Delhi District Court
State vs Salman @ Shainu Etc on 25 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG THAKUR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)
EAST DISTRICT, DELHI
Session Case No.: 1321/2018
State vs : Salman @ Shainu & Ors.
FIR No. : 29/2018
U/s : 392/397/411/34 IPC &
27 Arms Act, 1959
PS : Mayur Vihar Phase-I
CNR No.: DLET01-004798-2018
Date of Institution : 21.04.2018
Date of Judgment reserved on: 12.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 25.03.2026
Brief Details Of The Case
Details of accused persons : (i) Salman @ Shainu
S/o Mohd. Yusuf
R/o H.No.457, Gali No.21,
Jafrabad, Delhi.
(ii) Burhan Khan
S/o Nasir Ahmed Khan
R/o H.No.C-4/24, Gali No.5,
Chauhan Bangar, Delhi.
(iii) Asif @ Sonu
S/o Ashiq Hussain
R/o C-1039, Gali No-08,
Chauhan Bangar, Delhi.
(iv) Ashif @ Bhaiya @ Shanu
S/o Shareef Ahmed
R/o H.No.E-13/A-288,
Jhuggi Kabadi/Sheet Market,
Seelampur, Delhi.
FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 1 of 41
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25
17:08:17
+0530
(v) Imran s/o Mehtab
R/o H.No.C-213, Gali No.7,
Chauhan Bangar,
PS Seelampur, Delhi.
(vi) Parvez
S/o Zamil Ahmed
R/o CPJ-122/24,
New Seelampur, Delhi.
Offences complained of : 392/397/411/34 IPC &
27 Arms Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Accused no. (ii) & (iii)
are acquitted
Accused no. (i), (iv), (v) and
(vi) are convicted
JUDGMENT
1. The nub of the prosecution case is as follows:
(a) Upon receipt of DD no.54A dated 07.02.2018 at PS Mayur Vihar, SI Bengali Babu along with HC Yogender Singh reached at the place of incident i.e. near Yamuna Bridge, the road coming from Sarai Kale Khan DND Road, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi. There they met the complainant Sambit Patnaik along with his friend Sanit Khosla, who made the complaint about being robbed of their motorcycles and other valuable articles. Sambit Patnaik stated that he worked at Adobe System, Sector 25-A, Noida, UP and on 07.02.2018 he on his motorcycle number DL-6SAT-3742, along with his friend Sanit Khosla (who was on his motorcycle number UP-32FM-7404) were coming after having dinner at Kaleem FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 2 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:08:28 +0530 restaurant and were going to their respective homes via DND Road. When they reached Yamuna Bridge near Mayur Vihar Phase-I at about 10:50 PM, two boys who were on their motorcycle number DL-5SBZ-2619 came from behind and took out the key of his mo- torcycle and started hurling abuses and asked him to stop the bike. He stopped his motorcycle on the side of the road, and one of the boys took out a pistol, in the meantime his friend Sanit Khosla came on his motorcycle and asked him what happened. Meanwhile, another motorcycle came from behind on which two boys were sit- ting, and the boy riding pillion took out a pistol. The boys on the motorcycles started searching their pockets and took out his wallet, which included ₹1200, two credit cards, three debit cards, driving license, PAN card, and the gold chain, and from his friends purse they took out ₹700, driving license, PAN card, Aadhaar card, and his laptop bag, including the Lenovo laptop, the RC, insurance and bills of purchasing of motorcycle, wrist watch and their mobile phones (including Nubia Z-17 Minis which had Vodafone SIM number 9873972320 another mobile, which had Jio Sim number 7978087934, and his friends phone MI-3, which had Jio Sim num- ber 7986815099). The boys sitting on the rear seat of both the mo- torcycles came down and took over their motorcycles and left the motorcycle bearing number DL-5SBZ-2619 at the spot and went towards Noida. One of the boys was strongly built, other three were of the normal physique and they all were of 25-30 years of age. He also stated that RC of his motorcycle was in the wallet. Sanit Khosla had another mobile phone which he used to call the police.
FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 3 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:08:36 +0530
(b) Rukka was prepared by SI Bengali Babu and the same was sent to the PS through HC Yogender. FIR No.29/2018, u/s 392/34 IPC was registered at PS Mayur Vihar. At the instance of Sambit Patnaik site plan was prepared. Thereafter SI Bengali Babu searched for case property and accused persons but he could not find any clue regarding the same. Statements of Sambit Patnaik, Sanit Khosla and HC Yogendra were recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC.
(c) Further investigation of case was entrusted to SI Manoj Tomar. On 09.02.2018, Sambit Patnaik and Sanit Khosla came to PS to know the status of their case. Upon investigation, it came to light that mobile phone internet of Sanit Khosla was on and loca-
tion of the same was shown as Pusta Road, Seelampur Scrap Mar- ket. On 15.02.2018, section 397 IPC and 27 Arms Act were added. Secret informer told the IO that the robbery was committed by Salman @ Shainu gang.
(d) On 16.02.2018, in evening, an anti-snatching picket at Sa- hakarita Marg, Mayur Vihar Phase I, Delhi was installed. During checking two boys were coming on a motorcycle No. DL-5SA-2356 whose names later on were revealed as Salman @ Shainu and Sadiq Ali @ Sadda. Sadiq was driving the motorcycle and Salman was carrying a bag at the rear seat. Police asked them to stop. They turned around the motorcycle to run away but while turning, motorcycle fell down and upon asking of Sadiq accused Salman fired at the police party. SI Manoj Tomar along with his staff apprehended them. Accused Salman was carrying one pistol with magazine and three live cartridges, one empty cartridge, three country-made pistols, two live cartridges, three sharp-edged knives FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 4 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:08:46 +0530 and Sadiq was found carrying one country made pistol and one live cartridge. Accordingly, FIR No.40/2018 u/s 307/186/353/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act was got registered. Investigation of that case was marked to SI Anuj Kumar.
(e) SI Anuj Kumar arrested accused Salman and recorded his disclosure statement wherein he disclosed about his involvement in this case. Statement of SI Anuj Kumar was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C and accused Salman was interrogated by the IO who made a disclo-
sure statement. He told that he handed over the robbed motorcycles of this case to Burhan and Asif @ Sonu. He also revealed that be- sides him, Ashif @ Bhaiya, Imran and Parvez were also involved in robbery in this case.
(f) On receipt of secret information accused Burhan was appre- hended from his house at Chauhan Bangar, Delhi. Upon inquiry, he disclosed that Salman gave him motorcycle number UP-32FM-7404. Burhan was arrested, his disclosure statement was recorded and at his instance, motorcycle number UP-32FM-7404 was got recovered from closed street number 18, Jafrabad Delhi. The motorcycle was seized and site plan of place of recovery of the motorcycle was prepared.
(g) On receipt of secret information accused Asif @ Sonu was apprehended from his house at Chauhan Bangar, Delhi who re- vealed upon investigation that accused Salman gave him motorcy- cle number DL-6SAT-3742, which had been parked at Zinc Fac- tory, Deepak's house, Pradhan ka Beda, Khajoor Gali, Ghonda Vil- lage, Delhi and he can get it recovered. Thereafter, Asif @ Sonu was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. At the in-
FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 5 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:08:56 +0530 stance of accused Asif motorcycle number DL-6SAT-3742 was re- covered from Ghonda village, Delhi. Motorcycle was seized by the police. Two more motorcycles having number DL-5SAA-2488 and DL-3SBG-8636 were also parked there in suspicious condition so they were also seized and recovery site plan of motorcycles was prepared. Both accused namely Burhan and Asif @ Sonu were ar- rested and the seized properties were deposited in the Malkhana. Both accused were produced before court on 18.02.2018 and were sent to judicial custody. On 19.02.2018, permission for interroga- tion and arrest of accused Salman was sought from the court of learned MM Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
(h) During investigation TIP of accused Salman was conducted in which he was correctly identified by Sambit Patnaik and Sanit Khosla. Statements of Sambit Patnaik and Sanit Khosla were recorded in that regard. On 25.02.2018 accused Salman was taken on police custody and at his instance, RC of motorcycle number DL-6SAT-3742 was recovered. Original RC was seized and recov-
ery site plan was prepared and pointing out memo was prepared. Search for Ashif @ Bhaiya, Parvez and Imran was conducted at the instance of accused Salman, but in vain.
(i) The recovered motorcycles were released on superdari. PCR form was collected. Sincere efforts were made to arrest accused Ashif @ Bhaiya, Parvez and Imran, but in vain. On 19.04.2018 NBW against accused Ashif @ Bhaiya, Imran and Parvez were ob- tained. During investigation accused Ashif @ Bhaiya and Imran were declared 'absconders' on 31.08.2018. Information was re- ceived qua arrest of accused Ashif @ Bhaiya by police as he was FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 6 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:09:06 +0530 absconder. Accused Ashif @ Bhaiya was arrested on 04.09.2018 in this case and application for his TIP was moved but he refused to participate in the TIP. Ashif @ Bhaiya was taken on police custody and at his instance accused Parvez was apprehended and arrested. Application for TIP of accused Parvez was moved but he also re- fused to join TIP proceedings.
(j) On 15.09.2018 accused Imran was apprehended with illicit liquor and FIR No.344/2018 PS Mayur Vihar was registered. Dur-
ing investigation of that case, accused Imran disclosed about in- volvement in the present case. On 16.09.2018 accused Imran was formally arrested in this case and his disclosure statement was recorded. Application for his TIP was moved but he chose not to get his TIP conducted. Hence, the present case against the accused persons for commission of offence u/s 392/397/411/174A/34 IPC.
2. The court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cogni- zance of the offence punishable u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act and issued summons to accused Burhan, Asif @ Sonu and Sal- man @ Shainu. After completion of necessary formalities u/s 207 Cr.P.C, the charge-sheet qua accused Burhan, Asif @ Sonu and Sal- man @ Shainu was committed to the Court of Sessions. Pursuant to the order of Ld. District & Sessions Judge (East), the matter was fi- xed for hearing arguments on point of charge. On 09.08.2018, char- ge was framed against accused Salman @ Shainu for offence pu- nishable u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC and against accused Burhan and Asif @ Sonu for offence punishable u/s 411 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, a supplementary FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 7 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:09:15 +0530 charge-sheet was filed against accused Ashif @ Bhaiya, Parvez and Imran and the supplementary charge-sheet upon committal was merged with the main charge-sheet. After hearing arguments on charge, the charge was framed against accused Ashif @ Bhaiya, Parvez and Imran for offence punishable u/s 392/397/34 IPC, addi- tionally charge was also framed against accused Ashif @ Bhaiya and Imran for offence punishable u/s 174-A IPC. The accused per- sons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
3. To prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution had examined fifteen (15) witnesses. The role of each prosecution witnesses is specified hereinafter:-
S. No. Name Nature of evidence PW-1 Sambit Patnaik (Entire testimony reproduced after this (Complainant/Victim) table) PW-2 Sanit Khosla (Entire testimony reproduced after this (Victim/eye witness) table) PW-3 HC Yogender ➢ First to reach the place of (Part of investigation) incident with SI Bengali Babu, took rukka and got the FIR registered PW-4 HC Raj Kumar ➢ Joined investigation on (Part of investigation) 25.02.2018, got police custody of accused Salman, got his medical examination done at LBS Hospital ➢ Present at the time when accused Salman got recovered motorcycle no.DL-6SAT-3742 PW-5 Ct. Kapil ➢ Joined investigation on (Part of investigation) 17.02.2018 and was present when secret informer took them to the house of accused Burhan Khan who got recovered motorcycle no.UP-32FM-7404 ➢ Arrest, personal search and FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 8 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:09:35 +0530 disclosure statement of Burhan Khan was made in his presence ➢ Seizure memo of motorcycle UP-32FM-7404 and site plan was prepared in his presence ➢ Arrest, personal search and disclosure statement of Asif @ Sonu was made in his presence ➢ Present when Asif got recovered two motorcycles ➢ Part of team on 10.09.2018 ➢ Arrest, personal search and disclosure statement of Parwez Ahmed was made in his presence PW-6 Ct. Manish ➢ Received PCR Call at 11:06 pm (PCR Call constable) and handed over copy of PCR call to IO PW-7 Santoshi Lal ➢ Brought record of registered (LDC, Transport Deptt.) owner of motorcycle no.
DL-6SAT-3742 PW-8 SI Bengali Babu ➢ First to reach the spot alongwith (First IO of the case) HC Yogender Singh, prepared rukka, also prepared site plan at instance of Sambit PW-9 ASI Jai Prakash Singh ➢ Recorded DD No.62A on (DD writer) 04.09.2018 at PS Mayur Vihar PW-10 Ct. Jaiveer ➢ On 04.09.2018 upon receipt of (Police witness) DD No.63B at PS Seelampur he alongwith SI Ravinder reached Jafrabad Pulia where Ashif @ Bhaiya was apprehended at the instance of secret informer ➢ Accused Ashif @ Bhaiya was arrested, his personal search was conducted arrest memo and personal search memo was prepared in his presence ➢ Next day IO Mayur Vihar after taking permission from the court arrested Ashif, conducted his personal search, personal search memo was prepared and disclosure statement of Ashif was recorded in his presence PW-11 SI Ravinder ➢ He prepared Kalandra, arrested FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 9 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:09:44 +0530 (Police witness) Ashif @ Bhaiya , conducted his personal search, arrest memo and personal search memo was prepared PW-12 Ct. Pradeep Kumar ➢ He prepared the pointing out (Police witness) memo of the place of incident at the instance of Ashif @ Bhaiya ➢ On 16.09.2018 he arrested accused Imran, prepared an arrest memo, recorded his disclosure statement and prepared the pointing out memo of the place of incident at the instance of Imran PW-13 SI Manoj Kumar ➢ Found Location of mobile phone (IO of the case) of Sanit at Kabadi Market, Seelampur ➢ Interrogated and arrested accused Burhan and Asif @ Sonu as well as effected recoveries of robbed motorcycles at their instance ➢ Arrested accused Salman @ Shainu and recovered RC of motorcycle no.DL-6SAT-3742 at his instance ➢ Moved application for TIP of accused Salman @ Shainu and got the TIP conducted ➢ Recorded Disclosure statements of accused Salman @ Shainu, Asif @ Sonu and Burhan ➢ Prepared seizure memos as well as memos qua place of recovery of robbed articles ➢ Collected PCR form, issued notice to MLO, Sarai Kale Khan ➢ Arrested accused Ashif @ Bhaiya, moved application for his TIP, took police custody of Ashif @ Bhaiya and prepared various memos at his instance ➢ Arrested accused Parvez Ahmed, moved application for his TIP ➢ Arrested accused Imran, recorded his disclosure, prepared pointing out memo of place of FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 10 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:09:53 +0530 incident at his instance, moved application for TIP of accused Imran, upon refusal to join TIP proceedings by Imran he obtained the copy of proceedings ➢ Recorded statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC, prepared the main charge-sheet qua accused Salman @ Shainu, Asif @ Sonu and Burhan ➢ Prepared supplementary charge-
sheet against Ashif @ Bhiya, Parvez and Imran PW-14 SI Anuj Kumar ➢ He recorded disclosure statement (IO of the case FIR of Salman @ Shainu in case FIR No.40/18 PS Mayur Vihar) No.40/18 of PS Mayur Vihar wherein Salman disclosed about his involvement in case FIR No.29/18 PS Mayur Vihar ➢ He informed about involvement of accused Salman to the IO in case FIR No.29/18 PS Mayur Vihar SI Manoj Tomar PW-15 Krishna Chand ➢ Brought record of registered (UDC, RTO, Transport owner of motorcycle no. Nagar, Lucknow, UP) UP-32FM-7404 05.01.2019 PW-1: Sh. Sambit Pattanaik, S/o Sh. Sabya Sachi Pattanaik, Aged about 32 Yrs., R/o H.No. CMC-4, Flat no. 801, Superteck Captown, Sector-74, Noida, Distt. G.B. Nagar, U.P. On S.A.:
On 07.02.2018, I was residing at the abovesaid address alongwith my family and basically I belongs to Mahisapat, Dhenkanal, Orissa and I was working in a company named Adobe Systems, Sector-25A, Noida, U.P. On that day, I alongwith my friend Sanit Khosla went to a Kaleem Restaurant at Nizamuddin on our motorcycles. I was driving my motorcycle bearing no. DL-6SAT-3742 KTM Duke white and orange colour and my friend Sanit Khosla was also driving his motorcycle bearing no. UP-32FM-7404 Bajaj Avenger. After taking meals at said restaurant, we both returned back from there on our separate motorcycles to our houses via DND Flyover. At about 10.50 pm, when we reached just ahead of FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 11 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:10:01 +0530 Yamuna Pul towards Mayur Vihar, Phase-I side, in the meantime, a motorcycle make Pulsar came from our behind and two persons were sitting on said motorcycle and came nearby my motorcycle and while running both motorcycles, pillion rider of said motorcycle make Pulsar took out the keys of my motorcycle so my motorcycle was out of order and it was just ahead from the place where keys of my motorcycle was taken by the assailants and they abused me and told me to stop my motorcycle. Then they parked their motorcycle in front of my motorcycle. I also stopped my motorcycle. Then pillion rider of motorcycle make Pulsar took out a gun and put on my stomach and also abusing me while saying that whatsoever valuables you have, same be handedover to them. My friend Sanit Khosla who was following me, also seeing the incident stopped his motorcycle and asked me about what happened. In the meantime, another motorcycle also came from his behind side and they stopped their motorcycle on which two boys were sitting, before motorcycle of Sanit Khosla and pillion rider of said motorcycle get down from their motorcycle and took out a gun and pointed out towards Sanit. Thereafter, pillion riders (assailants) of both motorcycles took out our search on the point of guns and also taken out my violet consisting of cash of Rs.1.200/-, two credit cards of Citi bank and SBI Bank and two debit cards, one of HDFC and two of ICICI, driving licence, PAN Card, RC and other documents. He also snatched my mobile phone make Nubia Z-17 and gold chain worn by me. Sanit Khosla was also robbed by the said assailant who stopped him and shown the gun towards him and taken his purse containing cash of Rs.700/-, his DL etc. and also taken out his wrist watch and Lenovo laptop with its bag and his mobile phone make MI. Thereafter, all the four boys who robbed us, fled away from there after taking my motorcycle as well as of Sanit and another motorcycle and one motorcycle make Pulsar left at the spot towards Noida side. The assailant who robbed me was having heavy built up and other three were of normal built. The age group of the assailants were about 25-30 years. At that time, Sanit was having another small mobile phone and then he called to the police at 100 number. Police came at the spot and recorded my statement which is Ex.PW1/A bears my signature at point A. I pointed out the place of incident to the IO who prepared site plan at my instance which is Ex.PW1/B bears my signature at point A. The motorcycle make Pulsar of assailants was also taken into possession by police vide seizure memo Ex.PWI/C bears my signature at point A. On 24.02.2018, at the instruction of IO, I alongwith Sanit joined the investigation and went to Mandoli Jail for FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 12 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:10:11 +0530 participating in the TIP proceedings where I identified accused Salman @ Shainu who snatched keys of my running motorcycle and shown a gun to me while robbing me.
At this stage, a sealed envelop duly sealed with the seal of RKR takeout from judicial file and TIP proceedings of accused Salman @ Shainu is taken out and shown to the witness and witness correctly identified his signatures at point A on TIP proceedings Ex.PW1/D Thereafter, I once again joined the investigation with IO and visited KKD. Courts, at that time, I identified driver of the motorcycle who was involved for robbing me but I do not remember his name today. Subsequently, I once again joined the investigation and identified remaining accused persons by their faces. Subsequently. I joined the TIP proceedings of remaining accused persons at Mandoli Jail where I came to know the fact that those accused persons had refused to participate in the TIP proceedings.
During investigation, I was informed by the IO that my motorcycle bearing no. DL-6SAT-3742 KTM Duke white and orange colour was recovered by the police. After knowing the fact that my motorcycle has been recovered by IO, I went to KKD. Courts and moved an application before concerned court and requested to release my motorcycle on superdari, and after taking appropriate orders from the court, I took my motorcycle from the PS on superdari and I signed at point A on Panchnama of motorcycle bearing no. UP-32FM-7404 which is Ex.PW1/E. Another Panchnama of my motorcycle Ex.PW1/F also bears my signature at point A. At the time of releasing my motorcycle, 1 furnished the photographs of my motorcycle to the IO which are on record. Four photographs and my motorcycle are Ex.P-1 (colly.). Today, I have also brought my motorcycle before the court.
I identify all the four accused persons namely Salman @ Shainu, Parvez, Imran and Asif present in the court today who were involved in the robbery with us. (Correctly identified by witness). I can also identify the case property i.e. motorcycle of Sanit.
At this stage, witness also identified the motorcycle bearing no. UP-32FM-7404 of Sanit through photographs. Said four photographs of motorcycle are Ex.P-2 (colly.).
XXXXX by Sh. P.K. Tomar, Counsel for accused Parvez..
Firstly, motorcycle make Pulsar of the assailants came and then another motorcycle of assailants came at the spot thereafter. No CCTV camera were installed there. Prior to the incident, I was driving my motorcycle at a speed of 70-80 FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 13 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:10:20 +0530 km/hr. It is wrong to suggest that keys of motorcycle cannot be removed from the motorcycle when it was driven at 70-80 km/hr or that I am deposing falsely in this regard. After the incident, Sanit informed to the police at 100 number within 5- 10 minutes from his another mobile phone but I cannot tell its number. 2-3 PCR police officials came at the spot within 5-10 minutes of making call. PCR officials remained at the spot till arrival of local police within 5-10 minutes after arrival of PCR officials but I cannot tell exact time of arrival of local police.
Local police remained at the spot for about half an hour. I signed 2-3 papers at the spot at that time. I did not visit the spot thereafter alongwith police. I visited PS twice or thrice but I cannot tell said dates. I came to KKD. Courts 2-3 times i.e. at the time of releasing my motorcycle on superdari and for TIP of accused persons but I cannot tell said dates. It is wrong to suggest that IO has already shown me photographs of accused Parvez when I visited PS or that I identified accused Parvez at the instance of IO or that I am deposing falsely.
XXXXX by Sh. A.K. Bali, LAC for accused Salman @ Shainu.
Sanit was resident of Pocket B, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III and he is my colleague and was working in same company alongwith me at the time of incident. We had gone to said restaurant on 07.02.18 from our office and reached there at 9.30 pm and remained there upto 10.30 pm. 1 had not given the bill of said Kaleem Testaurant to the police nor the police took said bill from me during investigation. It is wrong to suggest that I did not visit the said restaurant on 07.02.18 or that Sanit was not accompanying me to the said restaurant or that no such incident as deposed by me occurred in his presence that he was made a false witness being my colleague and friend by the police. I cannot tell the exact time, when police met me first time after the incident. I had stated the age, height and features of the accused persons to the police in my complaint who were involved in the alleged crime. It is wrong to suggest that I had not described or stated so to the police. 1 was first time informed about the arrest of accused Salman when I was asked to go for his TIP in Mandoli jail. I was informed in this regard telephonically by the police when I was at my office and I visited for the TIP just after 1-2 days after the said information. It is correct that at the time of incident, it was winter season and there were lights on DND flyover. It is wrong to suggest that there is no light at the place of incident or that I could not see the faces of assailants or that for the same reason, I did not disclose about their age, height and features. It is wrong to suggest that I was shown the photograph and accused Salman at FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 14 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:10:30 +0530 the PS and I was shown the accused also at PS Mayur Vihar on 15.02.18 or that accused Salman was not present at the spot on 07.02.18 at the time of alleged incident or that he was at his home or that he was picked up by police of PS Mayur Vihar on the intervening night of 14/15.02.18 at 2.30 am from his house at gali no.21, Jafrabad in presence of his mother Vakeela Khatoon. It is wrong to suggest that accused Salman was falsely implicated by the police of PS in the unsolved cases including the present case or that I have falsely identified the accused in the court today as I was already shown the accused prior to TIP as well as today in the court before hearing. It is wrong to suggest that the alleged incident was committed by some other persons or that I have been tutored and deposed falsely at the instance of police.
XXXXX by Sh. Narender Thakur, counsel for accused Asif.
I adopt the abovesaid cross-examination. It is wrong to suggest that accused was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in this case. It is wrong to suggest that nothing has been recovered from the possession of accused Asif or that said recovery has been planted upon him. It is correct that TIP of case property was conducted. It is wrong to suggest that photograph of accused Asif was already shown to me or that I am deposing falsely.
XXXXX by accused Imran.
I adopt the abovesaid cross-examination.
XXXXX by Sh. Sarfaraz Asif, counsel for accused Asif @ Sonu and Burhan.
Nil (Opportunity given).
RO & AC 05.01.2019 PW-2: Sh. Sanit Khosła, Sto Sh. Prannath Khosla, Aged about 34 Yrs., R/o Flat No. 17, Pocket B, New MIG Flats, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi-96.
On S.A. On 07.02.2018, I was residing at the abovesaid address alongwith my family and was working in a company named Adobe Systems, Sector-25A, Noida, U.P. On that day, I alongwith my friend Sambit Pattanaik went to Kaleem Restaurant at Nizamuddin on our motorcycles. Sambit was driving motorcycle make KTM Duke white and orange colour and I was also driving my motorcycle bearing no.
FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 15 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:10:40 +0530 UP-32FM-7404 Bajaj Avenger. After taking meals at said restaurant, we both returned back from there on our separate motorcycles to our houses via DND Flyover. Sambit was just ahead from me and I was following him. At about 10.50 pm, when we reached just ahead of Yamuna Pul towards Mayur Vihar, Phase-I side, I saw that Sambit was wrongfully restrained by one motorcycle having two persons on it and also saw that one person put a pistol/gun towards Sambit so I immediately stopped my motorcycle nearby Sambit. In the meantime, another motorcycle came from my behind side and pillion rider of said motorcycle put a gun on my stomach and then he started taking my search and looted me on the point of gun and taken out my violet containing cash of Rs.700/-, my Adhar card, PAN Card and my laptop alongwith its bag having RC and purchasing bills of my bike and other documents and my mobile phone make MI Note 3 having Jio SIM Card from my left side pocket of wearing jeans and my wrist watch make Curren. The person who was robbing Sambit on gun point and robbed gold chain, violet consisting Rs.1,200/-, five debit/credit cards, other documents including Aadhar card, PAN Card, RC etc. and his mobile phone make Nubia. After robbing us, all the four accused persons run away with our motorcycles after leaving one otorcycle make Pulsar on which they came first to rob Sambit and they run away towards Noida side. The boy who robbed me was having normal built up. The boy who robbed Sambit was having heavy built up and other were of normal built up. All boys were having age group of 25-30 years. Thereafter, I made call at 100 number to police from my another small mobile phone make Samsung which was not robbed. PCR police and local police also came at the spot and case was registered on the statement of Sambit and case was registered through another police official to PS. Thereafter, police also seized motorcycle make Pulsar of accused persons at the spot and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PWI/C. After registration of the case, copy of FIR was handedover to us by police. Thereafter, we both reached at PS where police recorded my statement in this regard.
Probably on 23/24.02.2018, 1 alongwith Sambit joined the investigation on the instruction of IO and went to Mandoli jail for TIP of accused Salman @ Shainu who name came to know lateron.
At this stage, TIP proceedings of accused Salman @ Shainu is shown to the witness and witness correctly identified his signatures at point B on TIP proceedings Ex.PW1/D. Thereafter we both returned back to PS where IO recorded my statement in this regard. Accused Salman @ FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 16 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:10:49 +0530 Shainu was the person who took Sambit on gun point and robbed him on the day of incident.
At this stage, witness has pointed out towards accused Parvez who robbed me on the point of gun on the day of incident.
Witness also pointed out towards accused Asif @ Shanu who was driving the motorcycle with Parvez and involved for robbing me Witness also pointed out towards accused Imran who was driving the motorcyele make Pulsar and Salman was sitting as pillion rider who robbed Sambit on the day of incident on the point of gun/pistol.
After 10-12 days of the incident, I was informed by police regarding recovery of my motorcycle and I went to PS and saw my motorcycle there. After knowing the fact that my motorcycle has been recovered by 10, I alongwith Sambit went to KKD. Courts and moved an application before concerned court and requested to release my motorcycle on superdari, and after taking appropriate orders from the court, I took my motorcycle from the PS on superdari and I signed at point B on Panchnama of my motorcycle bearing no. UP-32FM-7404 which is already Ex.PW1/E. I also executed the Superdarinama/bond of Rs.60,000/-regarding my motorcycle which is Ex.PW2/A bears my signature at point A. Another Panchnama of motorcycle of Sambit already Ex.PWI/F also bears my signature at point B. I can also identify the case property i.e. motorcycles.
I identify my motorcycle bearing no. UP-32FM-7404 Bajaj Avenger through four photographs placed on judicial record. Same are already Ex.P-2 (colly.). I also identify motorcycle of Sambit through four photographs placed on judicial record. Same are already Ex.P-1 (colly.). I identify all the four accused persons namely Salman @ Shainu, Parvez, Imran and Asif present in the court today who were involved in the robbery with us. (Correctly identified by witness).
At this stage, witness also identified the motorcycle bearing no. UP-32FM-7404 of Sanit through photographs. Said four photographs of motorcycle are Ex.P-2 (colly.).
XXXXX by Sh. P.K. Tomar, Counsel for accused Parvez.
At about 10.20-10.30 pm, we left from restaurant after taking meals. I cannot tell the distance between the spot and said restaurant. Distance betweem my motorcycle and that of Sambit was about 5-7 steps. The speed of my was about 50-60 km/hr. at that time when I stopped my motorcycle at the place of incident. I called to the police by dialling 100 number FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 17 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:10:58 +0530 through my another mobile Phone no. 981xxxxx57 within 7-10 minutes however witness told complete number of his mobile and narrated about the incident in nutshell and police arrived within 10 minutes. Police officials were three in number. Police remained at the spot for about 1-1½ hours. I could not count how many papers were signed by Sambit at the spot because I became nervous at that time. I did not sign any paper at the spot on that day. Police recorded my statement 3-4 times whenever I joined the investigation. It is wrong to suggest that 10 has already shown me photographs of accused Parvez when I visited PS or that I identified accused Parvez at the instance of IO or that I was not present at the spot or that accused was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in this case or that I am deposing falsely.
XXXXX by Sh. A.K. Bali, LAC for accused Salman @ Shainu.
I had not given any documents pertaining to my employment at abovesaid company to police at that time. I and Sambit jointly went to Nizamuddin at around 10.15 pm. I am commerce Graduate. We left from our office at sector-25A, Noida at 8.00-8.15 pm and reached restaurant at Nizamuddin within half an hour. We remained there about 1 ½ hour. I do not remember how much payment was made at said restaurant. They have not furnished any bill to us. It is wrong to suggest that I was not working in aforesaid company nor I accompanied with Sambit at any restaurant at Nizamuddin or that for same reason, no bill pertaining to our visit to the said restaurant was given by me or Sabit to the 10. It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at the spot or no such incident took place in my presence or that I did not make any call to the police or that I am a false and planted witness and deposed under the tuition of police officials. It is wrong to suggest that accused Salman was falsely implicated by the police of PS in the unsolved cases including the present case or that I have falsely identified the accused in the court today as I was already shown the accused prior to TIP as well as today in the court before hearing. It is wrong to suggest that the alleged incident was committed by some other persons or that my statement was recorded by 10 on his own to suit the case or that I have been tutored and deposed falsely at the instance of police.
XXXXX by Sh. Narender Thakur, counsel for accused Asif.
When I reached nearby Sambit, he was taken on gun point by Salman. When I reached near Sambit, accused Salman put his gun on his stomach. It is wrong to suggest that Salman did not put any gun towards Sambit and I am deposing falsely.
FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 18 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:11:06 +0530 It is correct that on that day at DND, many persons were passing from there. I did not raise any alarm due to fear. I did not provide any proof of my employment to the IO as he had not asked me. I knew Sambit for the last 3 ½ years as we were together in another company and working together with said company for last two years. Lastly I was employed with IBM company. We reached at said restaurant at 8.45 pm and remained there for about 1 ½ hour and left from there towards our house at about 10-15 pm. In fact, I made call to the police at 100 number at 10.50-10.55 pm and prior to said call, incident took place within 5-10 minutes. I told to the 100 number police about 10.50 pm. In fact, at the time of dialling 100 number, 10.55 pm was showing in my mobile and I calculated the time about the incident as same was happened prior 5-10 minutes before making call to police so I informed to the police the time of incident as 10.50 pm. It is wrong to suggest that no such incident took place at 10.50 pm or prior to it on the day of incident or that no street light on DND at that time so I could not see the faces of assailants. It is wrong to suggest that I had shown photograph of accused Asif by IO in the PS and then I identified him in TIP proceedings. I did not join the TIP of accused Asif as it was already refused by him. In fact, we had visited Mandoli jail for participating the TIP of accused Asif but I was informed by police that accused refused to participate in TIP. I do not remember said date of TIP of accused Asif. I was informed by IO about refusal of accused Asif for TIP when we were present outside Mandoli jail. It is wrong to suggest that I never went to Mandoli jail for participating in TIP of accused Asif. I was not informed by IO directly about arrest of accused Asif. I never visited court at that time when accused Asif was produced before the court and sent to J/C or PC remand. During investigation, IO asked me about invoice of my wrist watch but same was not with me so I could not produce the same. Laptop was provided by the company so I have no bill about the same.
It is wrong to suggest that at the instance of IO, accused Asif was falsely implicated in this case or that he was at his house at the time of incident or that I am deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
XXXXX by Sh. Mayank Chopra, proxy counsel for accused Imran.
I adopt the abovesaid cross-examination.
XXXXX by Sh. Sarfaraz Asif, counsel for accused Asif @ Sonu and Burhan.
Nil (Opportunity given).
FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 19 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:11:23 +0530 RO & AC Joint statements of all accused persons were recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC on 19.03.2019 and 23.04.2019 respectively wherein they admitted the statements of MHC(M)s of PS Gokul Puri and PS Seema Puri, factum of recording of FIR no.29/18 PS Mayur Vihar, statement of HC Prabhat who recorded DD No.54A dated 07.02.2018, TIP proceedings of accused Salman @ Shainu. Entries in register no.19 & 21 and case property of FIR No.29/18 and 40/18 PS Mayur Vihar, records of FIR No.40/18 PS Mayur Vihar and e-FIR No.NFD-GP-000069/18 PS Gokul Puri, TIP proceedings conducted by Sh. Rakesh Rampuri, the then learned MM, DD No.48B, 27B, 3B, 48B. They also admitted the TIP proceedings conducted by Ms. Nabeela Wali, the then learned MM. Upon completion of examination of all witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed on 07.11.2023.
4. Statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C of accused Salman @ Shainu, Asif @ Sonu, Burhan Khan, Ashif @ Bhaiya, Parvez Ahmed and Imran were recorded wherein all incriminating material was put to the accused persons. They stated that they were innocent, they had not committed any offence and they had been falsely implicated in this case. They also stated that all proceedings conducted by the police were done while sitting in the police station and all documents were forged and fabricated. Accused Salman @ Shainu specifically stated that he was picked up from his house on the intervening night of 14/15.02.2018 in presence of his mother, his younger brothers and sisters in connection with another case and thereafter, FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 20 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:11:36 +0530 he was falsely implicated in this case. Accused persons elected to lead defence evidence. They examined Vakeela Khatoon as DW-1 and Alam Gir as DW-2. DE was closed on 10.01.2025. Final arguments in the matter were heard on 12.01.2025.
5. Ld. Addl. PP for State submitted that all PWs have fully supported the case of the prosecution and their testimonies are creditworthy. He claimed that cogent documentary evidence has also been adduced to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused persons. He argued that recoveries of looted articles had been effected at the instance of the accused persons. He claimed that the case against the accused persons is proved beyond a shadow of doubt, so the accused persons be convicted for the respective offences with which they had been charged.
6. Per-contra ld. defence counsels submitted that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
They pointed out that no weapon of offence was recovered during investigation and no injury whatsoever was caused to any of the victims. They stated that even no circumstantial evidence has come on record against the accused persons. They canvassed that the alleged recoveries were planted upon the accused persons and no independent public persons were made panch (witness) to the discovery proceedings. They claimed that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons. They prayed that the accused persons be acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 21 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:11:48 +0530
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides and have perused the record. In the present case, accused persons have been charged for commission of offence(s) punishable u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC and u/s 174-A IPC. Relevant portions of sections 392/397/411/34 & 174-A IPC are reproduced as under:- reproduced as under:-
392. Punishment for robbery.-Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.-If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
411. 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.
34. 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.
174A. Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974.- Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 22 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:11:56 +0530 for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Theft is Robbery if in committing the theft or in carrying away the property obtained by theft, the culprit for that end voluntarily caused death, hurt, wrongful restraint or fear of instant death, instant hurt, instant wrongful restraint. It is a cardinal principle of our criminal justice system that the case against the accused is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is trite that the burden of proof is upon the prosecution. My observations on the facts in issue and the evidence adduced are delineated hereinafter.
8. The case of the prosecution is primarily based on the testimonies of Sambit (PW-1) and Sanit (PW-2). Except these two witnesses, there is no other eye witness of the incident of robbery.
Regarding the appreciation of ocular evidence, the Apex court in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde vs The State of Maharashtra; 2023 SCC Online SC 355 held as under:-
25. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
"I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 23 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:12:20 +0530 not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 24 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:12:30 +0530 XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness." [See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC
753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)] The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 read in their entirety, appear to have a ring of truth. Both the witnesses have clearly deposed regar-
ding the incident in which their bikes, cash, documents and other articles were looted. They not only correctly identified the accused persons as the perpetrators of crime but also specified the role played by each one of them. Notably, both witnesses had correctly identified accused Salman @ Shainu in TIP conducted during in- vestigation. The presence of PW-1 and PW-2 at the time and place of occurrence is well established from the testimonies of HC Yo- gender (PW-3) and SI Bengali Babu (PW-8) i.e. the first two poli- cemen from police station to reach the place of incident upon re- ceipt of DD No.54A.
FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 25 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:12:44 +0530
9. Greater importance is to be accorded to testimonies of inju-
red persons. In the present case, the position of both victims (PW-1 and PW-2) is akin to that of an injured. It has to be believed that in- jured would not allow the real culprits to escape. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the observations made by the Apex court in Balu Sudam (supra):-
26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under- noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
Minor discrepancies about the exact time of incident or regarding the bill of food ordered at Kaleem Restaurant (where victims had food prior to incident) etc., do not go to the root of the matter. The non-disclosure of every small detail like the total number of papers signed at the spot, the exact time of arrival of police etc. ought not to be fretted over. An unrealistic, hyper technical approach cannot FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 26 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:12:53 +0530 be adopted merely because there are small variations in some aspects of narration of incident by PW-1 and PW-2. The infirmities in testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are so insignificant that they do not justify jettisoning of their testimonies.
10. There is no reason for PW-1 and PW-2 to falsely implicate the accused persons. The accused persons were not able to bring forth any circumstance showing that PW-1 and PW-2 had falsely implicated them or that they had sufficient motive to falsely impli-
cate the accused persons. In the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs State (Nct Of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 21; the Apex court eloquently explained the qualities of a 'sterling witness' in the following words:-
15. In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused.
There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co- relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 27 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:13:01 +0530 evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged. The testimonies of both PW-1 and PW-2 remained unshaken, con- sistent and had withstood the rigour of cross-examination. There were no prevarications in the same. This court has no hesitation whatsoever, in relying upon their testimonies as the same are cre- ditworthy. From the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, following infe- rences can be drawn: (i) accused Salman @ Shainu pointed a gun at Sambit; (ii) accused Parvez pointed a gun at Sanit; (iii) all four culprits viz. Salman @ Shainu, Parvez, Ashif @ Bhaiya and Imran committed robbery from Sambit and Sanit on gun point; (iv) Accu- sed Ashif @ Bhaiya and Imran were driving the two motorcycles on which the accused persons had come to the spot; and (v) While taking away the robbed cash, articles and motorcycles etc. of both victims, accused persons left one of their motorcycles at the spot.
11. It was argued on behalf of the accused persons that without the recovery of weapon of offence, the liability u/s 397 IPC cannot be fastened upon the accused persons. It was also contended that no injuries were inflicted upon the victims and the guns were not fired during the incident, so also the offence u/s 397 IPC is not made out.
FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 28 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:13:10 +0530 The recovery of weapon or the firing of a pistol/gun are not the si- ne-qua-non for invoking section 397 IPC. It is sufficient that the pistol/gun is brandished/shown by the culprits during robbery, which creates fear or impression in the mind of the victim that in case he puts up any resistance then the weapon may be used to cau- se bodily harm to him. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of Azam vs State (Nct Of Delhi), 2025:DHC:6670; wherein it held as under:-
15. In the present case, although there has not been any recovery of the weapon, which is immaterial Ashfaq (Supra) however the testimony of the complainant has been consistent as to the appellant, who was riding the bike, taking out a sharp-
edged weapon i.e. Knife, from his pocket and pointing the same at the complainant and asking him to handover whatever he was carrying and threatening to kill him in case he didn't comply. The complainant also deposed that he got nervous and put his hand in his pocket but the pillion rider snatched the purse and took out Rs. 35,000/- cash from it. The sharp-edged weapon i.e. Knife, was not used to actually hurt the complainant but that has never been a prerequisite for establishing the offence under Section 397 of IPC. Simple exhibition, brandishing or even holding it openly to generate fear or apprehension in the victim's mind is sufficient to secure a conviction under Section 397 IPC. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Ram Ratan v. State of M.P., 2021 SCC Online SC 1279 wherein it was held as under:-
"17. From the position of law as enunciated by this Court and noted above, firstly, it is clear that the use of the weapon to constitute the offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that the "offender" should actually fire from the firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or apprehension in the mind of the victim is sufficient. The other aspect is that if the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the "offenders" had used the firearm or deadly weapon, only such of the "offender" who has used the FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 29 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:13:20 +0530 firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC."
16. In the present case, the act of the appellant in brandishing a sharp- edged weapon, i.e. knife, accompanied by a threat of causing harm if the complainant did not part with his valuables, has generated nervousness in the mind of the complainant. Similar opinion has been expressed by Apex Court in the case of Ashfaq vs State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi), AIR 2004 SC 1253.
12. In the present case, both PW-1 Sambit and PW-2 Sanit had categorically stated that Salman @ Shainu had put a gun on sto- mach of Sambit and Parvez had pointed a gun at Sanit, thereafter both of them were robbed by Salman, Parvez and their two associa- tes. It is clear that firearms (deadly weapons) were pointed by Sal- man and Parvez at the victims in order to create fear in their minds and to quell the chance of any resistance. Section 397 IPC does not create vicarious liability and the person who uses the deadly wea- pon during robbery or dacoity is only covered within its scope and not his other associates or accomplices. Accordingly, only Salman @ Shainu and Parvez fall within the ambit of section 397 IPC as their acts of pointing guns at victims amount to use of deadly wea- pon by them during robbery. Thus, considering the law laid down by the superior courts and the facts of this case, this argument of non-recovery of weapon or non-use of weapon during incident does not hold water and is rejected.
13. Accused Asif @ Sonu has been charged with commission of offence punishable u/s 411 IPC as motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-6SAT-3742 was allegedly recovered at his instance. As per FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 30 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:13:29 +0530 the testimony of Ct. Kapil (PW-5), he along with SI Manoj Tomar and Ct. Arun reached house of Asif @ Sonu where he confessed his guilt and stated that he could get recovered KTM Duke Bike No. DL-6SAT-3742 and thereafter, the said bike was found parked in a Zinc Factory, House of Deepak, Pradhan ka Beda, Khajoor Wali Gali, Village Ghonda. No public/independent witness was joined in this recovery proceeding. PW-5 was unable to tell whether workers were working in the factory or not, or how many workers were pre- sent in the factory. He was not able to recall the name of owner of factory. He expressed ignorance about the source of procurement of key of recovered motorcycle. He conceded that the factory was si- tuated in a densely populated area and some public persons were gathered there. SI Manoj Tomar (PW-13) testified that no indepen- dent witness was joined during proceedings at house of Asif @ So- nu or at the place from where the recovery was made. He also con- ceded that no photography or videography of recovery proceedings was done.
14. Accused Burhan has been charged for offence u/s 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving or retaining robbed motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-32FM-7404 with its keys. Ct. Kapil ( PW-5) testified that upon receipt of information from secret informer, they reached the house of Burhan where he confessed his guilt and he stated that he could get recovered motorcycle Avenger bearing No. UP-32FM-7404. Thereafter, Burhan got recovered the said motorcycle from in front of House No.367, Band Gali No.18, Jafrabad, which was parked there. PW-5 revealed that public FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 31 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:13:38 +0530 persons were present at the spot of recovery but IO did not conduct any inquiry from those public persons. He revealed that the key of motorcycle was recovered from the house of Burhan but the seizure memo of motorcycle Ex.PW5/D (signed by PW-5) mentions that the key was found underneath the petrol tank. PW-5 could not give any explanation regarding this incongruity and chose to remain silent on this aspect.
15. Accused Salman @ Shainu is also charged with commission of offence u/s 411 IPC as RC of motorcycle bearing No. DL-6SAT-3742 was recovered at his instance. During this alleged recovery, the accused was on police remand and his statement that he could get the RC recovered was also recorded during Police Custody. Again, no public witness was joined in the recovery proceedings and no photography or videography was done of the recovery proceedings.
16. The manner in which recovery is supposed to be effected on the basis of disclosure made by an accused is explained by the Apex Court in the case of Subramanya vs State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC Online SC 1400; the Apex Court observed as under:-
84. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence, the site of burial of the dead body, clothes etc., then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses would arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 32 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:13:49 +0530 statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence etc. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch-witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of the independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two independent witnesses (panch-witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as may be led by the accused. If from that particular place anything like the weapon of offence or blood stained clothes or any other article is discovered then that part of the entire process would form the second part of the panchnama. This is how the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. If we read the entire oral evidence of the investigating officer then it is clear that the same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter. The manner in which the recoveries were made in the present case, is not in consonance with the extant applicable law. No panchnama was drawn by the IO, sincere efforts were not made to join public persons at the places where disclosures were made and no public persons were made witnesses at the places from where the robbed motorcycles or RC were recovered purportedly at the instance of Asif @ Sonu, Burhan and Salman @ Shainu respectively. The recovery at the instance of Burhan was made from a gali (street) where public had free access and the keys of the bike were also found with the bike. It is not the case of the prosecution that number plate was not found on the bike recovered at instance of Burhan, hence the bike could easily have been recovered at FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 33 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:14:00 +0530 instance of anyone or by the police officials themselves. Moreover, the recovery of bike from a public street cannot be treated as one from the possession of Burhan. At best, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the stolen bike was got recovered upon information received from Burhan.
17. So far as recovery of motorcycle from the Zinc factory is concerned, no document has been placed on record to connect Asif @ Sonu to the Zinc factory. No independent witness has deposed that Asif @ Sonu was the owner, occupier or manager etc. of the Zinc Factory. How and who allowed Asif @ Sonu to keep stolen bikes at Zinc Factory is not known. Again no public witnesses were joined in entire proceedings qua recovery at instance of Asif @ Sonu. No photography or videography of the recovery proceedings was done at the spot of recovery.
18. The recoveries at the instance of Asif @ Sonu, Burhan and Salman @ Shainu are highly suspicious and they do not conform to the standard/yardstick laid down by the Apex Court in numerous judgments. In this backdrop, the non-joining of independent public persons as witnesses during disclosure and recovery proceedings assumes significance. The High Court of Delhi in the case of Mohammad Burhan vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, MANU/DE/3131/2017; observed that joining of independent public witness is not a mere formality, it is vital safeguard to avoid false implication of an individual. In Mani vs State of Tamil Nadu, AIR FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 34 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:14:08 +0530 2008 SC 1021; the Apex Court held that discovery is a weak kind of evidence and it cannot be wholly relied upon on and conviction in a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery only.
19. So far as the ingredients of Section 34 IPC are concerned, the prosecution has to prove that accused Salman @ Shainu, Ashif @ Bhaiya, Parvez and Imran had commited the robbery in furtherance of their common intention. Common intention means a pre- arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to that plan. Common intention may be proved specifically or it may have to be inferred from the facts proved on record. In the case of Abdul Sayeed vs State Of M.P, (2010) 10 SCC 259; the Apex Court observed the following regarding common intention:-
51. Section 34 can be invoked even in those cases where some of the co- accused may be acquitted provided, it can be proved either by direct evidence or inference that the accused and the others have committed an offence in pursuance of the common intention of the group. (vide: Prabhu Babaji v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 51).
52. Section 34 intends to meet a case in which it is not possible to distinguish between the criminal acts of the individual members of a party, who act in furtherance of the common intention of all the members of the party or it is not possible to prove exactly what part was played by each of them. In the absence of common intention, the criminal liability of a member of the group might differ according to the mode of the individual's participation in the act. Common intention means that each member of the group is aware of the act to be committed.
In the present case, accused Salman @ Shainu, Ashif @ Bhaiya, Parvez and Imran came on two motorcycles. The pillion riders of both motorcycles were having guns, they all together robbed the victims at gun point and they together took away even the FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 35 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:14:24 +0530 motorcycles of the victims. This co-ordinated manner of commitiing the robbery shows that the same was committed in a pre-meditated agreement between the accused persosn. Hence, each one of them is liable for the act of others done while commiting the act of robbery.
20. During the course of investigation, an application for issuance of NBWs against accused Imran and Ashif @ Bhaiya was moved by IO before the court of Sh. Subhash Kumar Mishra, the then learned MM, East District and the NBWs were issued against both the accused persons. The NBWs remained unexecuted, so an application for initiating proceedings u/s 82 Cr.PC was made by the IO before the court of learned MM. Vide an order dated 05.05.2018, the learned MM allowed the application and accordingly, proclamations against accused Ashif @ Bhaiya and Imran were issued. On 31.08.2018 Sh. Balvinder Singh the then learned MM, East, after perusing the reports on process u/s 82 Cr.PC declared both Ashif @ Bhaiya and Imran as absconding. The order passed by the court of competent jurisdiction declaring accused Imran and Ashif @ Bhaiya as absconding has not been challenged till date. Moreover, this Court also does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the then learned MM. Accordingly, the prosecution has successfully proved the commission of offence punishable u/s 174-A IPC qua accused Ashif @ Bhaiya and Imran.
FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 36 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:14:37 +0530
21. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, accused Burhan and Asif @ Sonu are acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC. Accused Salman @ Shainu, Ashif @ Bhaiya, Parvez and Imran are convicted for offence punishable u/s 392/34 IPC.
Accused Salman @ Shainu and Parvez are convicted for offence punishable u/s 397 IPC. Accused Ashif @ Bhaiya and Imran are also convicted for offence punishable u/s 174-A (Part-I) IPC as they were not declared Proclaimed Offenders by the competent court.
Dictated and announced Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
in open court on 25th March, 2026. ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25
17:14:51
+0530
Anurag Thakur
Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
This judgment consists of 41 pages
and each and every page of this
judgment is signed by me.
FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 37 of 41
POST SCRIPT
LIST OF PROSECUTION DOCUMENTS
S. No. Exhibit Number Description
1. Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant Sambit Pattanaik
2. Ex.PW1/B Site Plan prepared at the instance of complainant
3. Ex.PW1/C Seizure memo of motorcycle bearing registration no.
DL-5SBZ-2619 make Pulsar of assailants
4. Ex.PW1/D TIP proceedings of accused Salman @ Shainu s/o Yusuf
5. Ex.PW1/E Panchnama of motorcycle bearing No. UP-32FM-7404
6. Ex.PW1/F Another panchnama of motorcycle bearing No. DL-6SAT-3742
7. Ex.P-1(colly) Four photographs of complainant with his motorcycle
8. Ex.P-2(colly) Four photographs of motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-32FM-7404 of PW-2 Sanit Khosla
9. Ex.PW2/A Superdarinama/bond of Rs.60,000/- of motorcycle No. UP-32FM-7404 of PW-2 Sanit Khoslao
10. Ex.PW4/A Seizure memo of RC of motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-6SAT-3742
11. Ex.PW4/ Original RC alongwith its photocopy Article-1
12. Ex.PW5/A Arrest memo of accused Burhan Khan
13. Ex.PW5/B Personal search memo of accused Burhan Khan
14. Ex.PW5/C Disclosure statement of accused Burhan Khan
15. Ex.PW5/D Seizure memo of motorcycle Avenger bearing No.UP-32FM-7404
16. Ex.PW5/E Site Plan of H.N0. 367, Band Gali No. 18, Jafrabad
17. Ex.PW5/F Arrest memo of accused Sonu
18. Ex.PW5/G Personal search memo of accused Sonu
19. Ex.PW5/H Disclosure statement of accused Sonu
20. Ex.PW5/I Seizure memo of motorcycle make KTM Duke bearing No. DL-6SAT-3742 alongwith its key
21. Ex.PW5/J Seizure memo of motorcycle make Pulsar
22. Ex.PW5/K Site plan of Zinc factory, House of Deepak, Pradhan ka Beda, Khajoor Wali Gali, Ghonda Village
23. Ex.PW5/L Arrest memo of accused Parvez Ahmed
24. Ex.PW5/M Personal search memo of accused Parvez Ahmed
25. Ex.PW5/N Disclosure statement of accused Parvez Ahmed
26. Ex.PW5/O Pointing out memo of accused Parvez Ahmed
27. Ex.PW6/A Copy of call dated 07.02.2018 at about 23.06 hours
28. Ex.PW7/A(OSR) Original record of motorcycle No. DL-6SAT-3742
29. Ex.PW8/A Endorsement on statement of complainant Samvit Patnaik
30. Ex.PW9/A(OSR) DD No.62A recorded by PW-9 ASI Jai Prakash Singh FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 38 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:15:33 +0530
31. Ex.PW10/A Arrest memo of accused Asif @ Bhaiya
32. Ex.PW10/B Personal search memo of accused Asif @ Bhaiya
33. Ex. PW10/C Arrest memo of accused Asif @ Bhaiya, PS Mayur Vihar
34. Ex.PW10/D Disclosure statement of accused Asif @ Bhaiya
35. Ex.PW11/A Kalandra U/s 41.1C CrPC prepared by PW-11 SI Ravinder
36. Ex.PW12/A Pointing out memo of accused Asif @ Bhaiya
37. Ex.PW12/B Arrest memo of accused Imran
38. Ex.PW12/C Disclosure statement of accused Imran
39. Ex.PW12/D Pointing out memo of accused Imran
40. Ex.PW13/A Copy of FIR No. 0040/2018 PS Mayur Vihar PH-1
41. Ex.PW13/B Arrest memo of accused Salman @ Shainu s/o Md. Yusuf
42. Ex.PW13/C Disclosure statement of accused Salman @ Shainu
43. Ex.PW13/D Sketch of pistol used in FIR No.0040/18 PS Mayur Vihar PH-1, U/s 307/186/353/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
44. Ex.PW13/E Seizure memo of recovered pistol and three live cartridges in FIR No.0040/18 PS Mayur Vihar PH-1
45. Ex.PW13/F Seizure memo of motorcycle Yamha FZ No.DL-5SA-2356
46. Ex.PW13/G Site plan of FIR No.0040/18 PS Mayur Vihar PH-1
47. Ex.PW13/H Application for production, arrest and interrogation of accused Salman @ Shainu
48. Ex.PW13/J("I" Formal arrest memo of accused Salman @ Shainu omitted)
49. Ex.PW13/K Disclosure statement of accused Salman @ Shainu
50. Ex.PW13/L Application to Suptd. Jail to produce accused Salman @ Shainu in muffled face before court
51. Ex.PW13/M Application for TIP of accused Salman @ Shainu
52. Ex.PW13/N Application for three days police remand of accused Salman @ Shainu
53. Ex.PW13/O Site plan of place of recovery of RC of Vehicle bearing No. DL6SAT3742
54. Ex.PW13/P Pointing out memo of accused Salman @ Shainu
55. Ex.PW13/Q Supplementary disclosure statement of accused Salman @ Shainu
56. Ex.PW13/R PCR Form collected by PW-13 SI Manoj Kumar Tomar
57. Ex.PW13/S Notice U/s 91 Cr.PC served upon MLO, Sarai Kale Khan
58. Ex.PW13/T Application for formal arrest of accused Asif @ Bhaiya
59. Ex.PW13/U Application for TIP proceedings of accused Asif @ Bhaiya
60. Ex.PW13/V Order passed by Ld. MM on the TIP application
61. Ex.PW13/W Application for two days PC of accused Asif @ Bhaiya
62. Ex.PW13/X Order on application for 02 days PC of Asif @ Bhaiya
63. Ex.PW13/Y Application for TIP of accused Parvez Ahmed
64. Ex.PW13/Z Application dated 18.09.2018 moved by SHO concerned FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 39 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:15:48 +0530
65. Ex.PW13/A1 Application dated 19.09.2018 for TIP of accused Imran
66. Ex.PW13/A2 TIP proceedings of accused Imran
67. Ex.PW13/A3 Application for two days PC of accused Imran
68. Ex.PW13/A4 Order on application for two days PC of accused Imran
69. Ex.PW13/A5 Application moved by IO to declare accused Imran and Asif @ Bhaiya as Proclaimed Offenders
70. Ex.PW13/A6 Order dated 31.08.2018
71. Ex.PW13/A7 Application for issuance of NBWs against accused Imran and Asif @ Bhaiya
72. Ex.PW13/A8 Application for initiating the proceedings u/s 82 Cr.PC against accused Imran and Asif @ Bhaiya
73. Ex.PW13/A9 Order on application for initiating the proceedings u/s 82 Cr.PC against accused Imran and Asif @ Bhaiya
74. Ex.PW13/A10 Application for initiating the proceedings u/s 83 Cr.PC against accused Imran and Asif @ Bhaiya
75. Ex.PW13/A11 Order on application for initiating the proceedings u/s 83 Cr.PC against accused Imran and Asif @ Bhaiya
76. Ex.PW13/A12 Details and ownership of vehicle No. UP-32-FM-7404
77. Ex.P3(colly) One Pistol, one live cartridge and two empty cartridges
78. Ex.P4 One country-made pistol
79. Ex.P5 One country-made pistol
80. Ex.P6 One country-made pistol
81. Ex.P7(colly) Four photographs of vehicle bearing No. DL-5SBZ-2619
82. Ex.PW15/A Authority letter of PW-15 Krishna Chand from RTO
83. Ex.PW15/B Copy of RC of UP-32FM-7404
84. Ex.PW15/ Copy of record regarding registration of Vehicle No. C(colly 13 UP-32FM-7404 pages)(OSR)
85. Ex.C1 (colly) DO/DD writer PW ASI Satender to prove copy of FIR No.29/18, endorsement and certificate u/s 65B of IE Act of present case, listed at sl.no.12
86. Ex.C2 Statement of PW HC Prabhat who recorded DD No.54A dated 07.02.2018 listed at sl. no.13
87. Ex.C3 (colly) TIP proceedings of accused Salman @ Shainu dated 24.02.2018 conducted by Sh. Rakesh Kumar Rampuri, the then ld. MM, to be proved by PW listed at sl. no.14
88. Ex.PX TIP proceedings conducted by Sh. Rakesh Rampuri, the then ld. MM
89. Ex.PX-1 DD No.48-B
90. Ex.PX-2 DD No.27-B
91. Ex.PX-3 DD No.3-B
92. Ex.PX-4 DD No.48-B
93. Ex.PX-5 TIP proceedings conducted by Ms. Nabeela Wali, the then ld. MM FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 40 of 41 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:16:06 +0530 LIST OF DEFECE DOCUMENTS S. No Exhibit Number Description 1 Ex.DW1/A Copy of Aadhar Card of DW-1 Vakeela Khatoon 2 Mark DW2/A Copy of Aadhar card of DW-2 Alam Gir ____________ Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2026.03.25 17:16:18 +0530 FIR No. 29/2018 PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I State vs Salman & Ors. Pg. 41 of 41