Delhi District Court
State vs Shishu Gupta on 31 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No:- DLET01-008823-2023
SC No:- 451/2023
FIR No : 653/2017
Police Station : Shakar Pur
Under Section (s) : 394/397 IPC
In the Sessions case of :-
State
versus
Shishu Gupta
S/o Late Ram Bharose Gupta
R/o House No. E-113,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 04.07.2023
Date of reserving Order : 30.05.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2025
Final Judgment : Accused is convicted.
Appearances :-
For the State : Sh. Vineet Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP.
For the accused : Sh. Yashasvi Sharma, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. In the present case, accused Shishu Gupta was sent up for trial on the basis of report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') for attempting to commit robbery of a mobile phone belonging to complainant Vivek Haldar and while attempting to commit the AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 17:42:46 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 1 of 17 said offence, accused used a deadly weapon i.e. big knife and voluntarily caused hurt to Nitin Saxena.
Factual Matrix
2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.10.2017 at about 10:15 PM, complainant Vivek Haldar was going back to his home along with his brother-in-law (jija) Nitin Saxena on a scooty bearing no. DL-1S-AC1261. While brother- in-law of complainant was driving the scooty, complainant was sitting as a pillion rider. It was alleged that when they reached School Block, Shakar Pur near Bus Stand, one person standing at the bus stand tried to snatch the mobile phone of complainant on pointing of knife. However, the assailant could not manage to snatch the mobile phone and tried to escape from the spot. Consequently, complainant and his brother-in-law chased the assailant on their scooty and caught him. The assailant though caused knife injuries on the finger of brother-in-law of complainant. The complainant called on 100 number and beat constable also reached there in the meantime who took the assailant to the Police Station with the help of local police. IO recorded the statement of complainant and injured Nitin Saxena was sent to LBS hospital for his medical examination. IO prepared rukka on the statement of complainant Vivek Haldar and got the FIR registered.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation commenced and accused Shishu Gupta was arrested, personally searched and his disclosure statement was also recorded. Site plan was AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 17:42:53 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 2 of 17 prepared at the instance of the complainant and separate statement of other witnesses were also recorded by the IO.
4. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offence under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') was filed against the accused before the Court of Ld. MM on 20.12.2017. Vide order dated 26.06.2023, it was observed by the Court that prima-facie ingredients of Section 397 IPC were also made out. After statutory compliance under Section 207 IPC, present case was committed to the Court of Sessions and assigned to this Court vide order dated 04.07.2023 passed by Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Charge
5. On 01.08.2023, accused was formally charged for commission of offences under Sections 393/394 read with Section 398 IPC. It is pertinent to note that during proceedings of this case, accused stopped appearing before Ld. MM Court and was accordingly declared a proclaimed person in terms of Section 82 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 09.01.2023. He was later on arrested in Kalandara under Section 41.1(C) Cr.P.C. on 13.03.2023 and supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him. As such, additional charge for offence under Section 174A IPC was framed against him on 30.05.2025.
Prosecution Evidence
6. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 JAIN 17:43:04 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 3 of 17
7. PW-1 complainant/ eye-witness Vivek Haldar and PW-2/ injured Niting Saxena are the star witnesses of prosecution and their testimonies would be discussed in detail at later stage.
8. PW-3 is HC Sharvan who deposed that on 24.10.2017, he was posted at Police Station Shakar Pur and on that day, he was on emergency duty along with SI Sanjay. On receipt of DD, he along with Sanjay reached at School Block, Bus Stand, Shakar Pur, Delhi where they came to know that the victim was already taken by the beat police officials. Thereafter, they returned to Police Station Shakar Pur and met with complainant Vivek Haldar, injured Nitin Saxena there. Beat police official Ct. Vikas produced accused Shishu Gupta before SI Sanjay and they came to know that accused had attempted to commit robbery of mobile phone of complainant. PW-3 deposed that on direction of SI Sanjay, he took injured Nitin Saxena to the LBS Hospital for medical examination and after medical examination, they returned to Police Station and handed over the MLC to SI Sanjay. At the Police Station, Ct. Vikas produced a knife before SI Sanjay which was allegedly snatched by Vivek Haldar and Nitin Saxena from the possession of accused Shishu Gupta. SI Sanjay took the measurements of knife and prepared its sketch vide Ex.PW1/B and sealed the same vide seizure memo vide Ex.PW1/C. PW-3 further proved the arrest memo of accused vide Ex.PW1/E, his personal search vide Ex.PW1/F and his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed that after medical examination of accused, he was kept in the lock up. PW-3 correctly identified the accused before the court. He also correctly identified the case property i.e. knife vide Ex. PW 1/P1.
Digitally signed by AKASH JAINAKASH JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 17:43:16 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 4 of 17
9. PW-4 is SI Ummed Singh who deposed that on 05.12.2017, he handed over PCR form dated 24.10.2017 Ex.PW4/B of time 10:18 PM to IO with Certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act vide Ex.PW4/A.
10. PW-5 is HC Vikas Rathi, who deposed that on 24.10.2017, he was posted at Police Station Shakar Pur and at about 10:30 PM when he was present at Shakar Pur, School Block, area during his beat duty, he received a phone call from the duty officer that at School Block, Bus Stand, Shakar pur, two persons apprehended one person who had committed robbery of the mobile phone after showing the knife to them. After receipt of the said information, he immediately reached at the spot where he saw that one person was apprehended by two persons and finger of one of them was found in injured condition. PW-5 deposed that one person namely, Vivek Haldar alleged that the apprehended person Shishu Gupta @ Shiv attempted to commit robbery of his mobile by showing a knife and in that process, he caused injuries to the finger of his brother-in-law ( saala). PW-5 deposed that he took Vivek Haldar, his brother-in-law and accused Shishu Gupta @ Shiv to Police Station Shakar Pur where he produced them before SI Sanjay and Ct. Sharwan. SI Sanjay made inquiries from Vivek Haldar and recorded his statement and injured person was sent to the hospital for medical examination along with Ct. Sharwan. PW-5 further deposed on the same lines as that of PW-3 HC Sharvan qua recovery of knife, preparation of sketch of knife by SI Sanjay. PW-5 correctly AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 17:43:21 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 5 of 17 identified the accused as well as case property i.e. knife Ex.P1 before the court.
11. PW-6 is IO/Inspector Sanjay Kumar who deposed that on 24.10.2017, he received a DD No. 105-B Ex.C3 regarding a quarrel at School Block, Shakar Pur and that one thief was apprehended with a knife. He deposed on the same lines as that of PW-3 HC Sharvan and PW-5 HC Vikas Rathi. He thereafter proved the documents viz. sketch of knife Ex.PW1/B, seizure memo of knife Ex.PW1/C, registration of FIR, arrest memo of accused Ex.PW1/E, his personal search as Ex.PW1/F and his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW3/A; site plan which was prepared at the instance of complainant Ex.PW1/D; purchase receipt Ex.PW6/B, RC of scooty of complainant Ex.PW6/C and filing of charge-sheet before the Court. PW-6 correctly identified the accused Shishu Gupta as well as case property i.e. knife as Ex.P1.
12. PW-7 is Retired SI Vijay Dutt who deposed that on 12.09.2022, he was posted at Police Station Laxmi Nagar as Process Server and executed process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. issued against accused Shishu Gupta S/o Late Ram Bharose Gupta R/o House No. E-113, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi. He deposed that on 12.09.2022, he visited the said address to execute the process and searched for accused but he could not found him at the given address. After executing the proclamation, he prepared report vide Ex.PW7/A and also proved the photographs vide Ex.PW7/B as well as CD of the public announcement as Ex.PW7/C. AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 17:43:27 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 6 of 17
13. PW-8 is ASI Pradeep Kumar who deposed that accused Shishu Gupta who was declared PO vide order dated 09.01.2023 was arrested in a Kalandara under Section 41.1 (C) Cr.P.C. by HC Rinku Singh on 13.03.2023 and the information was given to Police Station Laxmi Nagar. He further deposed that he prepared the supplementary charge-sheet under Section 174A IPC against the accused and filed the same before the court. PW-8 correctly identified accused during recording of his testimony.
14. During the proceedings of the case, Ld. Counsel for accused made a statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused and without admitting the contents thereof did not dispute genuineness of FIR no. 653/2017 Ex.C1 recorded by HC Rambir Singh and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. C2 given by him; DD no. 105-B dated 24.10.2017 Ex.C3 recorded by HC Anuj, MLC No. 015630 dated 25.10.2017 of patient Nitin Saxena Ex.C4 prepared by Dr. Sumit Dixit, CMO, LBS Hospital, Delhi and opinion given by Dr. Narender SR, LBS hospital on the same as 'Simple'. Therefore, said documents could be read in evidence without formal proof of same in terms of Section 294 Cr.PC. and the witnesses sought to prove the said documents were dropped by the Court.
Statement of accused
15. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused. Statement of accused under Section 313 was recorded on 13.01.2025 and 30.05.2025 wherein incriminating circumstances Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 17:43:33 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 7 of 17 were put to the accused which he denied. Accused stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant as well as police officials. He further stated that on 24.10.2017 at around 09:00 PM, he was consuming liquor at School Block, Bus stand, Shakarpur and police officials apprehended him on the pretext of making some inquiries and took him to the Police Station and thereafter, he was kept in the lock-up whole night and made to sign on some blank documents.
Final Arguments
16. The matter consequently got fixed for final arguments. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that on relevant date, time and place of incident, accused had attempted to commit robbery of mobile phone belonging to complainant Vivek Haldar and while attempting to commit said robbery accused used a deadly weapon i.e. knife and voluntarily caused hurt to brother-in-law of complainant namely, Nitin Saxena. It is argued that both the eye- witnesses i.e. complainant/PW-1 Vivek Haldar and injured/ PW-2 Nitin Saxena deposed in sync qua entire incident in question. While, Nitin Saxena could not identify the accused due to lapse of time, complainant Vivek Haldar categorically identified the accused as assailant and withstood the test of cross-examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused. It is argued that the MLC of injured Nitin Saxena further corroborates the factum of injury received by him and the other material on record regarding arrest of accused from spot and recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife from him stands duly proved by the testimonies of remaining prosecution witnesses. It is thus, prayed that the Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH JAIN Date:
+0530 2025.05.31 17:43:38 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 8 of 17 accused is liable to be convicted for offences punishable under Sections 393/394/398/174A IPC and be suitably punished.
17. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that testimonies of complainant/PW-1 Vivek Haldar and injured/ PW-2 Nitin Saxena suffer from material contradictions. It is argued that no public person was joined by the police during investigation at the spot of incident despite presence of various public persons there. It is further argued that PW-2 Nitin Saxena resiled from his statement and failed to identify accused in the Court. It is further argued that PW-2 Nitin Saxena denied apprehension of accused or recovery of alleged knife from the accused in his presence. It is further argued that on the relevant date of incident at around 09:00 PM, accused was consuming liquor at School Block, Bus stand, Shakarpur and police officials apprehended him on the pretext of making some inquiries and falsely implicated him in the present case.
Analysis and Findings
18. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, testimonies of eye-witnesses i.e. PW-1 Vivek Haldar and injured/ PW-2 Nitin Saxena are vital. The testimonies of both these witnesses are being discussed herein for better appreciation of evidence.
19. PW-1 is complainant Vivek Haldar, who deposed that the incident was of 24.10.2017 and he along with his jija were going back to their house to Shakar Pur on scooty. He did not remember the complete registration number of the scooty, Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 17:43:44 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 9 of 17 however, he stated that the number starts with DL---1261. He deposed that his jija was driving the scooty and he was sitting behind him and operating his mobile phone. When they reached near bus stand school block, Shakar Pur, one person tried to snatch his phone from his hand, but he failed in his attempt and tried to escape by running. PW-1 and his Jija started chasing him after leaving their scooty and managed to apprehend him. PW-1 correctly identified the accused as assailant and deposed that when they apprehended the accused, they were not aware that accused was having a knife and right hand index finger of his jija got cut due to said knife and blood started oozing out of it. PW-1 stated that the knife was a big knife which is used to cut open the coconut. Due to said incident, some public persons gathered there and PW- 1 snatched the knife from accused. Thereafter, he made call at 100 number and in the meanwhile one beat constable reached at the spot. PCR van also arrived in about 10-15 minutes and police took complainant, his jija and accused to Police Station Shakarpur. From there police officials took his Jija and accused to LBS hospital for medical examination. After medical examination when his Jija and accused came back in police station, police officials again made inquiries, on which he had narrated the incident to the police and produced the knife. Thereafter, his statement was recorded by the police vide Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that police prepared sketch of the knife vide Ex.PW1/B and seized the same after converting into pullanda vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. PW-1 deposed that during investigation, he had also shown the place of incident to the IO and at his instance, site plan was prepared by the IO vide Ex.PW1/D. He further proved the arrest memo and personal AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 17:43:49 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 10 of 17 search memo of accused vide Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F. PW-1 also identified the case property i.e. one big knife having wooden handle as Ex. PW-1/P-1. PW-1 deposed that after completing the proceedings, they were relieved by the police and returned back to their house.
20. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-1 affirmed that he did not know that accused was having a knife. He further denied the suggestion that accused attempted to snatch his mobile phone while pointing out the knife. PW-1 though stated that the accused had caused injuries on the finger of his jija with the knife which he was having. PW-1 further deposed that on inquiry made by the police, accused revealed his name as Shishu Gupta.
21. PW-2 is Nitin Saxena i.e. brother-in-law of complainant/ PW-1 who deposed that about 6-7 years ago, he along with complainant were going towards their house on a scooty and he was driving the same. At about 9:00 PM, when they reached on the main road of Mother Dairy, Shakar Pur, one person came from behind and tried to snatch the mobile phone from the hands of Vivek Haldar who was talking on the said mobile phone at that time. They stopped their scooty, chased the said assailant and apprehended him after 200 meters. PW-2 deposed that Vivek Haldar and said assailant grappled with each other and the assailant took out a knife and gave a blow to Vivek Haldar, however, he saved himself. As PW-2 tried to intervene and save Vivek Haldar, he received injury on forefinger of his left hand. PW-2 deposed that his finger was almost cut and he AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 17:43:55 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 11 of 17 became unconscious due to the said injury. He came into senses at LBS hospital and received medical treatment there. During his testimony PW-2 failed to identify the accused due to lapse of time and stated that nothing was recovered from the assailant in his presence as he became unconscious at the spot.
22. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-2 stated that police neither made any enquiry from him nor recorded any statement. He denied the suggestion that accused was arrested in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that knife was recovered from his possession or police prepared the sketch of knife in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that he did not depose correct facts before the Court as he had been won over by the accused.
23. It is well settled that for appreciating the evidence of a victim, the presence of such witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted. While appreciating his evidence, the Court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies, but must consider broad spectrum of the prosecution version. Being the victim/eyewitness of the crime, he would be most keen to ensure that the real culprit does not go scot free and there is no reason that he would frame any innocent person in such a serious offence which he had alleged completely knowing its implications without any previous enmity with him. Reliance is placed upon the cases of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259 and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719. AKASH by Digitally signed AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.05.31 17:44:04 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 12 of 17
24. In the present case, victim/ complainant Vivek Haldar categorically deposed regarding the role and manner in which the accused allegedly committed the offences in question and further correctly identified him in the Court. The accused was apprehended red handed from the spot by the complainant and his brother-in-law i.e. PW-2 Nitin Saxena. Moreover, beat constable HC Vikas PW-5 corroborated the version of PW-1 to the effect that when he arrived at the spot, he saw accused being apprehended by two persons and finger of one of them was in injured condition. PW-5 correctly identified the apprehended person as accused Shishu Gupta in the Court and further correctly identified the knife Ex. PW 1/P1 recovered from the possession of accused in his presence.
25. No doubt injured/ PW-2 Nitin Saxena could not identify the accused as assailant before the Court, however, he did not per se deny the occurrence of incident in question and deposed on same lines as that of complainant/ PW-1 regarding the entire chain of events and manner of commission of offences. His MLC further corroborates the factum of injury received by him. Mere fact that injured Nitin Saxena failed to identify the accused in the Court due to lapse of time of almost 7 years would not in any manner confer benefit of doubt to the accused in as much as the accused was clearly identified by associate of injured i.e. complainant Vivek Haldar who had apprehended the accused from the spot red handed and later on handed over him to beat officer HC Vikas Rathi i.e. PW-5 who too deposed on similar lines as that of PW-1 and correctly identified the accused AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 17:44:13 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 13 of 17 in the Court. It is not out of place to mention here that the presence of accused at the spot on the relevant date, time and place is not in dispute as also admitted by him during his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. PW-1 further categorically stated in his cross-examination that he had no previous animosity with the accused, as such, he had no occasion to falsely implicate him in the present case and let actual assailant go unpunished.
26. So far as argument of Ld. Counsel for accused regarding certain contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding time of incident and fact that PW-1 stated that PW-2 Nitin Saxena was brought to the hospital by his friend Suraj while Nitin Saxena deposed that he was brought to the Police Station by his wife and brother-in-law Sameer, the same are minor contradictions which are bound to occur during recording of evidence after considerable period of time from the date of incident. It is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in catena of decisions, that, minor discrepancies in the evidence of the eye-witnesses do not shake their trustworthiness. Reliance is placed on the case of Balvir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) (4) Scale 631.
27. As regards another argument of Ld. Counsel for accused that police failed to join any independent public witness during investigation at the time of alleged apprehension of accused from the spot, the same could be an aberration and lapse on the part of IO, however, the same is not fatal to the case of prosecution in as much as the victim/ complainant has AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 17:44:21 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 14 of 17 categorically deposed against the accused in his testimony. Moreover, in terms of ratio of judgments cited above, testimony of victim stands on much higher pedestal. Section 134 of Evidence Act mandates that no particular number of witnesses are required in a case for proof of any fact. It is the quality and not quantity of evidence which matters. It is further well settled that "Evidence has to be weighed not counted".
28. The only question which now arises for consideration is whether in terms of testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, the accused is liable to be convicted for offences under Section 393/394/398 IPC. It was deposed by PW-1 that when the accused attempted to snatch mobile phone from his hand, he chased him after leaving his scooty and caught him. At that point of time, he was not aware that accused was having a knife. During cross-examination as well, PW-1 denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP for the State that accused attempted to snatch his mobile phone while pointing knife at him. PW-2 Nitin Saxena too deposed on similar lines as that of PW-1 and stated that the assailant took out a knife when he was caught by him and Vivek Haldar. Thus, it is clear that at the time of commission of alleged offence of attempt to commit robbery of the mobile phone, the accused did not point knife towards complainant or the injured. It was only when the complainant and injured chased the accused for about 200 meters and finally caught him, when the accused took out his knife to resist being caught and caused simple injuries to PW-2 Nitin Saxena. Thus, the accused is only liable to be convicted for the offences under Section 324/393 IPC and ingredients of Section 394 and 398 IPC are not made out in the AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 17:44:27 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 15 of 17 facts of the present case.
29. With respect to offence under Section 174 A IPC, it is apparent from the record that accused Shishu Gupta after being granted bail, stopped appearing before the court since 07.12.2019. Various processes were issued against him by Ld. Trial Court to secure his presence but in vain. NBWs were also issued against him which received back unexecuted. Finally, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the accused which received back duly executed and on account of non- appearance of accused on the date fixed for hearing, he was declared Proclaimed Offender in terms of Section 82 Cr.P.C. by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 09.01.2023. PW-7 Retired SI Vijay Dutt who executed the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., duly proved his report as Ex.PW7/A, photographs of Proclamation vide Ex.PW7/B and CD of public announcement as Ex.PW7/C. PW-8 ASI Pradeep Kumar further proved preparation of supplementary charge-sheet against the accused under Section 174 A IPC when accused got arrested by HC Rinku Singh on 13.03.2023 in Kalandara under Section 41.1 (C) Cr.P.C. Nothing substantial is brought on record on behalf of accused to point out any anomaly in execution of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against him. In these circumstances, offence under Section 174 A IPC is also established against the accused.
Conclusion
30. Keeping in view the totality of facts, circumstances and observations as above, it is held that Ld. Defence Counsel for accused has failed to point out any material contradictions in the Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 17:44:40 +0530 FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 16 of 17 testimony of complainant PW1, injured PW2 and other material witnesses, so as to render the same unreliable and unworthy of credit. It has been thus, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused attempted to commit robbery of mobile phone of complainant and further on being caught by the complainant and his associate, caused simple injury to Nitin Saxena with a dangerous weapon i.e. knife. It is also proved beyong reasonable doubt that accused stopped appearing before the court after being granted bail and was accordingly declared Proclamed Offender in lieu of execution of Process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 09.01.2023.
31. Hence, the accused Shishu Gupta S/o Late Ram Bharose Gupta is held guilty for offences under Sections 324/393 IPC and Section 174 A IPC and is accordingly convicted of the same.
32. Let accused be heard separately on the point of sentence. Copy of the judgment is given to accused Shishu Gupta free of cost. AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.05.31 17:44:46 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (AKASH JAIN) COURT ON 31.05.2025 ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI This judgment contains 17 pages and each paper is signed by me.
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.05.31
(AKASH JAIN)
17:44:52 +0530
ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
FIR No:- 653/2017 State v. Shishu Gupta Page No. 17 of 17