Delhi District Court
State vs Robin on 27 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
ASJ (FTC)-02, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-0011276-2018
SC 836/2018
STATE Vs. ROBIN
FIR No. 319/2018
PS Paschim Vihar West
Under Section : 392/397/411/34 IPC
Date of commission of offence 22.08.2018
Date of Committal in the Court of 13.12.2018
Sessions
Name of the complainant Jitender Singh
Name of accused and address Robin S/o Sh. Balraj, R/o
H.No.762, Kailash Colony,
Near New Bus Stand Rohtak,
Haryana, Permanent- Vill.
Jasiya, Distt. Rohtak,
Haryana.
Offence complained of or proved 392/397/34 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted for offence
punishable under Section 379
IPC.
Acquitted for offence
punishable under Section
392/397/34 IPC
Date of judgment 27.09.2025
FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 1 of 20
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Robin is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 392 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 397 IPC with the allegation that he robbed one Scorpio Car from the possession of the complainant Jitender Singh by putting him under fear of hurt/wrongful restraint by showing a deadly weapon i.e. ice poker.
2. Briefly stated facts as per the prosecution are that on 22.08.2018, DD no.28A was received at PS Paschim Vihar West, on which ASI Mahavir and HC Ram Kishan reached the spot i.e. F-6, Mahindra Show Room, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi. The complainant Jitender Singh met them and informed them that he was going to search for their car and will give his statement later on. Later on, the complainant Jitender came to the police station and got his complaint recorded. He stated that he is an employee (Salesman) at Indraprastha Auto Mobile Pvt. Ltd., at their Peeragarhi Show Room. On 22.08.2018, two persons had visited their showroom for purchase of Scorpio Car. They took the vehicle having TC no. DL-8TC-0298 for test- drive. The complainant had accompanied them. However, during test drive, the said boys threatened him by showing an ice poker and a pistol, and ran away with the Scorpio car.
INVESTIGATION & OTHER PROCEEDINGS
3. On basis of the above-said complaint, the present FIR was registered U/s 392/397/34 IPC. During investigation, IO recorded the statement of material witnesses and seized the CCTV footage FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 2 of 20 having images of the accused. On 29.09.2018 information was received from PS City Bahadurgarh, Haryana regarding apprehension of accused Robin alongwith the said Scorpio car with a fake number plate. The accused was arrested by the IO in this case. The accused refused to undergo TIP proceedings. Co- accused/JCL 'S' was also apprehended.
4. After investigation was completed, charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC. Separate PIR was filed against the JCL 'S' before JJB Board concerned. After completing proceedings U/s 207 Cr.P.C, Ld. MM committed the case to Learned Sessions Court.
CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 09.01.2019, charge under Section 392/397/34 IPC was framed against the accused Robin to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in total.
7. PW-1/Sh. Tarun Anand deposed that on 21.08.2018, he was working as Sales Representative in Mahindra Indraprastha Automobile Pvt. Ltd and was present on duty in the company showroom at Peeragari near Udhyog Nagar Metro Station. At about 04:00 p.m., two persons came in the said showroom and showed their interest in purchasing a Scorpio car. They also requested for test drive. One of the said boys was having strong FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 3 of 20 physique and the other boy was having normal physique. As none of them was carrying driving license, the witness refused to give the car for test drive. He further deposed that on 22.08.2018, the person having strong built, who had visited the showroom on 21.08.2018, again came to the showroom with another boy. None of them was carrying driving license on that day also. However, one of them produced a copy of his driving license and requested for test drive of Scorpio car. PW-1 identified the accused Robin as the same person who had visited the showroom and had a strong physique.
8. PW-1 further deposed that he requested his colleague Jitender to take the accused and his associate for the test drive as he was busy in some official work. Jitender took the accused and his associate for test drive of Scorpio car at about 04:15-04:30 p.m. For about 40-45 minutes Jitender and the accused and his associate did not return to the showroom. He received a phone call from an unknown number having last 05 digits as 67567 on his mobile number 9873636396. Jitender was talking from the other side and he told him that accused and his assistant were not stopping the car and wanted to take the car further. Jitender gave the mobile phone to the accused and PW-1 told the accused that the car can be taken only for 03 km for the test drive and also that there is a possibility that the fuel in the car would not be sufficient to take it further. On this, the accused told him that he will get diesel filled in the car. PW-1 asked him to bring the car back to the showroom. He further deposed that the mobile phone of Jitender was not in working order on that day.
FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 4 of 209. PW-1/Tarun Anand further deposed that for about 1- 1½ hours none of them returned to the showroom with the car. He along with 3-4 other employees of the company went towards Mundka to search for the car. On his way, he received a phone call from the showroom that Jitender had returned to the showroom but the car was stolen. He and the other employees of the company returned to the showroom. Jitender informed him that accused and his associate had robbed the car from him after showing him pistol and one poker (sua) and took the car towards Bahadurgrah. He also told PW-1 that accused and his associate had got filled the diesel in the car and had taken Rs.500/- from him before dropping him on the way when they were taking the car towards Bahadurgarh.
10. PW-1/ Tarun Anand further deposed that on 04.10.2018, he visited the PS on being called by the IO and identified the accused as one of the person, who had come to his showroom and had taken the car for test drive. He came to know about his name as Robin. He also deposed that police informed him about the recovery of the robbed Scorpio car from Bahadurgarh. He got the said car released on Superdari vide Punchnama Ex.PW1/A. He identified the car from the photographs Ex.PW1/B1 and Ex.PW1/B2.
11. PW-1/Tarun Anand further deposed that at the time of incident, CCTV cameras were installed in the showroom and CCTV footage were checked by the police but the image of persons, who took the car from the showroom for test drive is not FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 5 of 20 clear.
12. During cross-examination by Learned defence counsel, PW-1 stated that at the time of incident, there were about 8-10 employees in the Sales Department of the showroom. He had returned to the Showroom at about 07:30 PM on 22.08.2018 and by that time, Jitender had already returned. The Scorpio Car in question was registered in the name of Mahindra Indraprasth Automobile Pvt. Ltd. The witness was confronted with his statement dated 23.08.2018 recorded u/s 161 CrPC Ex-PW1/DA wherein certain facts like showing of copy of driving license by the accused's associate, time of accused leaving the showroom for test drive with Jitender and purpose of their leaving the showroom, and that Jitender's mobile phone was not working are not mentioned.
13. PW-2/Sh. Jitender Singh deposed that on 22.08.2018 he was working as Salesman with Indraprastha Automobile Pvt. Ltd. at Udyog Nagar, Piragarhi showroom. In the afternoon, two persons came there for test drive of Scorpio car and met his colleague PW-1/Sh. Tarun Anand for this purpose. He got prepared the gate pass for Scorpio car to give them test drive. One of the said boys, who was having heavy built/physique sat on the driver seat of the car and he sat on the co-passenger seat. Accused's associate sat on the back seat of the car. The accused person drove the car towards Bahadurgarh for a long distance. When PW-2 asked him to take the car back to the showroom, he said that he wanted to take the test drive on a ground. He got the FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 6 of 20 car stopped on the pretext of easing himself. His phone was not working so, he asked the above said boys to give their mobile phone but they refused by saying that there was no network in their phone. When he got down from the car, he took mobile phone from a person standing there and called PW-1/Tarun Anand and informed him that the offenders were not returning to the showroom. Tarun Anand asked his location and he told his location as of Mundka after enquiring from the person from whom he had taken the mobile. Tarun Anand talked to the accused from said mobile phone and asked him to come back.
14. PW-2/Sh. Jitender Singh further deposed that thereafter when he again sat in the car, the person sitting on the back seat put a gun on his head and the person who was sitting on driver's seat put an ice poker on his head and they both threatened him to sit quietly or face the consequences. He was stunned. On the way, they took Rs.500/- from him for the diesel. They made him de- board the car on Rohtak bypass road and took away the Scorpio car. He returned to his office by metro and informed about the incident to the senior officers and other employees. Police was also informed about the incident. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A.
15. PW-2/Jitender Singh was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he failed to identify the accused as well as the registration number of the car. He admitted that at the time of giving his statement Ex.PW2/A, he had given the registration number of the Scorpio car as DL-ATC-0298. However, despite FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 7 of 20 pointing out by Ld. APP for State, the witness failed to identify the accused and stated that he was not one of the two boys whom he had taken for test-drive. He denied the suggestion given by Ld. APP that accused is the same person who had taken the test- drive of Scorpio Car and shown him the ice poker and threatened him to keep quite. The CCTV footage of Indraprastha Automobile Pvt. Ltd. dated 21.08.2018 and 22.08.2018 contained in a pen drive were played. The witness identified himself in the CCTV footage dated 22.08.2018. However, he failed to identify the two persons who were accompanying him. He also failed to identify the accused in the CCTV footage dated 21.08.2018. He stated that he is not in a position to identify the person who robbed the car and used the ice poker.
16. PW-3/ASI Bal Kishan/duty officer had registered the present FIR (Ex.PW3/A) on the basis of the rukka produced by ASI Mahavir. His endorsement on rukka is Ex.PW3/B and the certificate u/s 65 B, Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW3/C.
17. PW-5/Balbir Singh, Record Keeper, Civil Court, Bahadurgarh produced the record of FIR no.615/2018, u/s 411/483 IPC PS City Bahadurgarh, containing the disclosure statement of accused (Ex.PW5/A), recovery memo of Scorpio car bearing no.HR-26BA-0102 (Ex.PW5/B), recovery memo of fake number plate no. HR-26BA-0102 (Ex.PW5/C), copy of challan of the said car dated 25.09.2018 (Ex.PW5/D), copy of site plan (Ex.PW5/E) and copy of order dated 23.10.2018 (Ex.PW5/F).
FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 8 of 2018. PW-6/EHC Sandeep/challan clerk at Bahadurgarh, Haryana produced Challan no.21 of Book no.103312 dated 25.09.2018 regarding impounding of Scorpio car without documents by ASI Satyawan. Same is Ex.PW5/D.
19. PW-7/Retd. SI Ami Chand deposed that on 22.08.2018 at about 06:40 p.m., DD no.28A (Ex.PW7/A) was registered at PS Mianwali Nagar on the basis of PCR call received by him regarding showing of a gun while taking test drive from Mahindra Showroom. The said DD was marked to PW-12/ASI Mahavir Singh for necessary action.
20. PW-8/Sh. Mukesh Mehra deposed that in year 2018 he was working as Assistant Sales Manager Service in Indraprastha Automobile Pvt. Ltd. Situated at F-6, Udyog Nagar Industrial Area, Delhi. On the date of incident, he had signed on the gate pass when the Sales Consultant Tarun came to him at about 12- 12:30 p.m. One Scorpio car had gone out of the showroom for test drive by either Jitender or Tarun with the customer and it did not come back after 30-40 minutes. Jitender also did not return to the showroom and he tried to contact Jitender on his mobile phone. However, his mobile phone was not connecting. After one hour Jitender returned to the office and informed him that the customer who had taken the vehicle for the test drive had run away along with the vehicle. He informed his head office and also informed the police on 100 number. He obtained the CCTV footage of camera installed at the gate of the showroom from IT Department and handed it over to the police in sealed condition.
FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 9 of 20Police seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. The certificate under Section 65-B, Indian Evidence Act pertaining to the said CCTV footage is Ex.PW8/B.
21. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP wherein he denied having made the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex.PW8/X. He denied the suggestion of Ld. APP that he had stated to the police that two boys accompanied Jitender in the showroom for test drive of the aforesaid vehicle and left the showroom with Jitender after taking gate pass. He further denied the suggestion that at around 6.00 P.M. Jitender returned to the showroom in a nervous condition and he informed him that a boy who was of whitish complexion had put pistol upon him and told him to remain keep quite, otherwise he will kill him; while the other boy who was well built up and driving the vehicle had put iron poker on his temple and both of them took the vehicle to the petrol pump and got filled diesel for amount of Rs.500/- taken from him and thereafter they took the vehicle towards Bahadurgarh Haryana; and when the vehicle reached Rohtak by pass and after seeing the secluded place they forced him to get down from the vehicle and ran away from there.
22. PW-9/ASI Satyawan Singh deposed that on 25.09.2018 he was posted in PP Sector-6 Bahadurgarh and was on night patrolling duty in the area of PS City Bahardurgarh. He saw the accused standing at Kesar Mor, Bahadurgarh along with one white Scorpio car bearing no.HR-26BA-0102. He asked the accused to produce the ownership documents of the vehicle. When he failed to produce the ownership documents, the said FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 10 of 20 vehicle was impounded vide document Ex.PW5/D. The accused and the vehicle were taken to police chowki. Accused produced a challan chit at the police chowki and he issued him a challan for not producing the ownership documents, after which the accused left the police chowki. On 27.09.2018, the accused visited the police chowki and told him that he had robbed the said Scorpio vehicle from area of Piragari and the vehicle was having a fake number plate. He prepared rukka u/s 411/483 IPC and got FIR registered. He seized the fake number plates of the vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/C. He deposited the said vehicle and forged number plates in the Malkhana of PS Bahadurgarh and arrested the accused. The said fake number plates (02 in number) are Ex.P1.
23. PW10/ESI Dharmender deposed that on 27.09.2018 while he was posted as MHC(M) at PS City Bahadurgarh, one Scorpio vehicle without number plate was deposited in the Malkhana by ASI Satyawan vide entry in store room register at serial no.825, which is Ex.PW10/A. PW-11 HC Tirender. MHC (M), PS Mianwali Nagar proved the entry in register no.19 at serial no.1340 dated 23.10.2018, as Ex.PW11/A vide which ASI Mahavir deposited one white colour scorpio, one sealed pullanda and key of the vehicle in the Malkhana. The said car was released on superdari on 24.10.2018 to Mukesh S/o Ghanshayam.
24. PW12/IO ASI Mahavir Singh deposed that on 22.08.2018 he along with HC Ram Kishan reached to F-6 Udyog Nagar, Delhi on receipt of DD no.28A. He met the complainant Jitender FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 11 of 20 Singh, who stated that he will give his statement after coming back as he was going to search his car with his staff. Thus, ASI Mahavir Singh and HC Ram Kishan returned and kept the said DD pending. He further deposed that on the same night complainant Jitender Singh visited PS Paschim Vihar West and his statement was recorded by him Ex.PW2/A. He prepared rukka (Ex.PW12/A) but by that time the date had changed to 23.08.2018.
25. He further deposed that on 23.08.2018, he alongwith the complainant searched for the robbed vehicle but it was not found. On the same day, PW-8/Sh. Mukesh, handed over to him one pen drive and four photographs pertaining to the incident, wherein, the alleged persons were visible, along with the certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act. He seized the pen drive and the said documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. The said photographs are Ex.P1 to P4. He identified the accused in the said photographs.
26. PW-12 further deposed that on 28.09.2018 a telephonic information was received at PS Mianwali Nagar, from PP Sector-22, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajhar, Haryana vide DD which is Ex.PW12/B regarding arrest of the accused in another case. He had made disclosure statement pertaining to the present case. His bail application was stated to be listed before Ld. JMIC, Bahadurgarh for 29.09.2018. On receiving the said information, PW-12 appeared before the court of Ld. JMIC, Bahadurgarh along with PW4/HC Satish Kumar, whereas, HC Tirender came FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 12 of 20 to Tis Hazari Court for obtaining the permission to interrogate the accused, from Ld. Area MM. After obtaining copy of order of Ld. Area MM, PW-12 went to District Jail, Jhajhar along with PW4/HC Satish and interrogated and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A. He also recorded the the disclosure statement of the accused (Ex.PW4/B). PW-4 HC Satish Kumar corroborated the testimony of PW-12 and deposed on the same lines regarding interrogation and arrest of the accused. PW-1 further deposed that on 03.10.2018, he moved an application for conducting TIP before Ld. Area MM, which is Ex.PW12/D. However, accused refused to participate in TIP proceedings, Ex.PW12/E. On 23.10.2018, the seized Scorpio Car alongwith its key and a sealed pullanda containing fake number plates were deposited in Malkhana, PS Mianwali Nagar by order of Ld. JMIC, Bahadurgarh. PW-12 further deposed that the pen drive was sent to FSL Rohini on 13.11.2018. After obtaining FSL report, the same was filed in the court through supplementary charge-sheet. Photograph of seized keys is Ex.PW12/F. The pen drive containing CCTV footage is Ex.PW-12/article1.
27. PW-13 Sh. Geetesh Patel, Junior Forensic/Assistant Chemical Examiner, FSL, Rohini had examined the pen drive containing CCTV footage on 16.11.2018. His report is Ex.PW13/A. He deposed that the pen drive contained 05 video files having continuous footage of CCTV recordings having no indication of alteration, on the basis of frame by frame analysis.
FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 13 of 2028. After conclusion of Prosecution Evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the entire prosecution evidence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by Delhi Police in connivance with Bahadurgarh police.
29. The accused did not lead any defence evidence despite opportunity and the case was listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
30. Detailed oral submissions have been made by Learned APP for State as well as by Learned defence counsel.
31. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the accused is entitled to be acquitted as the prosecution has failed to prove its case against him. It has been submitted that PW-2/Jitender who is the sole eye witness has failed to identify the accused before the court. Further, the testimony of PW-1/Tarun Anand cannot be read in evidence as he was not present at the spot where incident had taken place. His narration of the incident is hearsay evidence and hence not admissible. PW-8/Mahesh Mehra has also failed to support the prosecution story as he failed to identify the accused and denied the photographs. Also, the accused has already been acquitted in FIR no.65/18, under Section 411/483 IPC PS Bahadurgarh vide judgment dated 11.07.2022 passed by Ld. MM concerned.
32. Per contra, Learned Additional PP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 14 of 20 reasonable doubt. She has submitted that even though PW-2 Jitender failed to identify the accused, however, he has given a detailed and reliable description of the alleged incident. As far as identity of the accused is concerned, same has been duly established by the testimony of PW-1 Tarun Anand. Hence, the prosecution has proved that it was the accused who had taken the Scorpio Car for test-drive and thereafter, ran away with the same after showing a pistol and ice poker to PW-2. Also, since the accused refused to participate in TIP proceedings adverse inference is to be drawn against him. The identity of the accused is also established by the CCTV footage.
Court findings
33. I have heard the final arguments addressed on behalf of the accused persons and the State and perused the entire record carefully.
34. The accused has been charged under Section 392/397/34 IPC for offence of committing robbery of Scorpio car after showing a deadly weapon to PW-2/Jitender Singh and putting him in fear of instant hurt/death.
35. The offence of robbery is defined under Section 390 IPC. Theft or extortion is robbery if in order to commit of the said theft, or in committing the theft, or in carry away or attempting to carrying away property obtained by theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person, death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 15 of 2036. The offence of theft is defined under Section 378 IPC, as per which whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
37. Section 397 IPC prescribes punishment for use of deadly weapon or causing grievous hurt to a person, or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt while committing robbery. To prove the charge under Section 397 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had used a deadly weapon while committing the robbery as alleged.
38. In the present case, the star witness of the prosecution is PW-2 Jitender, being the sole eye witness to the incident. Though this witness gave a lucid and detailed account of the entire incident, however, he failed to identify the accused. When the accused was pointed out by Ld. APP, PW-2 categorically denied that the accused was the same person who had taken the test drive and threatened him with an ice poker. He failed to identify the accused even after seeing the CCTV footage of the show room.
39. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the statement of PW-2 can be relied upon in view of the judgment "Khujji @ Surender Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh" (1991) 3 SCC FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 16 of 20 627 wherein it was held that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.
40. It is correct that even the testimony of a hositle witness is not to be rejected in toto and the relevant parts thereof can be read in evidence. However, in the present case, PW-2 has failed to identify the accused. Hence, his testimony is of no use to the prosecution even though he gave a detailed account of the incident. He categorically stated that the accuesd was not the same person who had threatened him with an ice-poker.
41. Another material witness of the prosecution is PW-1/Tarun Anand who deposed that on 21.08.2018 two persons had come for test drive of Scorpio car. One of them had a strong physique. He refused to give them the car as they did not have a valid driving license. On 22.08.2018, the person having strong physique again came to the show room with another boy and requested for test drive. He duly identified the accused as the person having strong physique, who had visited their showroom for test drive on both days. He deposed that PW-2 Jitender had taken the accused for test drive. PW-1 also deposed that Jitender and the accused did not return for 40-45 minutes. He received a call from Jitender from an unknown number, and he informed the witness that the accused want to take the car further. He asked the accused to bring the car back. Despite that, no one returned to the show room for next 1- 11/2 hours. PW-1 also deposed that he had FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 17 of 20 identified the accused in the police station on 04.10.2018 and his name was revealed as Robin.
42. PW-1 was cross-examined at length by the defence counsel. However, his testimony remained intact on all the material points. It has been submitted by Ld. defence counsel that various addition/improvments have been made by PW-1 in his testimony from his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, these improvements are minor ones and there is no material contradictions/improvements in his testimony. It is an established rule of law that minor discrepancies which do not strike at the root of the prosecution story are to be discarded by the court. In the case titled as "Birbal Nath v State of Rajasthan"
Crl. Appeal no.1587/2008 date of decision 30.10.2023, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C are 'previous statements' and can be used to cross examine a witness, but only to contradict him. Even if the defence is successful in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the contradiction in the two statements would result in totally discrediting the witness.
43. Coming to the case at hand, the discrepancies pointed out by learned defence counsel are minor ones and do not strike at the root of the prosecution story. PW-1 has merely elaborated the details of the incident. He has not added anything new to the original version, nor has he made any contradictory statement in his testimony before the court. The improvements made by PW-1 are only explanatory ones.
FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 18 of 2044. Hence, in view of the testimony of PW-1 and the CCTV footage contained in pen drive Ex.PW-12/article 1, this court is of the considered opinion that the identity of the accused has been duly established. It has been sufficiently proved that the accused had visited the show room on 21 st as well as 22nd August 2018 and had taken the Scorpio car with his associate for test drive. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who had visited the Mahindra Showroom, Peeragarhi on 22.08.2018 and had taken the Scorpio Car for test- drive alongwith PW-2/Jitender Singh. It has further been proved that the accused did not return with the Scorpio car and PW-2 Jitender Singh had to return to the show room without the car.
45. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to illustration (d) to Section 378 IPC which read as under-
"(d) A being Z's servant, and entrusted by Z with the care of Z's plate, dishonestly runs away with the plate, without Z's consent. A has committed theft."
46. The facts of this case are similar to the above said illustration. In the present case, the accused was handed over the custody of the Scorpio car only for taking the car for test drive of the car. However, the accused ran away with the vehicle with a dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the owner of the car. Hence, the accused had committed the offence of theft of the Scorpio car and is liable to the convicted under Section 379 IPC. Even though no separate offence under Section 379 IPC is framed against the accused, however, the accused can be convicted under the said Section as Section 379 is a lesser FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 19 of 20 offence than Section 397/392 IPC under which the accused has been charged.
47. However, since PW-2/Jitender Singh has failed to identify the accused as the same person who had shown him ice poker and threatened him, and asked him to get down from the Scorpio car, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 392/397/34 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
CONCLUSION
48. In view of the above discussion, accused Robin S/o Sh. Balraj is convicted for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. However, he is acquitted for offence punishable under Section 392/397/34 IPC
49. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused alongwith coversheet as per practice direction by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi contained vide no.124/Rules/DHC dated 10.12.2024. SAUMYA SAUMYA CHAUHAN Digitally signed by CHAUHAN Date: 2025.10.04 16:41:25 +0530 Announced in the open court (Saumya Chauhan) today i.e 27th September, 2025 ASJ (FTC)-02, West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 20 pages and each page Digitally signed by SAUMYA SAUMYA bears my signatures. CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2025.10.04 16:41:33 +0530 (Saumya Chauhan) ASJ (FTC)-02, West Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi 27.09.2025 FIR no.319/218 State Vs. Robin Page 20 of 20