police officials.
37. PW3 was declared hostile and in his cross-
State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 21 of 34 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.10.08 15:30:03 +0530 examination by Ld. APP, he denied that IO prepared the site plan in his presence and he along with Neeru and police officials went in search of accused persons or that IO inquired from the nearby shopkeepers regarding the accused persons, but in vain. PW3 denied the contents of his statement, u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW3/A, even after he was confronted with the same.
38. PW5 Kundan Kumar Jaiswal deposed that in September, 2019 at 8.30-9 AM when he was sitting on his e- rickshaw bearing no. DL5ER6914 near Shahdara Railway Station, one person came from behind and put cloth on his face and he became unconscious and when he regained consciousness, he was at home and he received injury on his hand and said e- rickshaw, cash and Samsung mobile phone were stolen. PW5 stated that he was not able to see the face of that person, who put cloth on his face and he failed to identify any of the accused persons.
39. PW5 received the e-rickshaw on superdari vide superdaginama, Ex.PW5/A and he had also taken his Samsung mobile phone, which he failed to produce as he did not know its whereabouts. Mobile phone could not be brought by the prosecution to be identified by either PW1 or PW5 to prove that such mobile was stolen. IO has not placed on record any photographs of said mobile phone.
40. PW5 was declared hostile and in his cross- examination by Ld. APP, he admitted that incident occurred on 18.09.2019, but denied that he was intentionally not identifying the accused persons, being won over by them. PW5 also denied State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 22 of 34 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.10.08 15:30:11 +0530 that at about 09:40 am, when he reached near Sabji Mandi, Shahdara, Delhi, 4 boys came and asked him to drop them at Guggu Pehlwan and asked him about the fare or that then they boarded his e-rickshaw and when he reached near Shahdara Flyover, near Hanuman Mandir, those 4 persons got stopped the e-rickshaw on the pretext of offering prasad at Mandir. PW5 also denied that out of the 4 boys, two boys went to the Mandir and when they returned to him, they offered one ladoo saying it to be prasad or that he consumed/ate the same and after sometime, he started feeling unconsciousness and was not able to drive his e- rickshaw or that then those boys made him sit on the back seat of e-rickshaw and thereafter, he got unconscious. PW5 also denied that he had stated to the IO in his statement dt. 10.10.2019 u/s 161 Cr.PC that he could identify the above said 4 persons/boys, if shown to him. PW5 denied the contents of his statement, u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW5/A, even after he was confronted with the same.
41. PW5 also denied that after TIP proceedings, IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC dt. 18.10.2019 or that he had identified the accused Rahisuddin and Amit Kumar in their judicial TIP proceedings at his own and no such photographs were shown to him by the IO during TIP proceedings or that above said accused persons are the same persons, who had given adulterated ladoo containing intoxicating substance and committed theft of his mobile, cash and e-rickshaw.
42. PW5 also admitted that he had correctly identified accused Rahisuddin and Amit Kumar in judicial TIP, but he volunteered that he was shown the photographs of accused State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 23 of 34 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 15:30:16 Date: 2025.10.08 +0530 Rahisuddin and Amit Kumar prior to the TIP proceedings by the IO and he directed him to identify them. PW5 correctly identified his signature on the judicial TIP of accused Rahisuddin @ Shakir, Salman, Amit Kumar and Adil, all dt. 18.10.2019, Ex.PW5/C (Ex.PA12), Ex.PW5/D (Ex.PA13), Ex.PW5/E (Ex.PA14) and Ex.PW5/F (Ex.PA15) at point A respectively.
43. PW5 was the victim from whom mobile phone, e-
rickshaw and cash were stolen by administering ladoo containing intoxicating substance, but during his testimony, he had given an entire different version that somebody had put cloth due to which he became unconscious and denied the contents of his previous statement recorded by IO and he had failed to identify accused Salman and Adil in TIP and identified others after being shown their photographs by the IO prior to TIP.
TIP OF ACCUSED RAHISUDDIN & AMIT KUMAR
44. The relevancy of TIP is explained in Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act and later on Section 54A Cr.P.C. was also incorporated regarding the TIP proceedings.
Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under :
Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts- Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant act, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far they are necessary for that purpose.
45. Section 54A Cr.P.C. Identification of person arrested.-
Where a person is arrested on a charge of committing an State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 24 of 34 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.10.08 15:30:21 +0530 offence and his identification by any other person or persons is considered necessary for the purpose of investigation of such offence, the Court, having jurisdiction, may on the request of the officer in charge of a police station, direct the person so arrested to subject himself to identification by any person or persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit.
Provided that, if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically disabled, such process of identification shall take place under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate who shall take appropriate steps to ensure that such person identifies the person arrested using methods that person is comfortable with:
Provided further that if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically disabled, the identification process shall be videographed.
46. As per Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, the TIP proceedings where accused persons can be identified is relevant and corroborative proceedings. Provided, the TIP should be properly conducted and the accused must not have been shown to the witnesses prior to the proceedings.
Test Identification Parade - Necessity: Such test is conducted to test the veracity of the witness and his capacity to identify the unknown persons. Test Identification Parade is primarily meant for the investigation purposes.
47. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramanathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1978 SC 1201, has held that the purpose of test identification parade is to find out whether the accused is perpetrator of the crime or not. If the name of the offender is not mentioned by the eye- witnesses, then in such circumstances, such evidence becomes more important.
48. In Ram Babu Vs. State of UP, AIR 2010 SC 2143, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that purpose of test State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 25 of 34 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.10.08 15:30:26 +0530 identification parade is to test credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence of the witness in Court.
49. In Har Nath Singh Vs. State of MP, AIR 1970 SC 1619, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that TIP serves two purposes (i) to satisfy the investigating authorities that certain person not previously known to witness was involved in the offence and (ii) to furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witness concerned tenders before the Court.
50. In Mulla and Anr. Vs. State of UP, (2010) 3 SCC 508 in Paras 44, 45 and 55, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed the object of conducting a TIP is threefold. First, to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the crime. Second, to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence. Third, to test the witnesses memory based on first impression and enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses to the crime.
Evidentiary value of TIP: In George Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 1376, the Court held that TIP corroborates the testimony of the witness and the identification of the accused.
51. In Judgment dated 11.11.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 1864-1865 of 2010 titled as Gireesan Nair & Ors. Etc Vs. State of Kerala, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that evidence of TIP is admissible u/s 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, however, it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Instead, it is used to corroborate the evidence given by witnesses before the Court of law at the time of trial. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon 'Shaikh Umar Ahmad Shaikh and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra', (1998) 5 SCC 103, wherein it was held that under such circumstances, when the accused State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 26 of 34 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.10.08 15:30:33 +0530 were already shown to the witnesses, their identification in the Court by the witnesses was meaningless.
52. In this case, the PW5 has identified accused Rahisuddin and Amit Kumar in the judicial TIP vide proceedings. Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/E, but the accused persons were shown to him prior to TIP and thus, in the light of above judgments, the said TIP does not prove the identity of accused as assailants especially when PW5 failed to identify these accused persons in his testimony.
PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 did not depose anything against any of the accused persons nor identified them.
MEDICAL/FORENSIC EVIDENCE
53. PW4 Shailendra Yadav proved his FSL report, Ex.PW4/A as the Exhibits 1 and 2 i.e. packs of 30 gram tablets with print of Lorazepam 2 mg, were found to contain "Lorazepam", which is a sedative drug used for insomnia. But said report does not prove the case against the accused as victim deposed that some cloth was put on his face due to which he became unconscious and denied that he was given any ladoo laced with any such intoxicating substance i.e. Lorazepam. It was not possible to give Lorazepam by putting cloth on the face. Further, in his cross-examination PW4 stated that he received total 60 tablets of Lorazepam ( two strips), but he did not know how many tablets were used in the examination and he had not brought the record for the exact number and he stated that maximum 50% could have been consumed, which means 30 tablets were lying unused and he stated that he had returned the remaining tablets to the SHO, PS Shahdara, but no such remnant State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 27 of 34 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.10.08 15:30:39 +0530 tablets were made case property nor they are accounted for by IO/SHO as to where the said 30 tablets had gone as no such tablet was shown to PW4 or available in the Malkhana, which creates serious doubts about the case of prosecution. PW7 in his cross-examination denied that he had not taken the sample of gastric lavage of victim, but there is nothing mentioned in any report that gastric lavage of the victim was taken, which is essential to prove that victim has consumed Lorazepam tablets, which made him unconscious.
54. In State Vs. Sunil Crl. Rev. P. No. 193/2017 dated 28.11.2023., Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the order of discharge of accused u/s 328 IPC passed by the Ld. Trial Court and agreed with the finding therein that it is essential to prove the charge u/s 328 IPC that forensic examination of the stomach wash in order to determine that the substance that administered was poison and admittedly no stomach wash was taken.
Similarly in this case also, no gastric lavage/stomach wash was admittedly taken or proved by the prosecution.
55. PW7/IO Rambir Singh deposed that he collected MLC of victim Kuman Kumar, Ex.PA20 and then, he went to GTB where he was found unfit for statement. Accused persons admitted the MLC of PW5, Ex.PA20 of JPC Hospital in which only one abrasion is shown and that MLC does not show any evidence against the accused.
POLICE WITNESSES
56. PW6 HC Arvind Kumar and PW7/IO Rambir Singh deposed that on the information of secret informer, they arrested State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 28 of 34 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.10.08 15:30:44 +0530 accused Adil, Salman, Amit Kumar and Rahisuddin vide arrest memos dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/E (Ex.PA3), Ex.PW6/F (Ex.PA4), Ex.PW6/G (Ex.PA5) and Ex.PW6/H (Ex.PA6) and they were shown arrested from Loni Road, Balbir Nagar, Nala Puliya, but PW1 had deposed that accused Amit was apprehended at Bhajanpura Red Light and on call of Amit, two other persons came, who were also apprehended, thus, these contrary statements and those documents further destroy the case of prosecution. From the personal search of accused Adil, Ex.PW6/I (Ex.PA7) and Amit Kumar, Ex.PW6/J (Ex.PA8), nothing has been recovered and from the personal search of accused Salman, Ex.PW6/K (Ex.PA9) and Rahisuddin, Ex.PW6/L (Ex.PA10), one mobile phone Oppo and JIO were recovered, but these were not stolen mobiles. PW6 and PW7 also deposed that disclosure statements of accused Adil, Salman, Amit Kumar and Rahisuddin were recorded vide statements dt. 20.09.2019, Ex.PW6/M, Ex.PW6/N, Ex.PW6/O and Ex.PW6/P respectively, but the same does not prove charge against the accused persons as the arrest of the accused persons became doubtful in view of the testimony of PW1 above particularly in the light of recovery of stolen mobile phone of PW5 and the recovery of e-rickshaw from the accused persons is doubtful as PW5 failed to identify any of the accused persons and there is no public witness to the said recovery and the pointing out memo, Ex.PW6/Q is of a place, which was already known to all. PW6 and PW7 also deposed that the said stolen e-rickshaw bearing no. DL5ER6914 was recovered at the instance of accused persons State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 29 of 34 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.10.08 15:30:48 +0530 vide memo, Ex.PW6/R after their disclosure and they got recovered other e-rickshaw vide memos, Ex.PW6/S and they correctly identified stolen e-rickshaw from photographs, Ex.P1, but it is settled law that merely recovery of articles is not sufficient to prove the charge and in this case, the public witnesses including victim failed to identify the accused persons as assailants and the said mobile phone was not in the name of PW5 and the Lorazepam tablets seized at the instance of accused Rahisuddin and Adil vide memos, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D were not stated to be consumed by victim nor the remnants received from FSL were produced before the Court to be put to police witnesses qua their seizure nor any photographs of said mobile or Lorazepam tablets were brought on record or shown to seizure witnesses. In the cross-examination of PW6 and PW7, they stated that they did not remember from which side pocket of accused Adil and Rahisuddin, the said Lorazepam tablets were recovered.
RECOVERY OF ARTICLES
57. Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act "27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.
"Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."
58. No independent public person was made a witness during any of the recovery proceedings and stereo type answers State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 30 of 34 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.10.08 15:30:55 +0530 were given by police officials that no public person joined the investigation.
59. In Ravindra Nath Prusty Vs. State of Orissa, 1984 Cr.LJ 1392, Hon'ble Orissa High Court held that "10.... One of the formalities that has to be observed in searching a person is that searching officer and others assisting him should give their personal search to the accused before searching the person of accused. ..... This rule is meant to avoid the possibility of implanting the object, which was brought by the search. There is no evidence on record whatsoever, that the raiding party gave their personal search to the accused before the latter's person was searched..... No independent witness had witnessed the search. In the above premises, my conclusion is that search was illegal and consequently, the conviction based thereon is also vitiated."
60. Even if the recovery is said to be proved as per law, then also it is settled law that mere recovery of articles i.e. weapon and the articles of deceased, is not sufficient to prove the case against the accused particularly if identity of assailants is not established.
61. In Radhey Shyam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No. 2203/2010 decided on 12.04.2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
7. Thus, PW4, who claims to be an eye witness, could not identify a single accused by name in the Court though she claimed that she was in a position to identify the accused by their names as well as their respective father's name.
9. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the identity of the named accused as assailants of the deceased has not been established in the Court beyond a reasonable doubt. Then what remains is the evidence of the alleged recovery of the weapons of assault at the instance of the accused. The conviction cannot be sustained only on the basis of the alleged State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 31 of 34 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.10.08 15:31:00 +0530 recovery.
Thus, the recovery of the stolen articles of the victim from the possession/at the instance of accused persons have not been proved as per law and even if it is considered as proved, then also the recovery alone is not sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of other corroborating evidence especially when identity of accused persons as the persons, who had given stupefying/intoxicating substance to victim and stolen his e- rickshaw and mobile, has not been proved.
62. PW7 proved the recording of statement of complainant Neeru, Ex.PW1/A, rukka, Ex.PW7/A and got registered FIR, Ex.PA1, but the contents of complaint were denied by the PW1. PW7 also deposed that he along with complainant went to the spot where Kundan (PW5) was last seen by Anil (PW3) and he prepared site plan, Ex.PW7/B, but PW1 denied that she went with IO to spot and he prepared site plan at her instance.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
63. Accused Adil, Amit, Rahisuddin @ Shavez and Salman denied the incriminating evidence put to them in their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC on 20.09.2025 and stated that all the witnesses were interested witnesses and they were falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case without any fault on their part and they are innocent. The prosecution case is weak after the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 and foundational facts have not been laid, so the defence of the accused persons is not material particularly when none of the State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 32 of 34 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.10.08 15:32:18 +0530 public witnesses has identified any of the accused persons during their testimony as the person involved in the crime. Even the admitted documents do not prove the offence against the accused persons.
64. In Kailash Gour and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported in MANU/SC/1505/2011, (2012) 2 SCC 34, Apex Court has observed that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on the altar or inefficiency, inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by the police. The benefit arising from any such faulty investigation ought to go to the accused and not to the prosecution.
65. In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, dt. 13.10.2022, in Crl. Appeal No. 242/2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is settled principle of law that when two views are possible from the prosecution evidence, the one which is favourable to the accused shall have to be taken and the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused.
66. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the Judgments titled as 'Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur', reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC) in this respect. Reference may also be made to the Judgment titled as 'Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan', reported State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 33 of 34 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.10.08 15:32:24 +0530 as (2013) 5 SCC 722, wherein it was held that the large distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied and the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons.
CONCLUSION
67. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Adil, Amit, Rahisuddin @ Shavez and Salman qua offence punishable u/s 328/379/411/34 IPC, thus, a benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons on the basis of above-noted principles and facts established on record.
68. Consequently, the accused persons Adil, Amit, Rahisuddin @ Shavez and Salman are acquitted of the offences u/s 328/379/411/34 IPC. Surety stands discharged.
Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT RAJAT Date:
2025.10.08
ON THIS 08 DAY OF OCTOBER 2025. 15:32:29 +0530 (KUMAR RAJAT) ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD Delhi/08.10.2025 State Vs Adil & Ors. FIR No. 238/2019 PS Shahdara Page 34 of 34