Delhi District Court
State vs Imran on 3 May, 2025
THE COURT OF SH. UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE v. IMRAN & ANR.
FIR No. -: 618/2013
Police Station -: Madhu Vihar
Section(s) -: 392/411/34 IPC
Cr. Case No. -: 698/2017
1. CIS number : DLSH020015582017
2. Name of the complainant : Ravi Gupta S/o Sh. Om Prakash Gupta
R/o Town Dataganj, Kaspur Road,
Laxmi Gali, PS Kotwali, Dataganj,
Distt. Badaun, UP
3. Name of the accused, : 1. Imran S/o Sh. Mohd. Sabir
parentage & residential R/o A-38, Jawahar Park, Saheed
address Nagar, UP.
2. Islam Raen S/o Sh. Nabali
R/o A-115, Jawahar Park, Saheed
Nagar, UP.
4. Offence complained of or : 392/411/34 IPC
proved
5. Date of commission of : 20.10.2013
offence
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
7. Final Judgment : Acquittal
8. Date of judgment/order : 03.05.2025
Date of Institution: 03.03.2017
Date of Reserving Judgment: 03.05.2025
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment: 03.05.2025
Duration: 8 years 2 months
Argued by: Sh. Kapil Sharma, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Fakhruddin, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
Digitally
FIR No. 618/2013 State vs. Imran & Anr. Udbhav signed
Udbhav
by
Page no. 1 of 14
Kumar Jain
Kumar Date:
Jain 2025.05.03
17:37:16
+0530
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that on 20.10.2013 at around 03.00 AM at road no. 56, opposite ISBT Anand Vihar near Maharajpur Check Point, both the accused alongwith two other persons (not arrested) robbed the complainant namely Ravi Gupta of his mobile phone and cash of Rs. 55,000/-. As such, it is alleged that the accused persons committed the offence under sections 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") for which FIR No. 618/2013 was registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of FIR, the investigating officer (hereinafter 'IO') conducted investigation and on 21.10.2013 near footover bridge, road no. 56, both the accused persons Imran and Islam were apprehened and they got recovered Rs. 5000/- each which was dishonestly retained by them knowing the same to be stolen property. Thus, on culmination of the investigation, chargesheet against the present accused persons namely Imran and Islam Raen for the alleged commission of offences u/s 392/411/34 IPC was filed. This Court took cognizance of the offence u/s 392/411/34 IPC vide order dated 02.02.2018. After taking cognizance of the offence, accused persons appeared before the Court and they were supplied the copy of documents relied upon in the charge sheet in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC").
3. Since prima facie offences against the accused persons were made out, Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 05.08.2020 framed charge Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav FIR No. 618/2013 State vs. Imran & Anr. Kumar Kumar Jain Page no. 2 of 14 Date:
Jain 2025.05.03
17:37:26
+0530
against accused persons Imran and Islam Raen for the offence punishable u/s 392/411/34 IPC, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 Ravi Gupta PW2 HC Jitender PW3 Inspector Rajesh Dangwal DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant Ex. P1&P2 Case property Ex.PW2/A and Arrest memos of accused PW2/B persons Ex.PW2/C and Personal search memos of PW2/D accused persons Ex.PW2/E and Seizure memo of case property PW2/F Ex.PW2/G and Disclosure statements of PW2/H accused persons Ex.PW2/I Pointing out memo Ex.PW3/A Tehrir Ex.PW3/B Site Plan Ex.PW3/C Application for PC remand Ex.PW3/D PCR form Ex.PW3/E Original bill of mobile of complainant Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Jain Date: 2025.05.03 17:37:39 +0530 FIR No. 618/2013 State vs. Imran & Anr. Page no. 3 of 14 ADMITTED DOCUMENTS u/s 294 Cr.P.C.Ex. A1 FIR No. 618/2013
Ex. A2 DD entry no. 19A dated
20.10.2013
Ex.A3 TIP proceeding dated 22.10.2013
5. Ravi Gupta (PW-1) in his examination-in-chief deposed that he used to run a vegetable cart (thiya) in Amritpuri, Delhi. On 04.10.2013, he went to his village to visit his family since it was the time of Diwali. On 19.10.2013, he caught a bus from Dattaganj to Delhi and, on that day, he was carrying Rs.55,000/- in cash (all in Rs.500/- currency notes) and one mobile phone of the brand Lava. He reached ISBT Anand Vihar, Delhi at about 2:15 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. and inquired about a bus to Lajpat Nagar. He came to know that the next bus to Lajpat Nagar would depart at 5:00 a.m. Therefore, he asked an auto driver about the fare to Lajpat Nagar, who quoted Rs.300/-. Since the fare was too high, he exited ISBT Anand Vihar and went near the Pre-paid booth at Maharajpur Checkpost and waited for conveyance. At about 3:00 a.m., a silver/white Indica car stopped near him. There was a driver and a co-passenger in the front seat and two other persons seated in the rear. He approached the driver and asked, "Bhai, kaha ja rahe ho?" The driver responded, "Tumhe kaha jana hai?" He replied that he needed to go to Lajpat Nagar. The driver stated that he was also going towards Lajpat Nagar and demanded Rs.20/- as fare.
Accordingly, the witness seated himself in the rear seat. After some time, the two persons seated in the back asked him to sit in the middle, and he complied. After traveling 1-2 kilometers, the person on his right side pulled out a country-made pistol (tamancha-like object) and told him to "Chup chap baithe rehna." The witness became scared. Shortly thereafter, Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 618/2013 State vs. Imran & Anr.Kumar Date: Page no. 4 of 14 Jain 2025.05.03 17:37:48 +0530 the person on his left side searched him and took out Rs.55,000/- in cash and snatched his mobile phone. After some time, the driver and the front- seat passenger told him that they would stop the car and he should quietly get down. They then drove him to a secluded place and asked him to exit the vehicle. Thereafter, he managed to reach his room at Lajpat Nagar and informed his cousin Amit about the incident. He, along with Amit, went to Anand Vihar and called the police by dialling 100. Police arrived at the spot and recorded his statement as Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. The MHC(M) produced two white envelopes bearing the details of this case. With the permission of the Court, the seal of one envelope was broken and its contents examined. A photocopy of currency notes in three pages was taken out. Upon seeing the photocopy, the witness correctly identified it as the notes that were robbed from him. The case property was exhibited as Ex.P1. With the Court's permission, the second envelope was opened in a similar manner, and again, upon seeing the photocopies of the currency notes, the witness correctly identified them as the ones robbed from him. The case property was exhibited as Ex.P2. Both envelopes were handed back to the MHC(M) with directions to reseal them with the seal of the Court. Both accused persons were present in the Court that day, but the witness failed to identify them.
5.1. Since the witness failed to identify the accused persons, Ld. APP for the State was allowed to cross-examine the witness. During his cross- examination, attention of the witness was again drawn towards the accused persons by pointing them out, but the witness once again failed to identify them. Witness denied the suggestions that he deliberately chose not to identify the accused persons because he had compromised with them, had been won over by them, or wanted to save them from Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Jain Date: 2025.05.03 17:37:58 +0530 FIR No. 618/2013 State vs. Imran & Anr. Page no. 5 of 14 punishment or that he was deposing falsely. Witness was not cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
6. HC Jitender (PW-2) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 21.10.2013, he was posted as a Constable at Police Station Madhu Vihar. On that day, he along with SI Rajesh Dangwal, HC Chandrashekhar, Constable Chandrapal, and Constable Rakesh were present at Gate ISBT Anand Vihar. At about 07:00 PM, a secret informer informed the Investigating Officer (IO) that two of the persons who had committed a robbery the previous day would arrive by a DTC bus and alight near the petrol pump. Thereafter, he, along with the IO, the secret informer, and other staff members proceeded to the petrol pump, where the IO set up a checkpost (nakabandi). At around 08:30 PM, two individuals alighted from a DTC bus. Upon seeing them, the secret informer pointed towards them and stated that they were the same individuals who had committed the robbery. Subsequently, the IO, along with HC Chandrashekhar and Constable Chandrapal, apprehended one individual named Islam, and the witness, along with Constable Rakesh, apprehended the other individual, who identified himself as Imran. Upon interrogation, both disclosed that they, along with one Ajju, had robbed a person. Both accused were then arrested through arrest memos, Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B, both bearing the witness's signature at Point A. The IO also conducted their personal search through personal search memos Ex. PW-2/C and Ex. PW-2/D, both bearing his signature at Point A. During the personal search of accused Imran, Rs. 5,000/- in Rs. 500/- denomination notes was recovered from the right pocket of his pants. Similarly, during the search of accused Islam, Rs. 5,000/- in Rs. 500/- denomination notes was recovered from the left pocket of his pants. The IO placed the recovered currency in white envelopes, sealed them with the seal of 'RD', prepared two pullandas, and Digitally signed by FIR No. 618/2013 State vs. Imran & Anr. Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Page no. 6 of 14 Kumar Date:
Jain 2025.05.03 17:38:07 +0530 seized them through seizure memos Ex. PW-2/E (bearing the witness's signature at Point A) and Ex. PW-2/F. The IO then recorded the disclosure statements of the accused persons as Ex. PW-2/G and Ex. PW-2/H, both bearing the witness's signature at Point A. Thereafter, upon the instance of both accused, the IO, with the accused in muffled faces, proceeded to the scene of the incident. The accused pointed out the spot--Prepaid Booth, Road No. 56, near Maharajpur Toll Tax. The IO prepared the pointing out memo as Ex. PW-2/I and bears the witness's signature at Point A. Subsequently, the medical examination of both accused persons was conducted, and following that, they were sent to the lockup at PS Kalyanpuri. The case property was deposited at PS Madhu Vihar, and the IO recorded the witness's statement in this regard. Both accused persons were present in court on the date of testimony and were correctly identified by the witness.
6.1. On cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for both accused persons, witness affirmed that he was present at ISBT. He denied the suggestions that nothing was recovered from the accused persons or that a false recovery was shown to falsely implicate the accused and that no public person was involved in the recovery process for this reason. He admitted that there were no identification marks on the currency notes to prove they belonged to the complainant or that they were the same notes that had been robbed.
He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the IO or because he was a police witness.
7. Inspector Rajesh Dangwal (PW-3) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 20.10.2013, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS Madhu Vihar and was in-charge of the Police Post at ISBT Anand Vihar, Delhi. On that day, he received DD No. 19A regarding the snatching of money at the Digitally signed by FIR No. 618/2013 State vs. Imran & Anr.
Udbhav Udbhav
Kumar Jain Page no. 7 of 14
Kumar Date:
Jain 2025.05.03
17:38:16
+0530
Traffic Prepaid Booth opposite ISBT Anand Vihar. He, along with Constable Chandra Pal, went to the spot. Upon reaching there, he met the complainant Ravi Gupta and recorded his statement, Ex.PW1/A, bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he prepared the tehrir as Ex.PW3/A, bearing his signature at point A. He handed over the tehrir to Constable Chandra Pal for the registration of the FIR. Constable Chandra Pal then proceeded to the police station, and after some time, returned with a copy and the original of the FIR and handed them over to the witness. Subsequently, the witness prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, Ex.PW3/B, bearing his signature at point A. He searched for the accused persons on that day but was unable to locate them. On 21.10.2013, he, along with HC Chander Shekhar, Constable Chandra Pal, and Constable Jitender, was present at the gate of ISBT Anand Vihar. A secret informer approached them and provided information regarding the arrival of the accused persons involved in this case, stating that they would arrive via a DTC bus near the Petrol Pump on Road No. 56, opposite ISBT Anand Vihar. A trap/check-post (nakabandi) was then set up near the petrol pump. At about 08:15 PM, two persons were seen getting down from a DTC bus. Upon seeing them, the secret informer pointed toward them and informed the police that they were the individuals involved in the robbery committed on 20.10.2013. Subsequently, the witness, along with HC Chander Shekhar and Constable Chandra Pal, apprehended one individual who, upon interrogation, disclosed his name as Islam. The other individual, apprehended by Constables Jitender and Rakesh, disclosed his name as Imran. Upon further interrogation, both accused admitted to committing the robbery along with two other associates named Ajju and Aslam. The witness then arrested both accused persons vide arrest memos Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B, both bearing his signatures at point B Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Kumar Jain Date: 2025.05.03 Jain 17:38:25 +0530 FIR No. 618/2013 State vs. Imran & Anr. Page no. 8 of 14 respectively. He also conducted their personal search, recorded in personal search memos already Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D, both bearing his signatures at point B. On personal search, Rs. 5,000/- in Rs. 500/- currency notes were recovered from each of the accused. He placed the recovered currency notes in white envelopes, sealed them with the seal of 'RD', and prepared two pulandas. These were seized vide seizure memos already exhibited as Ex.PW2/E (bearing his signature at point B) and Ex.PW2/F (bearing his signature at point A). Thereafter, he recorded the disclosure statements of the accused, which were already exhibited as Ex.PW2/G and Ex.PW2/H, both bearing his signatures at point B. Following this, they went along with the accused to the place of the incident, i.e., near the Prepaid Booth, Road No. 56, near Maharajpur Toll Tax. The accused persons pointed out the place of the incident with their right-hand fingers and stated that it was the same location where they had committed the robbery along with their two associates. A pointing-out memo was prepared in this regard, already exhibited as Ex.PW2/I, bearing his signature at point B. After returning to the police station, the accused persons were sent to the lock-up following their medical examination, and the case property was deposited in the malkhana. He recorded the statements of Constables Jitender, Chandra Pal, Rakesh, and HC Chander Shekhar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Later, both accused persons were produced before the Court in muffled faces. The witness applied for Test Identification Parade (TIP) proceedings for the accused persons, but they refused to participate. Subsequently, he filed an application before the Court for one-day police custody remand as Ex.PW3/C, bearing his signature at point A. The remand was granted, and he, along with the accused, searched for the other two associates, Ajju and Aslam, but they could not be located. He also attached the PCR form to the judicial file Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 618/2013 State vs. Imran & Anr. Kumar Date: Page no. 9 of 14 Jain 2025.05.03 17:38:34 +0530 (now Ex.PW3/D) and the original bill of the complainant's mobile phone (now Ex.PW3/E). Upon completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet before the Court. Both accused persons were present in court on the date of testimony and were correctly identified by the witness.
7.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness stated that they waited for the accused persons for about two hours. After arresting the accused, they remained at the spot for about one hour. He confirmed that the spot was a public place and there was public movement. He requested members of the public to join the investigation, but all of them refused and left without disclosing their names and addresses. Due to the paucity of time, no written notices could be given to them. He admitted that the complainant did not mention the description of the accused persons in his statement, Ex.PW1/A. All writing work was completed at the spot while sitting on the patri near the scene. He denied the suggestions that all paperwork was done at the police station, that nothing was recovered from the accused persons, or that false and planted recoveries were shown due to the absence of public witnesses. He also denied that he falsely implicated the accused persons based on disclosure statements, or that he was deposing falsely as a police witness and the Investigating Officer of the case.
8. The whole case of prosecution was dependent on the complainant Ravi Gupta PW-1 as he was the material witnesses in the present case who not only saw the alleged commission of offence but also saw the accused persons. PW-1 was in fact eyewitness of the case however, PW-1 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The identity of accused persons and their presence on the spot in a criminal trial is of paramount importance and no person can be indicted for criminal liability unless their identity is Digitally signed by FIR No. 618/2013 State vs. Imran & Anr. Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Page no. 10 of 14 Kumar Date:
Jain 2025.05.03 17:38:45 +0530 established beyond any shadow of doubt. In the present case, since the complainant Ravi Gupta has not supported the version of the prosecution, no fruitful purpose will be served to examine other witnesses as neither of them saw the alleged commission of offence and even if their testimonies were to be taken together, they will not establish the guilt of the accused.
9. Prosecution evidence was closed, vide separate order passed today, as recording of any further prosecution evidence in the present case would result into wastage of judicial time, money, resources and will also cause unnecessary burden upon the accused persons. In this regard, reliance is placed upon a Division Bench Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Govind & Ors. vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104 (2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that: -
"...In cases where the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak for there is no prospect of the case and again conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion of a future date."
10. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused. The present case pertains to an FIR of the year 2013 and continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused persons, would tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused persons. It has been held in P.Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its power available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right of speedy trial to the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
FIR No. 618/2013 State vs. Imran & Anr. Jain 2025.05.03 Page no. 11 of 14 17:38:54 +0530 time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
STATEMENT AND DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
11. Since no incriminating evidence was brought forth by the prosecution, recording of statement of accused persons u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with. Accused persons chose not to lead evidence in their defence.
ARGUMENTS
12. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material available on record.
POINT OF DETERMINATION
13. After going through the record and considering the material available on record, the only point of determination that is left is whether the prosecution can substantiate its case and prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt when the complainant/eyewitness/material witness has turned hostile.
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
14. The general burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
15. The complainant/material witnesses/eyewitness of the prosecution i.e., PW-1 turned hostile in the present case on the point of identity of accused persons. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses is not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in Digitally signed State vs. Imran & Anr. Udbhav Kumar Jain by Udbhav FIR No. 618/2013 Page no. 12 of 14 Kumar Date:
2025.05.03 Jain 17:39:02 +0530 uno false in ombnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under: -
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof. "
16. Now, if the whole evidence available on record is sift through then it is evident that the whole case of prosecution was dependent on the testimony of complainant/material witness/eyewitness PW-1 who saw the accused persons committing the alleged offence. Neither presence of accused persons can be confirmed on the spot nor there is anything on record to connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence. PW-2 and PW-3 did not see the commission of offence and disclosures given by the accused persons are also not admissible. As such, even if all the other prosecution witness cited in the list of witnesses were to be examined, the case of the prosecution could not be proved.
17. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L. Goswami (Dr) v. State of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC 22 that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution. The same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in Nanjundappa & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine SC 628. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of offence as the complainant/material witness turned hostile.
Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain
Kumar Jain Date: 2025.05.03
17:39:09 +0530
FIR No. 618/2013 State vs. Imran & Anr. Page no. 13 of 14
Thus, accused persons Imran and Islam Raen are entitled to benefit of doubt.
CONCLUSION
18. In view of the above discussion, the accused persons Imran and Islam Raen are hereby found not guilty. Accordingly, accused persons Imran and Islam Raen are hereby acquitted of the offences under section 392/411/34 IPC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court today i.e., 03.05.2025.
Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav Kumar Jain signed Kumar Date:
2025.05.03 Jain 17:39:18 +0530 (UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN) JMFC-04:SHD:KKD This judgment contains 14 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
FIR No. 618/2013 State vs. Imran & Anr. Page no. 14 of 14