Delhi District Court
State vs Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja on 10 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS:
NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 9227/2016)
CNR No. DLND01-002452-2015
FIR No. 1019/2015
Police Station Vasant Vihar
Charge sheet filed 328/392/411/468/471/34 IPC
Under Section
Charge framed Under 328/392/468/471/34/411 IPC
Section
Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja s/o
Nathu Ram r/o H. No. SR 238,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi
State Vs. John s/o Charles r/o H. No. 84,
A Block, Aruna Nagar,
Tibersain Colony, Majnu Ka
Tilla, New Delhi (proceedings
abated vide order dated
25.07.2024)
Date of institution 10.11.2015
Arguments concluded on 20.11.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 10.12.2025
Decision Acquitted u/sec
328/411/468/471 IPC
Convicted u/sec
392/34 IPC
SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 1 of 21
FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2025.12.10
16:52:13 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS 1.1 Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that tehrir of the present case was received from PS R. K. Puram and Zero FIR was lodged at PS Faridabad vide Zero FIR No. 03/2015 under section 328/392/34 IPC at PS Faridabad on the statement of complainant Ram Mehar. In the complaint it was alleged that he used to drive Swift car bearing No. DL-9CL-6700 Silver Colour. He further alleged that on 23.06.2015 he came to Delhi Airport from Palam Village. At about 03:00 PM after dropping the passenger at Airport, he was waiting for other passengers and in the meantime, accused persons came and asked him to go to Agra. He further alleged that he told the accused persons that he would charge Rs. 3,500/- as fare and accused persons agreed for the same.
1.2 He further deposed that he took the accused persons to petrol pump near Airport and filled fuel i.e., petrol for Rs. 1,200/-and accused had paid him Rs. 1,000/- at that time. He further alleged that after about 4 km, accused persons stopped the vehicle at Malai Mandir Market, Delhi on the pretext that they had to have meal. He further alleged that thereafter, accused persons left from there and he remained in the car. He further alleged that after some time, both accused persons came back and at that time they were having one two liter cold drink bottle i.e., Mirinda or Slice. He further alleged that accused Rohtash was having the bottle and when he was shaking the bottle, there was some noise was coming from the bottle. He further alleged that accused Rohtash offered him cold drink in a glass and after consuming the same, he became intoxicated. He further deposed that thereafter, accused persons made him to sit on the rear seat and they themselves drove the vehicle.
1.3 He further alleged that accused persons took away his vehicle SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 2 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.10 16:52:21 +0530
bearing No. DL-9CL-6700, his purse containing cash of Rs. 20,000/- and his mobile phone and left him at Sector-15, Faridabad in intoxicated condition. On the statement of complainant, Zero FIR under section 328/392 IPC was registered and later on sent to PS R. K. Puram Delhi. Upon receipt of documents from PS Central Faribabad, present case was registered at PS Vasant Vihar and during investigation at the instance of complainant, site plan was prepared.
1.4 On 11.07.2015, an information regarding arrest of accused persons namely Rohtash and John in FIR No. 815/2015 PS Saket, who disclosed their involvement in the present case was received at police station. Robbed car was also recovered at their instance. On inspection of recovered robbed car, the engine number and chassis number was found as 1434838 and 577360, however, as per RC, the engine number of the vehicle was D1314344629. Both accused persons were produced before the court on issuance of production warrant and they were formally arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded. TIP of accused persons were got conducted, however, they refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. After identification of recovered Swift car, section 468/471 IPC was added. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences under sections 328/392/411/468/471/34 IPC against accused persons was filed in the court.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 19.12.2015, charge under sections 328/392/468/471/34/411 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 3 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.10 16:52:26 +0530
Vide order dated 25.07.2024, proceedings against accused John were abated.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 15 witnesses in all.
FORMAL WITNESSES
4. PW1 HC Lal Chand, being duty officer, exhibited FIR as Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on rukka which is Ex. PW1/B.
5. PW3 Dr. Lokesh, deposed that on 24.06.20215, he examined patient Ram Mehar brought by HC Sunil Kumar. He further deposed that patient was conscious but disoriented and uncooperative. He provided MLC as Ex. PW3/A and covering letter as Ex. PW3/B. 6.1 PW5 HC Vijender, deposed that on 10.07.2013 SI Jeet Singh deposited one Swift car Silver Colour VDi in FIR No. 815/15 u/sec 411/482/34 IPC PS Saket vide entry No. 1421 in register No. 19 which is Ex. PW5/A. 6.2 He further deposed that on 23.07.2015, the said car was transferred to PS Vasant Vihar vide RC No. 104/21 through Ct. Aman Kumar which is Ex. PW5/B.
7. PW7 ASI Santosh Kumar deposed that on 26.06.2015, SI Ramesh Chand got registered zero FIR at PS, Central Thana which is Ex. PW7/A.
8. PW9 Jagdish Kumar, Manager SEC Department, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Gurgaon deposed that in response to letter dated 04.08.2015, he had SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 4 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.12.10 16:52:50 +0530 given his reply after checking the record regarding Maruti Car bearing No. DL-9CL-6700 Swift Dezire VDI vide his detailed report which is Ex. PW9/A.
9. PW10 Ms. Snighda Sarvaria, the then Ld. MM, proved TIP proceedings of accused persons as Ex. PW10/A and Ex. PW10/B.
10. PW11 Sumit, Assistant Ahlmad in the court of Ld. ACMM, South District, Saket Courts, brought summoned record i.e., copy of FIR No. 815/15 PS Saket u/sec 411/482/34 IPC and exhibited the judicial file as Ex. PW11/A.
11. PW12 HC Vijender proved register No. 19, showing entry of movement of Swift car from PS Saket to PS Vasant Vihar through RC No. 104/21/2015 which is Ex. PW12/A (colly).
12. PW13 Yazvinder Singh, Ahlmad in the court of Ld. ACMM, South District, Saket, brought the original miscellaneous recorded of FIR No. 815/2015 PS Saket. He deposed that no charge sheet in FIR No. 815/2015 PS Saket has been filed by the IO and as per order dated 07.08.2015, accused Rohtash, Lallu Khan and John were discharged in said FIR.
MATERIAL WITNESSES 13.1 PW2 Ram Meher, who happens to be victim in this case, deposed that he had purchased second hand vehicle i.e., Maruti Swift Car bearing No. DL-9CL-6700 silver colour from Dwarka and used to run the same from Palam village stand. He further deposed that on 23.06.2015, he had picked up a passenger from Palam village Stand for Airport and at about 02:30 PM, after dropping the passenger at airport, he was standing outside waiting and was having tea. He further deposed that at about 02:30-03:00 PM, accused persons SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 5 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.12.10 16:52:55 +0530 approached him to go to Agra. He further deposed that he agreed for the same and the fare was decided at Rs. 3,500/-. thereafter, he alongwith two accused persons left for Agra in his swift vehicle. 13.2 He further deposed that on the way near the airport, he had got his vehicle filled up with petrol for Rs. 1,100/- and accused persons had paid Rs.
1,500/- for purchasing petrol. He further deposed that on the way, accused told him that they wanted to have their meals and stopped the vehicle at Indra Market. He further deposed that after about 30-45 minutes accused persons came back to the vehicle after having meal and at that time they had two litre bottle of Mirinda or Slice cold drink. He further deposed that accused Rohtash was shaking the bottle and on shaking there was some noise kat kat coming from the bottle. He further deposed that accused Rohtash gave him a glass full of said cold drink and accused John told him to enjoy the cold drink. He further deposed that after travelling some distance, he became intoxicated and accused persons made him sit on the back seat of the car. He further deposed that he became unconscious and found himself in near Sector-15, Market Faridabad.
13.3 He further deposed that he was carrying Rs. 20,000/- in cash in his purse and a mobile phone having SIM No. 9958347437 which were taken away by accused persons. He further deposed that local police from Faridabad had come to his village in Samalaka and recorded his statement which is Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that he had also given statement in police station R. K. Puram which is Ex. PW2/B and had shown the place of occurrence to IO, who prepared site plan at his instance. He exhibited vehicle as Ex. P1 during his evidence.
13.4 He admitted that he had got his vehicle filled up with diesel for an amount of Rs. 1,200/-. He admitted that accused persons had given him Rs.
SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 6 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.10 16:53:00 +0530
1,000/-for filing fuel in the vehicle. He stated that he had also mentioned that he was admitted in B. K. Hospital in Faridabad. He also stated that he had seen the accused persons when his car was recovered by the police and he had also seen them in the police station and also seen them in the court. 13.5 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Rohtash, he stated that he used to run his own taxi at the time of incident. He stated that both the accused persons hired his taxi at about 12:30 PM. He stated that registration number of his vehicle was private and he was not having any valid license for using his vehicle for taxi purpose. He admitted that nothing was mixed in the cold drink by the accused persons in his presence. He stated that seal was not opened by the accused persons in his presence and same was already opened. He stated that he had not refused to take the cold drink. He stated that after about 5 minutes of taking cold drink, he came under influence of intoxication. He stated that he had consumed one glass of cold drink. He stated that he had not seen the accused persons prior to the incident. He stated that both the accused persons remained in the vehicle for about 30 minutes prior to giving cold drink to him. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION 14.1 PW4 SI Jeet Singh deposed that on 09.07.2015, he was IO of case FIR No. 815/2015 u/sec 411/482/34 IPC PS Saket and he arrested accused persons namely John and Rohtash. He further deposed that accused persons disclosed the commission of offence in present case in their disclosure statements which are Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B and they were arrested in that case also.
14.2 He further deposed that on 10.07.2015, accused Rohtash led them SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 7 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.10 16:53:06 +0530
to DLF Flats, Bhopura, Delhi-UP border and got recovered Swift Dezire vehicle which was involved in the present case and seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW4/C. He further deposed that four other vehicles were also recovered at the instance of accused Rohtash which were involved in various other cases. He further deposed that vehicle was recovered without any number plate affixed on the vehicle and engine number and chassis number of Swift Dezire car was found to be tampered/forged. He further deposed that he gave necessary information to Kenyan Embassy as accused John was a citizen of Kenya. He further deposed that information of arrest of accused was given to PS Vasant Vihar vide DD No. 36B dated 11.07.2015.
15. PW6 HC Bir Singh deposed that on 09.07.2015, he alongwith SI Jeet Singh, SI Rajeev, Ct. Satpal, HC Ashok and another HC Ashok were on patrolling duty and deposed about the arrest of accused Rohtash in FIR No. 815/2015 PS Saket on the lines of PW4 SI Jeet Singh.
16.1 PW8 ASI Ramesh Chand deposed that on 24.06.2015, he received an information from Badshah Khan Hospital regarding admission of one person by the name of Ram Mehar for consuming some poisonous substance. He further deposed that on receipt of information, he reached the hospital where patient was declared unfit for statement. He further deposed that on 25.06.2015, he again went to the hospital where he came to know that patient had already left for his house.
16.2 He further deposed that on 26.06.2015, he went to house of Ram Mehar and recorded his statement. He further deposed that on the basis of statement of injured, he prepared rukka which is Ex. PW8/A and handed over the same to HC Sunil Kumar for registration of FIR. He further deposed that SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 8 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.12.10 16:53:11 +0530 thereafter zero FIR was registered and sent the same to PHQ Delhi.
17. PW14 ASI Ashok deposed about the arrest of accused Rohtash, Lallu Khan and John in FIR No. 815/2015 PS Saket and on the lines of PW4 SI Jeet Singh and PW6 HC Bir Singh regarding investigation done in FIR No. 815/2015.
18.1 PW15 SI Sanjeev deposed that on 07.07.2015, from the office of DCP concerned, FIR No. 0/2015 PS Central Faridabad, statement of complainant, endorsement by ASI Ramesh Chand on the statement of complainant, MLC, Medico legal case Information, note of ASI Sunil which is Ex. PW15/A, application of HC Sunil Kumar which is Ex. PW15/B, letter of SHO PS Central Faridabad which is Ex. PW15/C, letter of ACP PS Central Faridabad which is Ex. PW15/D, letter of DCP Central Faridabad which is Ex. PW15/E, complaint of Ram Mehar given in PS R. K. Puram and letter of SI Vijay having endorsement of ACP concerned which is Ex. PW15/F was received in police station for registration of FIR. 18.2 He further deposed that on 08.07.2015, he made endorsement which is Ex. PW15/G in FIR No. 0/2015 and handed over the same to duty officer, who registered the FIR. He further deposed that complainant also reached at police station and he alongwith complainant went to place of incident for inspection.
18.3 He further deposed that on 11.07.2015, he received an information vide DD No. 236B which is Ex. PW15/H that accused wanted in this case has been arrested by Special Staff, South District. He further deposed that on receipt of information, he went to office of Special Staff and collected the documents from IO SI Jeet Singh. He further deposed that on 15.07.2015, one SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 9 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.10 16:53:16 +0530 Maruti Swift car i.e., case property of this case was brought to malkhana of PS Vasant Vihar. He further deposed that on 17.07.2015, he moved an application which is Ex. PW15/I before concerned court for production of accused Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja and John s/o Charles and application was allowed and accused persons were called on 22.07.2015. He further deposed that both accused persons could not be produced before the court on 22.07.2015 and hence, he moved another application for production which is Ex. PW15/J and accordingly, accused persons were produced on 27.07.2015 before the court. 18.4 He further deposed that he moved an application for interrogation and arrest of accused Rohtash and John which is Ex. PW15/K. He further deposed that he arrested accused Rohtash and John vide arrest memos which are Ex. PW15/N and Ex. PW15/M and recorded their disclosure statements which are Ex. PW15/O and Ex. PW15/P. He further deposed that he moved an application for conducting judicial TIP of accused persons which is Ex. PW15/Q and both the accused persons refused to participate in TIP proceedings. He further deposed that both the accused persons were taken on police custody for two days and complainant Ram Mehar came in police station and identified both the accused persons as the persons, who robbed him after giving him poisonous substance.
18.5 He further deposed that on 04.08.2015, he moved an application which is Ex. PW15/R to Vigilance Manager, Maruti Udyog Ltd. for verification of the vehicle bearing No. DL-9CN 6700 and after receipt of report sections 468 and 471 IPC were added in this case. 18.6 During cross examination done on behalf of accused persons, he stated that no involvement of any other person except both the accused persons had come into notice. He stated that he had not obtained CCTV footage of the toll tax. He stated that complainant had given the description of the accused SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 10 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.10 16:53:21 +0530 persons to him. He stated that vehicle was not recovered in his presence. He stated that mobile number of the complainant was not put on surveillance. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused persons.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C 19.1 After closure of PE, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 08.08.2019, wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence put to them. They stated that they are innocent and they have no concern with the his case and they have been falsely implicated in this case in order to solve the blind case.
19.2 Accused Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja opted to lead defence evidence whereas accused John opted not to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE 20.1 DW1 Jyoti Kumar, deposed that on 05.07.2015 at about 05:00 PM, he was in the market at Dwarka Mor and saw that some people, who were in normal clothes, were taking away Rohtash. She further deposed that upon inquiry, those persons informed her that they were police officials. She further deposed that thereafter, she informed sister of accused Rohtash that he has been taken by the police officials. She further deposed that later on she came to know from sister of accused that certain cases have been registered against accused Rohtash. She proved her Aadhar card as Ex. DW1/A. 20.2 During cross examination done on behalf of State, she could not tell the exact number of persons, who were taking away Rohtash, however, they might be 5-6 persons. She stated that police officials told him that they were taking Rohtash in order to make inquiries from him. She stated that she did not make call at number 100. She stated that she went to house of Renu SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 11 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.10 16:53:26 +0530 and told all these facts to her and Renu did not make any call at number 100 in her presence. She denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of State.
21. Vide statement recorded on 29.08.2019 accused Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja closed his defence evidence.
22. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
23. I have heard Dr. Raj Rani, Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh. Brijesh Oberoi, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja.
24. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature. He alongwith co-accused John administered some spurious substance to the victim/complainant while mixing the same in the cold drink. When complainant got intoxicated, they threw him in mid way at Sector- 15 Faridabad and left with the taxi. They also robbed his wallet consisting Rs. 20,000/- and his mobile phone. Prosecution has examined complainant Ram Mehar and he has thoroughly supported the case of the prosecution. He has correctly identified accused Rohtash as one of the offenders. During investigation accused got recovered the robbed car of the complainant and engine number and chassis number of the same were found to be tampered with. Recovery of car is duly proved by the police officials. Therefore, prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused persons under section 328/392/468/471/34/411 IPC.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 12 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.10 16:53:32 +0530 witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelieved and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC
625.
25. Per contra, Sh. Brijesh Oberoi, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused has argued that this is a false and concocted case foisted against the accused. It is submitted that complainant failed to provide any specific physical description of the offenders to the IO at the time of registration of FIR and he could not tell the colour of clothes worn by them. Accused persons refused to participate in TIP proceedings as they were shown to the complainant in police station. Therefore, TIP proceedings are of no consequence against the accused. There are material contradictions in the testimony of complainant Ram Mehar. IO SI Sanjeev never seized the recovered vehicle in the present FIR and therefore, the recovered car never became a case property in this case. Moreover, the car was recovered by the Special Staff of South District from an open space and in fact it was planted upon the accused by the IO to work out unsolved case. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the fact that engine number and chassis number of the recovered Swift car was tampered with as there is no FSL report in this regard. IO did not seize the CCTV footage from the toll tax. IO never put the mobile phone of the complainant to surveillance to recover the same. Recover of the vehicle was not done on presence of any public witness or complainant. The case of the prosecution is duly rebutted by DW1 Anita, who has deposed that accused was forcibly taken away by the police official and her testimony cannot be brushed aside. It is stated that entire case of the prosecution is a complete mockery of justice and accused cannot be convicted on the basis of such tainted investigation. Hence, accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt and he may be acquitted accordingly.
SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 13 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.10 16:53:37 +0530
26. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
27. The accused Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja is charged for the commission of offences punishable under sections 328/392/468/471/34/411 IPC.
28. The relevant sections are reproduced as under:
SECTION 328 IPC Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit and offence.- Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 392 IPC 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.
SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 14 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.10 16:53:42 +0530 SECTION 468 IPC
Forgery for purpose of cheating.-Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 471 IPC Using as genuine a forged document.-Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.
SECTION 411 IPC Dishonestly receiving stolen property.-Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
SECTION 34 IPC Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
29. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 15 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.12.10 16:53:49 +0530 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved.It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
30. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
31. The case of the prosecution is based upon the complaint that accused Rohtash alongwith co-accused John (since deceased) hired the taxi of the complainant for going to Agra. En-route Agra, they administered some spurious/intoxicated substance to the complainant by mixing the same in a cold drink. They left the complainant at Sector-15 Faridabad and robbed his mobile phone, Rs. 20,000/- and his cab. Later on they were arrested by the crime SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 16 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.12.10 16:53:55 +0530 branch and got recovered some stolen vehicles out of which one car was of complainant. Accused Rohtash is facing trial under section 328/392/411/468/471 IPC.
32. Complainant was firstly admitted at B. K. Hospital, Faridabad at 03:22 AM where his MLC was prepared and same has been proved as Ex.PW3/A. As per contents of this MLC, there was smell of alcohol and patient (complainant) behaved aggressively and did not cooperate so that gastric lavage and blood sampling could be done. Considering this condition physicist opinion and physician opinion was advised. Police officials PP Sector 15, Faridabad moved a request for recording of statement of complainant but the doctor declared him unfit for statement. Subsequently, complainant/patient left the hospital against the medical advise at 07:15 AM. Therefore, neither his statement could be recorded nor his gastric lavage or blood sample could be taken on 24.06.2015.
33. In Prashant Bharti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2013 decided on 23.01.2013 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that as per medical report there was absence of poisoning. It was also observed that blood sample of the victim could not be sent for examination and police also could not recover the cold drink bottle from which complainant had consumed the same. The allegation made by the complainant could not be verified by the police from any direct or scientific evidence. In these circumstances section 328 IPC was quashed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
34. Relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Prashant Bharti's Case, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Krishan Kant Vs. SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 17 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.12.10 16:54:01 +0530 State Criminal Appeal No. 275/2009 decided by Hon'ble High Court on 05.04.2023 set aside the conviction order of Ld. Trial court vide which he was convicted under section 328 IPC. Hon'ble High Court observed that prosecution failed to collect the evidence in question. Since there was no evidence on record to prove that stupefying substance was administered to the complainant except his sole testimony. Hon'ble High Court relied upon Mukesh Chand Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2010 SCC OnLine Del 379 wherein it is held that "stomach wash" was necessary for the prosecution to prove the allegation under section 328 IPC and to prove the fact that substance in question was poison.
35. Judgment of Prashant Bharti's case and Krishna Kant's case (discussed supra) are on conviction but recently this issue has been deliberated over by Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Dharmender Hooda Vs. State of NCT of Delhi in criminal revision petition No. 757/2022 wherein order of Ld. Trial court of framing charge under section 328 IPC was set aside by Hon'ble High Court. While relying upon Prashant Bharti Vs. State (2013) 9 SCC 113, Hon'ble High Court held as under:
14. A perusal of record reveals that the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C has stated that on 31.07.2021, petitioner had taken her to hotel and on the way had offered her cold drink, after consuming which she had become disoriented. FIR in this case was registered on 17.12.2021 i.e. after five months of the alleged incident of administration of the intoxicating substance. However, there is statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of the Manager of the hotel wherein she has stated that the prosecutrix i.e. respondent no. 2 had visited the hotel with the accused and she was not in disoriented condition and had put her signatures in the entry register of the guest house on 31.07.2021. The present statement along with the fact that there is neither medical examination conducted nor any evidence is available on record regarding administration of intoxicating substance. Charge under Section 328 IPC could not have been SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 18 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.12.10 16:54:07 +0530 framed as there was nothing on record before learned Trial Court for a grave suspicion regarding administration of the above allegations. Therefore placing reliance on the judgment of Prashant Bharti vs. State (supra), there was nothing on record before learned Trial Court to even prima facie take a view that ingredients of Section 328 IPC were made out for the purpose of framing charge."
36. Considering the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it is clear that to prove a charge under section 328 IPC, MLC and report of stomach wash or gastric lavage is required to corroborate the fact that some stupefying and intoxicating substance was administered to the complainant and oral testimony of the complainant would not suffice. Complainant has deposed as PW2 that accused Rohtash was shaking a cold drink bottle and he gave a glass of cold drink to him and thereafter, he became intoxicated. So there is only oral testimony of PW2 of administering a stupefying substance by accused Rohtash but considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this evidence would not suffice to convict the accused under section 328 IPC in absence of his gastric lavage or report of his blood sample.
37. It is also argued on behalf of State that accused Rohtash got recovered the robbed car of the complainant on 10.07.2015 and it was recovered by SI Jeet Singh of Special Staff. The recovered car i.e., Swift of Silver Colour VDi was having engine No. 1434838 and chassis number 577360. Accused had tampered the engine number and chassis number.
38. The case of the prosecution is also weak on this allegation. There is no expert opinion from the FSL to prove the fact that chassis number and engine number of Swift car was tampered with. IO requested the Director SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 19 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.12.10 16:54:14 +0530 CFSL to conduct the inspection of the recovered vehicle bearing No. DL-9CL-6700 but in the testimony of IO as PW15 there is no mention whether he had sent the vehicle to CFSL for expert opinion or not. It is a matter of record that no report from FSL qua the vehicle is filed by the prosecution during the proceedings. So, this fact remains unproved that engine number and chassis number of Swift car of silver colour were tampered with. In absence of proper identification of the recovered car, prosecution has also failed to prove the fact that the recovered car was of complainant only.
39. IO took details of the car from Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. but they provided the particulars of the car of the complainant. Their communication to the IO in this regard is not sufficient to prove the fact that recovered car was of the complainant having same particulars as mentioned in Ex. PW9/A. Hence, recovered Swift car could not be proved as stolen property in this case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, case of the prosecution fails with regard to section 411/468/471 IPC.
40. As far as allegation under section 392 IPC is concerned, same stands proved against the accused. PW2 Ram Mehar has correctly identified the accused, who gave him cold drink which made him intoxicated. He regained his consciousness in Faridabad Hospital. PW2 was in possession of his mobile phone, Rs. 20,000/- apart from his cab. All of these valuable articles were found missing.
41. It is argued on behalf of accused that prosecution has not proved the CCTV footage of the toll from where the cab had passed through. IO did not put the mobile phone of the complainant under surveillance and ther eis no SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 20 of 21 FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.12.10 16:54:20 +0530 other witness apart from complainant to corroborate his version. Absence of CCTV footage and non recovery of mobile phone are issues related to the investigation conducted by the IO. He could have easily procured these evidences but if that is not done by him then the testimony of PW2 Ram Mehar cannot be brushed aside.
42. This is not the case of the accused that he has previous enmity or grudge against the complainant and out of that complainant had identified him as the offender. In absence of any motive of false implication, the reliable, trustworthy and cogent testimony of PW2 inspires confidence of the court.
Law is settled that multiplicity of prosecution witnesses is not a sine qua non for proving an allegation against the accused. It is the quality which is material other than the quantity of the evidence. Therefore, the issues raised by ld. LAC has no bearing on the merits of the case. Hence, accused stands convicted for committing an offence under section 392/34 IPC.
CONCLUSION
43. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against accused under section 328/411/468/471 IPC, however, prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused under section 392/34 IPC on the basis of reliable, trustworthy and cogent testimony of PW2 Ram Mehar. Hence, accused Rohtash is acquitted from committing offences punishable under section 328/411/468/471 IPC, however, he convicted for committing an offence punishable under section 392/34 IPC. It is ordered accordingly.
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2025.12.10
16:54:31 +0530
Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana)
Court on 10.12.2025 ASJ-07, Patiala House Courts,
(running in 21 pages) New Delhi.
SC No. 9227/2016 State Vs. Rohtash @ Raj @ Raja & Anr. Page No. 21 of 21
FIR No. 1019/2015 PS Vasant Vihar