State vs Ravi Kumar & Ors on 15 May, 2025

[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

State vs Ravi Kumar & Ors on 15 May, 2025

1. The present application under Section 378(3) seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 30th October, 20141 passed by ASJ- 01 (Central), Delhi, acquitting the Respondents in FIR No. 70/2012, for under Sections 392, 397, 411 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at P.S. Anand Parbat.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1 On 20th June, 2012, at around 12:15 AM, Head Constable3 Ved Pal who was in-charge of a PCR van reported to P.S. Anand Parbat that three boys had been apprehended for allegedly attempting to commit robbery, and that a knife had been recovered from them. The incident was stated to have occurred near Gali No. 5, New Rohtak Road, and was recorded vide DD No. 1 "Impugned judgment"

"IPC"

"HC"

CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 1 of 17

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:44:40 2A. Sub Inspector4 Bal Mukund was assigned the case to investigate. 2.2 When SI Bal Mukund reached the spot, he met HC Ved Pal and Constable Tula Ram who handed over the custody of three apprehended individuals alongwith one 'buttondar knife'(button-operated), a 'Samsung Mobile Phone' and ₹700 in cash. These items were alleged to have been forcibly taken from the Complainant and were recovered from the three accused. Pertinently, the Complainant was also present at the spot. HC Ved Pal then informed SI Bal Mukund that the accused persons had extorted the recovered mobile phone and ₹700 from the Complainant using the knife which was also recovered.

2.3 Thereafter, the statement of the Complainant was recorded wherein he alleged that on 19th June, 2012, at around 11:30 p.m., while walking from Karol Bagh to Prem Nagar, he was intercepted by the accused persons near Kamal Hotel, Rohtak Road. One assailant purportedly held him by the neck, another pointed a knife at him, and a third removed ₹700 from his pocket. The Complainant was allegedly coerced into handing over his mobile phone under threat of being stabbed.

2.4 It was further alleged that as the accused persons fled, the Complainant raised an alarm and began to chase them. A passing PCR van responded, pursued the accused, and managed to apprehend two of them, while the Complainant himself detained the third.

2.5 The three accused were identified as Ravi Kumar (who allegedly restrained the Complainant and took the mobile phone), Umesh Kumar (who allegedly brandished the knife), and Sunil (who allegedly searched and took cash from the Complainant's pocket).

"SI"

CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 2 of 17

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:44:40 2.6 Based on the Complainant's statement and the materials recovered, the present FIR was registered, and investigation ensued. 2.7 Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 392, 397, 411 and 34 of IPC. Charges were framed under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC against all three accused. Additional charges under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were framed against accused Umesh Kumar.

2.8 In support of their case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses including the Complainant, the two PCR officials (HC Ved Pal and Constable Tula Ram), and the Investigating Officer, SI Bal Mukund. 2.9 In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Respondents denied all allegations and unequivocally stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case. Ravi pleaded that he had been apprehended along with accused Sunil and nothing was recovered from his possession, whereas Sunil pleaded that he was merely bringing food back from a dhaba when he saw people running around and was suddenly arrested by the PCR officials under some confusion. He further deposed that nothing was recovered from him. 2.10 Umesh stated that he was also returning from his job, when he saw that some people were running around and in the heat of the moment and under some confusion, he was arrested without any recovery being made from him. However, no evidence was led by the accused persons in support of these claims.

2.11 Upon consideration of the entire material on record, including the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the Trial Court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, ultimately acquitting all three Respondents.

CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 3 of 17

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:44:40

3. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, contends that the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from fundamental errors in appreciation of the prosecution evidence and is liable to be set aside. He submits that the conclusions reached by the Trial Court rest on conjecture, and unwarranted assumptions, rather than on a fair evaluation of the material on record. The grounds urged may be summarised as follows:

3.1 The Trial Court failed to undertake a proper and holistic appreciation of the prosecution evidence, which, if assessed in its correct perspective, clearly pointed towards the guilt of the Respondents. The testimony of the Complainant was consistent on all material particulars, and he unequivocally deposed that the three accused persons had intercepted him, robbed him at knife-point of his mobile phone and ₹700 in cash, and were apprehended shortly thereafter with the assistance of the PCR van personnel. 3.2 The Court gave undue weight to the initial recording of the incident as an "attempt to commit robbery" in the PCR call, without appreciating the context in which the message was transmitted. It is submitted that the terminology used in the PCR entry merely reflected the emergent nature of the situation, where the robbery had just occurred and the assailants had been immediately apprehended. Thus, describing the offence as an 'attempt' in the initial report did not dilute the gravity of what had actually transpired, nor did it warrant drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution. 3.3 The testimony of the Complainant has been consistent on material particulars of the case. He clearly stated that three accused persons had apprehended and robbed him of his mobile phone and cash, and that he had raised a hue and cry, and subsequently, along with the officials of the PCR, apprehended the three accused persons some paces away from the place of CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 4 of 17 This is a digitally signed order.

3.4 The Trial Court did not appreciate that the information of the apprehension was immediately relayed by the PCR officials to the local police, which was recorded vide DD No.2A at 12.15 AM. The Court misread the statements of the witnesses without taking into account the factual circumstances of the case. As such, the Court erred in inferring that the FIR was registered after purported deliberation by relying upon the fact that at the first instance the recorded information was that an attempt to commit robbery was made, and later it was converted into a case of robbery. At the time when the Complainant approached the PCR Van, after he was robbed and sought their help, there was insufficient time to relay the information to the police station. The police officials acted immediately along with the Complainant, apprehended the accused persons and recovered the robbed items from their possession. Thus, it was only in the heat of the moment that the officials informed the police station that an attempt of robbery had been made which was immediately foiled and the accused persons were apprehended. The PCR officials' description of the incident as an attempted robbery, rather than a robbery, only reflected that the robbery which had occurred had been swiftly resolved and reduced to an attempt, which got recorded as an attempted robbery. Therefore, the said statement was misread by the Trial Court, stripping it off from its circumstantial relevance.

3.5 The Trial Court ought not to have inferred the contention that there was a discrepancy in the statement of the Complainant regarding the place where the investigation took place. While the case of the prosecution is that the investigation took place on the scene of the incident, the Complainant in CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 5 of 17 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:44:40 his statement before the Court submitted that his initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in P.S. Anand Parbat, where he also signed some documents. However, it must be appreciated that in his cross examination, the witness specifically stated that 15-20 minutes after the accused persons were apprehended, the local police came and recorded his statement and prepared the site plan on the spot. Being an illiterate rickshaw puller, the Complainant might not have been able to differentiate between the documents he signed at the spot of the incident and in the Police Station Anand Parbat. During his cross-examination he remembered that his statement and the sketch of the knife were prepared on the spot after which he was taken to PS Anand Parbat by the police, from where he left at 10 or 11 AM the next day. Thus, this discrepancy should not have been construed by the Trial Court as evidence of deliberate conversion of the case from one of attempted robbery to robbery.

3.6 As regards the partial failure of identification by the Complainant during trial, it is submitted that the lapse was not fatal. The confusion in identifying accused Ravi Kumar was explained by the fact that he had altered his appearance by growing a beard between the date of the incident and the trial. More importantly, the other two accused (Sunil and Umesh) were clearly identified not only by the Complainant but also by the PCR officials who apprehended them at the spot. Insofar as the precise role of each individual accused is concerned, it is urged that in situations involving sudden violence or robbery, it is not uncommon for victims to be unable to attribute exact roles to each assailant. The failure to do so cannot, by itself, cast doubt on the occurrence of the crime or the identity of the assailants. 3.7 The recoveries made from the accused persons, immediately upon CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 6 of 17 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:44:40 apprehension, were not given due weight by the Trial Court. The recovery of the mobile phone, cash, and knife from the possession of the Respondents, moments after the incident, lends strong corroboration to the Complainant's version and should have been treated as substantive circumstantial evidence.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Arpit Batra, counsel acting as Amicus Curiae, representing the interest of the Respondents, urges that the present case is not fit for granting leave to appeal under Section 378(3) on the following grounds:

4.1 The burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt squarely rests upon the prosecution. In a case which is founded predominantly on circumstantial evidence, it is imperative that the prosecution weaves a cogent and unbroken chain of events that unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused. In the absence of such an evidentiary chain, the presumption of innocence must prevail.

4.2 There are material inconsistencies in the statement of the key witnesses, particularly with regard to the sequence and location of events following the alleged robbery. The divergence in accounts regarding the place of investigation, whether the Complainant's statement was recorded at the spot or at the police station, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution narrative, a concern that the Trial Court has rightly taken note of in the impugned judgment.

4.3 No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted during the course of investigation, a procedural omission that assumes significance in the present case, where the Complainant not only failed to identify one of the accused during trial but was also unable to attribute specific roles to the individual accused. In such circumstances, the credibility of the CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 7 of 17 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:44:40 identification process is severely compromised. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Dana Yadav @ Dahu v. State of Bihar5 wherein the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of test identification parade to examine the reliability of evidence regarding identification of an accused. 4.4 Moreover, there remains an unexplained delay of nearly ten hours in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. This unexplained lapse, coupled with the IO's unilateral alteration of the nature of the offence from an "attempt to commit robbery" to "robbery," without contemporaneous corroboration or justification, renders the prosecution's version open to doubt.

Analysis

5. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by both the sides. At the outset, it is apposite to take note of the general principles regarding the powers of the Appellate Court under Section 378, as laid down in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka6, which are as follows:

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.

2002(4) R.C.R (Criminal) 314 6 (2007) 4 SCC 415 CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 8 of 17 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:44:40 Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

6. That said, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 378(3) CrPC, the inquiry before the Court is not whether the acquittal is perverse, but whether the prosecution has succeeded in raising arguable grounds necessitating reappreciation of evidence. In State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Magnesh Poyarekar7, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of powers at the stage of granting leave to appeal under sub-section (3) of Section 378, holding:

"19. Now, Section 378 of the Code provides for filing of appeal by the State in case of acquittal. Sub-section (3) declares that no appeal "shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court". It is, therefore, necessary for the State where it is aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded by a Court of Session to file an application for leave to appeal as required by sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code. It is also true that an appeal can be registered and heard on merits by the High Court only after the High Court grants leave by allowing the application filed under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code.

20. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or 7 (2008) 9 SCC 475 CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 9 of 17 This is a digitally signed order.

21. It cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition of law of universal application that each and every petition seeking leave to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a trial court must be allowed by the appellate court and every appeal must be admitted and decided on merits. But it also cannot be overlooked that at that stage, the court would not enter into minute details of the prosecution evidence and refuse leave observing that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court could not be said to be "perverse" and, hence, no leave should be granted.

...xx... ...xx... ...xx...

24. We may hasten to clarify that we may not be understood to have laid down an inviolable rule that no leave should be refused by the appellate court against an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. We only state that in such cases, the appellate court must consider the relevant material, sworn testimonies of prosecution witnesses and record reasons why leave sought by the State should not be granted and the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be disturbed. Where there is application of mind by the appellate court and reasons (may be in brief) in support of such view are recorded, the order of the court may not be said to be illegal or objectionable. At the same time, however, if arguable points have been raised, if the material on record discloses deeper scrutiny and reappreciation, review or reconsideration of evidence, the appellate court must grant leave as sought and decide the appeal on merits."

[Emphasis supplied]

7. In the light of the above legal position, the central question before this Court is whether a prima facie case has been made out warranting the grant of leave to appeal against the order of acquittal. While doing so, the Court is mindful that an acquittal carries with it a double presumption of innocence, and unless the view taken by the Trial Court is manifestly unreasonable or fails to account for material evidence, interference may not be warranted. However, if the prosecution is able to demonstrate that the findings of the Trial Court rest on an incomplete or flawed appreciation of evidence, or if arguable issues requiring re-evaluation are raised, the grant of leave CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 10 of 17 This is a digitally signed order.

8. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the view taken by the Trial Court. A plain reading of the impugned judgment reflects that the acquittal was not a based on conjectures or oversight, but rather the outcome of a thorough analysis of the evidentiary record and the multiple inconsistencies that emerged during trial. The Trial Court has extensively dissected the prosecution's narrative and supported the findings with cogent reasons. The following findings in judgment merit notice:

"10. Prosecution has set up a case that after the incident, complainant raised hue and cry after seeing PCR van, consequently PCR officials chased the accused persons and apprehended all the accused persons with the help of complainant and recovered robbed articles and informed the local police. PW3 and PW4 are the PCR officials. PW4 HC Ved Pal was in-charge of the PCR van. Both deposed that when they were going to Zakhira side, one person after seeing the PCR van came to them and told that robbers had ran away towards Harijan Basti. Accordingly, they chased the robbers and apprehended them at the pointing out of complainant. On inquiry, robbers disclosed their name as Sunil, Umesh and Ravi Kumar. Both the said witnesses also identified the accused persons. They also deposed that the complainant told them that the said robbers had robbed one mobile phone and ₹700/- from him, consequently, they took the search of accused persons. On search one mobile phone make Samsung was recovered from accused Ravi; one buttondar knife was recovered from accused Umesh and 700/- was recovered from accused Sunil.

11. PW4 in his examination-in-chief deposed that thereafter they informed the police control room. Consequently, SI Bal Mukund along with constable reached the spot and conducted the investigation. From the testimony of PW4, it becomes clear that PCR officials had informed the police control room about the said incident and the said information was conveyed to the local police vide DD No. 2A which was recorded at 12.15 AM at PS Anand Parbat. If the complainant told the PCR officials that the accused persons had robbed a mobile phone and 700/- from him and the said robbed articles were recovered from the possession of accused persons, question arises why the PCR officials had conveyed to the police control room that three boys who had been apprehended were attempted to rob and why they had not informed the police control room that three CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 11 of 17 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:44:40 robbers who had robbed the complainant had been apprehended by them and the robbed articles had also been recovered from them. Further, as per the testimony of PW3 & PW4 they apprehended the accused persons immediately after the incident but surprisingly they decided to inform the police control room after about 45 minutes of the incident. If they had apprehended the accused immediately why they had not informed the police control room immediately and asked to send local police at the spot. The delay in sending the information to the police control room creates a doubt over their version. No attempt was made by the prosecution to seek explanation from PW3 & PW4 why they had conveyed the information to police control room so belatedly that only an attempt was made to rob and why they had not informed that robbery had taken place and they had apprehended the robbers and they had recovered the robbed articles. No doubt, this lapse is insufficient to discard the entire prosecution case but this contradiction is sufficient to put the Court on guard to examine the prosecution case minutely to ensure itself whether accused persons have not been falsely implicated in this case.

12. Prosecution has also set up a case that on receipt of the call of the incident, SI Bal Mukund along with constable Ashok reached the spot. and he conducted the entire investigation at the spot. As per prosecution version entire proceeding was conducted in the presence of complainant as well as PCR officials/However, PW3 did not support the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief by deposing that after handing over the accused persons to SI Bal Mukund, they left from the spot but when he was, declared hostile and questions were put to him in suggestive form by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he deposed that the investigating officer had conducted all investigation in his presence.

13. But the prosecution version does not get support from the complainant who in his examination-in-chief deposed that PCR officials took him and robbers to police station Anand Parbat and in the police station, police had recorded his statement and made inquiry from the accused persons. Thus, as per the testimony of PW7 the investigating officer had conducted all investigation in the police station. Since the version of PW7 does not support the prosecution case, PW7 was got declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the local police also came at the spot but he reiterated that after 15-20 minutes he was taken to the police station. However, when a question was put to the witness in suggestive form, he deposed that his statement Ex. PW7/A was recorded-at the spot. Thus, as per the testimony of PW7 local police remained at the spot for about 15-20 minutes and he also testified that police had recorded his statement Ex. PW7/A at the spot.

CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 12 of 17

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:44:40

(i) Now question arises as to whether it is possible to conduct the proceedings mentioned in Ex. PW7/A within such a short span of 15 to 20 minutes? To my mind, answer is in negative. As per Ex.PW7/A, investigating officer had prepared all the recovery memos Including sketch of knife and also prepared the pullandas. It is quite improbable to prepare all these documents in such a short time of 15-20 minutes.

Accordingly, his earlier version that PCR official took him and robbers to the police station and police recorded his statement in the police station appears more probable and trustworthy.

14. It is also pertinent to state that (PW7 is an illiterate person and in his cross-examination he admitted that he cannot say in which language police had prepared the documents and further deposed that no other person had signed on the documents when he put his thumb Impression on the same. This shows that the documents were not prepared in the presence of PW3 and PW4. As earlier stated, PW3 in his testimony deposed that after handing over the accused to SI Bal Mukund they left from the spot. This version of PW3 is corroborated from the testimony of PW7 when he deposed that no other person had signed the documents when he put thumb impression. This shows that PCR officials had signed on the memos later on.

15. PW7 in his cross-examination admitted that there was darkness at the place of incident but swiftly added that there was dim light which was sufficient to identify a person. Admittedly, the alleged incident had taken place at about 11.30 PM. Perusal of the site plan reveals that investigating officer did not deem it appropriate even to show the source of light, if any, at the spot. As per the site plan, there was no electric pole at the spot. If there was no electricity pole, question arises from where the said dim light was coming? In the absence of any cogent evidence qua source of light, the testimony of PW7 to the extent that there was a dim light does not inspire any confidence. Since there was darkness at the spot at the time of incident and complainant did not know the accused persons previously and he had not sufficient time to recognize the features of robbers, there is every possibility that the accused persons might have been apprehended under some confusion.

16. Perusal of the testimony of PW7 reveals that he failed to identify the accused Ravi Kumar in his examination-in-chief. When he was cross- examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor he deposed that he is unable to say whether accused Ravi was one of the robbers or not because accused present in the Court is having beard whereas robbers had no beard. Though attention of witness was drawn towards the accused Ravi by learned Additional Public Prosecutor but he failed to identify him. In his cross-examination he reiterated that he is not sure whether accused Ravi CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 13 of 17 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:44:40 present in the Court is the person to whom he had given his mobile phone or that from whom his mobile phone was recovered. Thus, it becomes clear that PW7 failed to identify the accused Ravi. Surprisingly, even PW8 SI Bal Mukund also failed to identify the accused Ravi during trial. No doubt, PW3 and PW4 also identified the accused Ravi but it is admitted case of prosecution that the alleged incident had not taken place in their presence and they apprehended the accused Ravi at the pointing out of complainant. Since complainant (PW7) failed to identify the accused in the Court, the identification by PW3 and PW4 during trial becomes insignificant.

17. Though PW7 identified the accused Sunil and Umesh but he failed to attribute the role allegedly played by them. In his examination-in- chief, he deposed that one of the accused caught hold him by hand and another pointed the knife at his abdomen. In his cross-examination he admitted that there was darkness at the spot and also failed to attribute the role allegedly played by the said accused persons. Since, he failed to attribute the role played by accused persons, it shows that he might have not been able to see which robber was playing which role. It means that there was not sufficient light to recognize the unknown person. As already stated, the testimony of PW3 and PW4 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the identity of robbers because the alleged incident had not taken place in their presence; rather they identified the robbers at the pointing of complainant. PW7 in his cross-examination clarified that when PCR van reached, the robbers were not visible to him as well as PCR officials. In other words there was no occasion for the PCR officials to see the robbers when they were fleeing away from the spot. In these circumstances, the testimony of PW3 and PW4 qua the identification of accused Sunil and Umesh also becomes insufficient to prove their culpability.

18. PW7 even also failed to identify the recovered currency notes. Admittedly, only 700/- was found from one of the accused. The recovery of 700/- in the absence of any other cogent evidence is not sufficient to draw any adverse inference against the accused persons.

19. From the testimony of witnesses examined by the prosecution it becomes clear that first information was given to the police control room that three boys were apprehended who were attempting to rob a person. Probably, due to said reason, complainant failed to attribute any specific role to the accused persons. Had he been robbed as projected by prosecution, he would have certainly attributed specific role to the accused persons. The possibility of planting belongings of complainant such as mobile phone upon the accused, in the circumstances of the case, can not be ruled out.

CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 14 of 17

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:44:40

20. During trial, prosecution failed to produce any other cogent evidence to prove the fact that the accused persons had committed the alleged robbery.

21. Pondering over the on going discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts, thus, I hereby acquit all accused persons namely Ravi, Sunil and Umesh from all the charges."

9. The Trial Court noted a fundamental discrepancy in the initial version of events reported to the police. The first information received at the police control room indicated an attempt to commit robbery, not a completed act of robbery. This information was relayed nearly 45 minutes after the alleged apprehension of the accused and was not contemporaneous with the incident. In a case where the prosecution asserts immediate apprehension, delayed and diluted intimation to the police undermines the spontaneity and reliability of the narrative.

10. Further, inconsistencies in the place of investigation, as surfaced through the testimonies of PW7 (Complainant) and PW3-PW4 (PCR officials), cast serious doubt over the integrity of the investigation. The Complainant initially stated that 15-20 minutes after the local police arrived, he and the accused persons were taken to the police station, where his statement was recorded and investigation was conducted. This was in contrast to the prosecution's case that Investigating Officer prepared all the recovery memos, including the sketch of the knife and the pullandas on the spot. While the Complainant later modified his testimony under leading questions, the Trial Court rightly held that the documents allegedly prepared at the scene, such as the recovery memos and sketch, could not have realistically been drawn within the short time of 15-20 minutes.

11. Equally troubling is the issue of identification. The Complainant CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 15 of 17 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:44:40 failed to identify accused Ravi Kumar in court, citing a change in appearance. He could not confirm whether Ravi was the same person who took his phone or from whom it was recovered. Although PW3 and PW4 (PCR officials) claimed to identify Ravi, the Trial Court correctly noted that such identification was of limited probative value, as the incident had not occurred in their presence and they had relied solely on the Complainant's pointing out.

12. As for the remaining accused, though the Complainant identified Umesh and Sunil, he could not assign specific roles to either of them during the incident. Given that the offence allegedly took place at 11:30 PM in poor lighting conditions, and that the site plan showed no streetlight or source of illumination, the possibility of mistaken identity could not be ruled out. The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer also failed to indicate any source of light, further weakening the prosecution's case.

13. The Complainant's inability to identify the currency allegedly recovered (₹700) from one of the accused also significantly diluted the value of the recovery. In the absence of distinctive markings or identification, a recovery of generic currency alone is insufficient to connect the accused to the offence, especially when the core narrative stands on shaky ground.

14. The Trial Court's observation that the original intimation to the control room spoke of an attempted robbery, and not a robbery, also becomes material in this backdrop. If indeed the Complainant had just been robbed, the expectation would be that he would immediately report the offence as one of robbery, particularly when the alleged culprits were in custody. The divergence between the PCR version and the subsequent FIR strengthens the defence's suggestion of embellishment.

CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 16 of 17

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:44:40

15. The Trial Court was also justified in drawing an adverse inference from the prosecution's failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP), particularly when the Complainant failed to ascribe roles or identify one of the accused. In a case entirely dependent on ocular testimony and circumstantial recovery, the absence of TIP assumes significance and cannot be lightly brushed aside.

16. Thus, while it is true that not every contradiction is fatal, in the present case, the cumulative effect of the inconsistencies, ranging from delayed reporting, internal contradictions in witness statements, failure to properly identify the accused, and procedural lapses, was sufficient for the Trial Court to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. That view, in the opinion of this Court, was not only plausible but founded upon a conscientious reading of the record.

17. In light of the foregoing, in the opinion of the Court, the State has not been able to establish a prima facie case for re-appreciation of facts and circumstances in the present case, to disturb the well-reasoned and meticulously detailed judgement of the Trial Court.

18. Accordingly, the leave to appeal sought by the State is denied, and the present petition is dismissed along with any pending applications.

SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 15, 2025/nk CRL.L.P. 25/2015 Page 17 of 17 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:44:40

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders