Delhi District Court
State vs Altmas on 7 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-03, NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Sh. Himanshu Sehloth, DJS
Cr. Case no. : 5294631/2016
FIR No. : 07/2016
Police Station : Model Town
Section(s) : 392/394/34 IPC & 411 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
Altmas S/o Sh. Sh. Mohd. Kasim ...................Accused
1. Name of the Complainant : Satish Kumar
2. Name of Accused : Altmas
3. Offence complained of or : 392/394/34 IPC & 411 IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 02.01.2016
6. Date of Filing of case : 25.02.2016
7. Date of Reserving Order : 28.03.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2026
9. Final Order : Convicted for offence U/s 394/34 IPC Digitally
signed by
HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.04.07
17:01:27
+0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 1 of 18
Argued by -: Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Hamid Ali, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
___________________________________________________________
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
1.Factual Matrix
Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 02.01.2016 at about 5:50 PM, near
Hans Cinema, GTK Road, within the jurisdiction of PS Model Town, the accused
Altamas, along with his associates (who could not be apprehended), in furtherance of
their common intention, committed robbery of a purse containing Rs. 6,000/-, SBI
ATM card, Aadhaar card and other documents, along with a wristwatch, from the
possession of the complainant Satish Kumar, by using force and putting him under
fear of hurt.
It is further the case of the prosecution that during the course of the said robbery, the
accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant by assaulting him, as a
result of which he sustained injuries. On raising alarm, the bus in which the
complainant was travelling was stopped, and the accused persons attempted to flee
from the spot. However, the complainant succeeded in apprehending the accused
Altamas, who was thereafter handed over to the police officials who reached the spot
pursuant to DD No. 33A.
It is further the case of the prosecution that the stolen wristwatch of the complainant
was recovered from the possession of the accused at the spot, and the same was
seized. The complainant was medically examined and the injuries sustained by him
were opined to be simple in nature. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet
was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Section 392 IPC, Section
394 IPC, Section 411 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
Upon filing of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offences was taken by the Court.
The accused appeared before the Court and compliance of Section 207 CrPC was
ensured. Thereafter, charge was framed on 03.03.2016 for offences punishable under
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.04.07
17:01:39 +0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 2 of 18
Sections 392/394/34 IPC and in the alternative under Section 411 IPC, to which the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
The prosecution in support of its claim, examined 06 witnesses.
2.1. PW-1: Satish Kumar
Satish Kumar, the complainant and injured witness, was examined and cross-
examined on 30.03.2016.
Examination-in-Chief
PW-1 deposed that he was working as a Head Constable in ITBP. On 02.01.2016 at
about 5:30 PM, he boarded bus route no. 181A for going towards Azadpur. When the
bus reached near Lalbagh, about four persons surrounded him and started scuffling
with him. One of them removed his purse from the pocket of his pant, while another
person, whom the witness correctly identified in Court as accused Altamas, removed
his wristwatch from his wrist.
Upon his objection, the accused persons started beating him, and he sustained nail
scratches on his face. On his raising alarm, the driver stopped the bus, whereupon all
four accused persons deboarded and attempted to flee. PW-1 chased the accused
Altamas and apprehended him at some distance.
It was further deposed that his wristwatch was recovered from the right pocket of the
pant of the accused. PW-1 requested a public person to make a call at number 100,
which was done. After some time, police officials reached the spot, and the accused
was handed over to them.
PW-1 further stated that his statement (Ex. PW-1/A) was recorded. His purse
contained Rs. 6,000/-, an SBI ATM card, Aadhaar card, and certain documents. His
wristwatch was of yellow colour bearing the name "Fly Horse." The said watchDigitally
was
signed by
HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.04.07
17:01:44
+0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 3 of 18
seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B bearing his signatures at point B. He was
medically examined at the hospital.
Upon production of the case property, PW-1 correctly identified the wristwatch (Ex.
P-1).
Cross-Examination
In cross-examination, PW-1 stated that his office was situated at CGO Complex and
that on the day of the incident, he was coming from his room at Wazirpur Village. He
stated that the bus ticket was not handed over to the police as the same was inside the
purse which had been snatched.
He deposed that he was in casual uniform at the time and had boarded the bus at
around 5:30 PM. He came to know about the removal of his purse approximately 10
minutes after boarding the bus. He clarified that first his purse was removed and upon
his objection, his wristwatch was also removed.
He admitted that no passenger in the bus came to his rescue. He apprehended the
accused immediately after deboarding the bus.
He further stated that the watch was recovered from the accused by the police officials
at the spot. From the spot, he went to the police station and thereafter to the hospital at
about 7:30 PM.
He stated that no public person was present at the time of recovery of the watch. He
further deposed that when the bus was stopped, only the accused and his associates
deboarded, followed by him.
He denied the suggestion that the accused had been falsely implicated or that no
robbery had taken place, or that the watch had been planted upon the accused.
2.2. PW-2: ASI Dhirendra (Investigating Officer)
He was examined and cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. Digitally
signed by
HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.04.07
17:01:49
+0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 4 of 18
Examination-in-Chief
PW-2 deposed that on 02.01.2016, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station
Model Town and was on emergency duty from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM.
On that day, upon receipt of DD No. 33A regarding apprehension of a thief, which is
Ex. PW-2/A, he along with Constable Mukheram proceeded to the spot i.e., near Hans
Cinema, GTK Road. At the spot, complainant Satish Kumar met him and handed over
the accused, who was present in Court and correctly identified by the witness.
PW-2 deposed that the complainant informed him that he had been robbed by the
accused and his associates of his purse containing Rs. 6,000/- and other documents,
including his wristwatch.
He recorded the statement of the complainant, which is Ex. PW-1/A and bears his
signatures. He made an endorsement on the said statement, which is Ex. PW-2/B
bearing his signatures. He sent Constable Mukheram to the hospital for medical
examination of the complainant.
PW-2 further deposed that he conducted the personal search of the accused and the
wristwatch of the complainant was recovered, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-1/B bearing his signatures. He also prepared the site plan at the instance of the
complainant, which is Ex. PW-2/C bearing his signatures.
He further stated that Constable Rajesh also reached the spot while patrolling.
Thereafter, he along with Constable Rajesh took the accused to the police station,
where he got the FIR registered.
He formally arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex. PW-2/D
and Ex. PW-2/E bearing his signatures at point A.
PW-2 further deposed that Constable Mukheram came to the police station along with
the complainant and handed over to him the MLC of the complainant. He recorded the
supplementary statement of the complainant. Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
Date:
SEHLOTH 2026.04.07
17:01:53
+0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 5 of 18
He interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement, which is Ex. PW-
2/F bearing his signatures. The accused was also medically examined.
On the next day, the accused was produced before the Court and police custody
remand was obtained for arrest of other accused persons. He made efforts to search for
the co-accused persons along with the accused, however, they could not be found.
After completion of police custody remand, the accused was produced before the
Court and was sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, he concluded the investigation and
filed the charge sheet before the Court.
PW-2 also correctly identified the case property i.e., the wristwatch, and stated that it
belonged to the complainant.
Cross-Examination
In cross-examination, PW-2 stated that he stayed at the spot for about half an hour and
reached the place of incident at about 06:45 PM. He stated that no public persons were
present at the spot when he reached there and only the complainant was present.
He deposed that he inquired from the accused regarding his residence and work. He
stated that he asked 3-4 public persons to join the investigation, however, none agreed
and they left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses.
He admitted that no other co-accused was apprehended at that time as they had run
away from the spot. He further stated that later attempts were made to arrest the co-
accused, however, they were not found.
He stated that he recorded the statement of the complainant at the spot and that the
watch of the complainant was recovered from the accused. He further stated that he
did not take any ownership proof of the watch from the complainant.
He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused and that the
case property was planted upon him. He admitted that no public person signed the
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
recovery memo. HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.04.07
17:01:58 +0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 6 of 18
He stated that he received the information at around 05:20 PM to 05:40 PM and that
he was present at the police station at that time. He further stated that he himself got
the FIR registered.
He deposed that the complainant informed him that he was working as a constable in
ITBP. He denied the suggestion that a false and fabricated case was made as the
complainant was working in ITBP.
He stated that he did not take any bus ticket from the complainant and further stated
that he did not remember whether he had demanded the bus ticket from the
complainant or not.
He stated that the complainant had also informed him that his purse containing Rs.
6,000/- along with documents had been stolen.
He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused. He stated that
he prepared the site plan and that the distance between the police station and the place
of incident was about 2 km.
He deposed that he reached the spot along with the constable on his motorcycle,
however, he did not remember the registration number of the said motorcycle.
He denied the suggestion that he had not visited the place of incident and that the
entire investigation was conducted while sitting at the police station. He further denied
the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
2.3. PW-3:Dr. Mukesh Mandal (CMO, BGRM Hospital)
Examination-in-Chief
PW-3 deposed that on 02.01.2016, he was posted as CMO at BJRM Hospital. On that
day, one injured namely Satish Kumar was brought to the casualty with alleged history
of assault, who was examined by Dr. Aquil Raza under his supervision.
He further deposed that the MLC of the injured is Ex. PW-3/A bearing his signatures,
Digitally signed
and as per the said MLC, the injured had suffered simple injuries. by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.04.07
17:02:02 +0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 7 of 18
Cross-Examination
The witness was not examined by the accused despite opportunity.
2.4. PW-4: Constable Mukharam
PW-4 Constable Mukharam was examined and cross-examined by the accused.
Examination-in-Chief
PW-4 deposed that on 02.01.2016, he was posted at PS Model Town and was on
emergency duty. On that day, ASI Dhirendra received DD No. 33A. After receiving
the same, he along with ASI Dhirendra reached in front of Hans Raj Cinema, GT
Road, towards Lalbagh.
After reaching there, they met the complainant Satish Kumar, who stated that he was
travelling in a bus bearing route no. 181 from Pani Ki Tanki, Ashok Vihar, and the bus
was going towards Azadpur. He stated that 4-5 persons boarded the bus and forcibly
snatched his purse containing Rs. 6,000/-, SBI ATM card, and a yellow colour watch.
After snatching the said articles, the said persons fled away from the spot when the
driver applied brakes due to the noise raised by the complainant.
PW-4 further deposed that the complainant had apprehended one boy when he was
running after deboarding from the bus and the name of the apprehended person was
revealed as Altamas. The complainant handed over the accused Altamas to ASI
Dhirendra.
He further stated that on the casual search of the accused Altamas, one watch was
recovered from him. At that time, the complainant stated that the recovered watch
belonged to him and had been snatched by the accused.
PW-4 further deposed that Constable Rajesh, who was on patrolling duty in the area,
also reached the spot. Thereafter, the IO took the accused Altamas to PS Model Town.
The accused present in Court was correctly identified by the witness. Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
Date:
SEHLOTH 2026.04.07
17:02:07
+0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 8 of 18
PW-4 further stated that he had put his signatures on the seizure memo of the watch,
arrest memo, and personal search memo, all bearing his signatures.
He also correctly identified the case property i.e., the watch.
Cross-Examination
In cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he was present inside the police station at the
time of receiving the DD entry. He stated that they reached the spot at around 06:00
PM through a motorcycle and that the distance between the police station and the spot
was about 1½ kilometres.
He stated that 2-3 public persons were present at the spot. He further stated that
Constable Rajesh was not informed by them and that he reached the spot on his own
while patrolling in the area.
He stated that the watch was recovered from the accused at the spot. He further stated
that he could not say how many documents were prepared by the IO.
He stated that a call was made at number 100. He further stated that he visited the
police station after the spot.
He stated that he did not remember how much time he remained present at the spot
and also did not remember the exact time when the complainant was taken to the
hospital.
He stated that the IO recorded his statement on the same day and that he never joined
the investigation after the day of the incident.
He denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation or that his statement
was recorded at the instance of the IO or that he was deposing falsely.
2.5. PW-5: SI Rajkumar
Examination-in-Chief
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.04.07
17:02:13 +0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 9 of 18
PW-5 deposed that on 02.01.2016, he was posted at Police Station Model Town as DD
Writer. On that day at about 06:12 PM, he received information through the wireless
operator and reduced the same into DD entry No. 33A dated 02.01.2016 of PS Model
Town.
He further deposed that the true copy of the said DD entry was already exhibited as
Ex. PW-2/A, bearing the signatures of the concerned SHO at point A. He identified
the signatures of the SHO as he was working with him during the course of official
duty.
Cross-Examination
The witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity.
2.6. PW-6: ASI Mangeram (MHCM, PS Model Town)
PW-6 ASI Mangeram was examined and cross-examined by the accused.
Examination-in-Chief
PW-6 deposed that he was posted as MHCM at PS Model Town. He stated that on the
day of his deposition, he had brought the original Register No. 19 containing entry
No. 1311/16 dated 02.01.2016 of PS Model Town.
He further deposed that the copy of the aforesaid entry is Ex. PW-6/A, and that the
original was seen and returned, bearing his signatures.
As per the said entry, the case property, personal search articles including one yellow
colour wristwatch, one mobile phone make Nokia, and Rs. 10/- cash were deposited
by ASI Dhirendra on 02.01.2016.
He further stated that he had brought the aforesaid case property in Court and that the
wristwatch was already exhibited as Ex. P-1.
Cross-Examination
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
SEHLOTH
HIMANSHU
Date:
SEHLOTH 2026.04.07
17:02:18
+0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 10 of 18
In cross-examination, PW-6 stated that he could not tell the time at which the case
property was deposited by the IO.
He further stated that it was correct that he did not have personal knowledge about the
present case and that he was deposing on the basis of the record, i.e., Register No. 19.
2.7. PW-7 Constable Sandeep
PW-7 Constable Sandeep was examined and cross-examined by the accused.
Examination-in-Chief
PW-7 deposed that on 04.01.2016, he was posted at Police Station Model Town as a
constable. On that day, he along with ASI Dhirendra joined the investigation and took
the accused Altamas from the police station. Thereafter, they visited Inderlok Metro
Station and Shastri Nagar for searching the co-accused persons, namely Sultan and
Sonu, however, the co-accused could not be traced.
He further deposed that thereafter, they returned back to the police station. He stated
that he narrated the incident to the IO.
The accused present in Court was correctly identified by the witness.
Cross-Examination
In cross-examination, PW-7 stated that on 04.01.2016, he was present at the police
station as he was on 24-hour duty. He stated that they proceeded towards Inderlok
through the vehicle of ASI Dhirendra.
He further stated that the IO had briefed him about the present case before departure
from the police station. He stated that he had not personally made any departure entry
and that the IO had made the entry.
He stated that they left the police station in the afternoon and returned in the evening.
He further stated that after 04.01.2016, he did not join the investigation again.
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
He stated that the IO recorded his statement at the police station. HIMANSHU
SEHLOTH
Date:
SEHLOTH 2026.04.07
17:02:23
+0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 11 of 18
He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation at any point of time
or that he was deposing falsely.
2.8. PW-8 HC Rajesh Lal
PW-8 HC Rajesh Lal was examined and cross-examined by the accused.
Examination-in-Chief
PW-8 deposed that on 02.01.2016, he was posted at PS Model Town and was
performing beat duty. During patrolling, he reached near Hans Cinema from
Gujranwala Town, where ASI Dhirendra met him. Constable Mukharam, along with
the complainant and one boy, was present there.
He further deposed that ASI Dhirendra told him that the said boy, i.e., the accused, had
committed robbery with the complainant. The complainant also told him that he had
been beaten by the accused.
PW-8 further stated that from the possession of the accused, one yellow colour watch
was recovered. The complainant identified the said watch in his presence and stated
that the same had been robbed by the accused.
He further deposed that Constable Mukharam was sent to the hospital for conducting
the medical examination of the complainant at BJRM Hospital.
Thereafter, the accused was handed over to him and the site plan was prepared by the
IO. The disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded, which is already Ex.
PW-2/F bearing his signatures.
The accused present in Court was correctly identified by the witness.
Cross-Examination
In cross-examination, PW-8 stated that he reached the spot at about 06:00 PM but did
not find any eyewitness, though public persons were present there.
Digitally signed
HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU
SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date: 2026.04.07
17:02:30 +0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 12 of 18
He stated that he returned to the police station at about 06:30 PM to 07:00 PM. He
further stated that his statement was recorded at the police station.
He deposed that he did not remember whether his statement mentioned preparation of
the site plan. He further stated that he did not remember whether any seizure memo
was prepared in his presence.
He further stated that he did not remember whether the accused had been medically
examined or not. He also stated that the rukka was not prepared in his presence.
He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot or that no site plan was prepared
in his presence or that the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case.
2.9. PW-9 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary
PW-9 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary was examined and cross-examined by the accused.
Examination-in-Chief
PW-9 deposed that on the day of his deposition, he had been deputed by the Medical
Superintendent, BJRM Hospital, to depose qua MLC bearing No. 1250 on behalf of
Dr. Aquil Raza.
He further deposed that he could identify the names and signatures of Dr. Aquil Raza
as they had worked with him during the course of official duty.
He stated that on 02.01.2016, one patient namely Satish Kumar was brought to the
casualty with alleged history of physical assault. The patient was initially examined by
a doctor who referred him to the Orthopaedic Department, where he was examined by
Dr. Aquil Raza.
He further deposed that the MLC already exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A bears the
signatures of Dr. Aquil Raza at point B. He stated that as per the MLC, the opinion
regarding the nature of injuries was simple.
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.04.07
17:02:35 +0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 13 of 18
Cross-Examination
In cross-examination, PW-9 stated that it was correct that the said MLC was not
prepared in his presence. He further stated that he did not remember the exact period
during which Dr. Aquil Raza was posted at BJRM Hospital.
He stated that the said MLC was prepared in the presence of Dr. Mukesh Mandal. He
further stated that in the MLC Ex. PW-3/A, Dr. Mukesh Mandal has mentioned that
the patient was examined by Dr. Aquil Raza under his supervision.
3. Statement of Accused under Section 313 CrPC
Thereafter, the statement of the accused Altamas was recorded on 13.01.2016 under
Section 313 CrPC read with Section 281 CrPC, wherein all the incriminating
circumstances appearing in evidence against him were put to him.
The accused did not offer any explanation to the said incriminating circumstances and
merely stated that he was innocent. He further chose not to lead any defence evidence.
4. ARGUMENTS
It is contended by the Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has been able to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the complainant, being an
injured witness, has given a consistent and trustworthy account of the incident and has
correctly identified the accused in Court. It is further argued that the recovery of the
stolen wristwatch from the possession of the accused immediately after the incident
lends strong corroboration to the testimony of the complainant. The medical evidence
also supports the version of the complainant regarding use of force. It is thus
submitted that the essential ingredients of offences under Section 392 IPC and Section
394 IPC read with Section 34 IPC stand duly established.
Per contra, it is contended by the Ld. counsel for the accused that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that there are material
contradictions in the testimony of the complainant, particularly with regard toDigitally
the signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
Date:
SEHLOTH 2026.04.07
17:02:41
+0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 14 of 18
timing and manner of the incident, as in examination-in-chief the incident is stated to
be instantaneous, whereas in cross-examination it is stated to have occurred after
about 10 minutes of boarding the bus. It is further contended that no independent
public witness has been joined either at the time of the incident or at the time of
recovery, and even the recovery memo does not bear signatures of any public person.
It is also argued that the IO failed to join any independent witness and could not
apprehend any co-accused, thereby rendering the prosecution version doubtful.
5. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
Credibility and Evidentiary Value of Injured Witness (PW-1)
The case of the prosecution rests primarily on the testimony of PW-1 Satish Kumar,
who is not only the complainant but also an injured witness. His presence at the spot is
natural and stands established. The Court finds that the testimony of PW-1 is of
sterling quality. He has given a clear, cogent and consistent account of the incident and
has specifically attributed the role of robbery and use of force to the accused, whom
he has correctly identified in Court. There is no suggestion of prior enmity or motive
for false implication. His testimony inspires confidence and is sufficient to form the
basis of conviction.
Corroboration by Police Witnesses and Recovery of Case Property
The testimony of PW-1 finds due corroboration from PW-2 (Investigating Officer),
PW-4 Constable Mukharam, and PW-8 HC Rajesh Lal, who have consistently
deposed regarding the apprehension of the accused at the spot and recovery of the
wristwatch from his possession. The recovery is immediate and contemporaneous to
the incident, thereby strengthening the prosecution case. The seizure memo bears the
signatures of the complainant as well as the accused, and the same has not been
disputed.
Medical Evidence and Contemporaneity of Injury Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
SEHLOTH
HIMANSHU
Date:
SEHLOTH 2026.04.07
17:02:46
+0530
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 15 of 18
The medical evidence further lends assurance to the version of PW-1. The MLC (Ex.
PW-3/A), duly proved by PW-3, reflects that the complainant had sustained simple
injuries. The said document is contemporaneous with the incident and corroborates the
allegation of use of force. The testimony of PW-9, being formal in nature, does not
create any dent in the prosecution case, and nothing material has been elicited in his
cross-examination. The DD entry No. 33A (Ex. PW-2/A) also stands duly proved and
supports the promptness in the police action.
Objection Regarding Ownership of Case Property (Watch)
As regards the objection raised by the defence regarding absence of proof of
ownership of the wristwatch, it is noted that no such suggestion was put to PW-1 that
the watch did not belong to him. On the contrary, PW-1 has given a specific
description of the watch and has correctly identified the same in Court. The mere fact
that the Investigating Officer did not obtain documentary proof of ownership does not,
in the facts of the present case, create any doubt, particularly when the ownership was
never disputed in the cross-examination of the complainant. The suggestion put to
PW-2 in this regard appears to be an afterthought and does not affect the core of the
prosecution case.
Explanation Regarding Non-Production of Bus Ticket
The explanation furnished by PW-1 regarding non-production of the bus ticket, i.e.,
that the same was inside the purse which had been snatched, is natural and plausible.
The minor inconsistencies pointed out by the defence, including the exact timing or
sequence of realization of theft, do not go to the root of the matter and are bound to
occur in the testimony of a witness who has undergone a sudden and stressful
incident.
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
Non-Joining of Public Witnesses HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.04.07
17:02:51 +0530
The non-joining of public witnesses, though a factor to be considered, is not fatal to
the prosecution case in the present facts, particularly when the testimony of the injured
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 16 of 18
witness is found to be reliable and trustworthy and is corroborated by police witnesses
and contemporaneous record. It is a matter of common experience that public persons
often refrain from joining investigation.
Conclusion on Proof of Offence
Accordingly, the Court finds that the prosecution has been able to establish, through
reliable and cogent evidence, the factum of robbery committed by the accused and the
recovery of the stolen property from his possession, along with use of force resulting
in simple injury to the complainant.
6. CONCLUSION / FINAL ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion and appreciation of evidence, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The testimony of the complainant/injured witness (PW-1), which is
found to be reliable and of sterling quality, stands duly corroborated by the recovery
of the stolen property from the possession of the accused, the testimonies of the police
witnesses, and the contemporaneous medical evidence establishing that the
complainant had sustained simple injuries during the incident.
The essential ingredients of robbery stand clearly established, inasmuch as the
property was taken from the possession of the complainant by use of force and in
furtherance of common intention. Further, as it has been proved on record that hurt
was voluntarily caused to the complainant during the commission of robbery, the
offence stands elevated to one punishable under Section 394 IPC read with Section 34
IPC, and not merely under Section 392 IPC.
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date:
2026.04.07
17:02:58 +0530
The alternative charge under Section 411 IPC does not survive, as the accused has
been found to be the principal offender and not merely a receiver of stolen property.
Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 17 of 18
Accordingly, the accused Altmas S/o Sh. Sh. Mohd. Kasim is held guilty and
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC.
ORDER:CONVICTED Pronounced in open court on 07.04.2026 in presence of the accused person.This judgment contains 18 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signedHIMANSHU by HIMANSHU SEHLOTH SEHLOTH Date: 2026.04.07 17:03:08 +0530 (HIMANSHU SEHLOTH) JMFC-03 / North / Rohini Courts 07.04.2026 Cr. Case no.: 5294631/2016 State Vs. Altmas Page 18 of 18