Delhi District Court
State vs Sachin @ Sucha on 19 August, 2025
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 335 of 2024.
CNR No. DLSE01-006692-2024.
State versus Sachin @ Sucha.
FIR No. 660/2023.
Under sections 324/341/394/397/34 of the IPC.
PS Okhla Industrial Area.
State
versus
Mr. Sachin @ Sucha
Son of Mr. Pappu
Resident of House No. A-294,
Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II,
New Delhi.
Date of filing of the charge-sheet : 22.03.2024.
Date of consideration of the case : 28.03.2024.
Date of committal of the case : 21.06.2024.
Date of first hearing before the learned : 04.07.2024.
predecessor on committal of the case
Date of first hearing before the undersigned : 05.06.2025.
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 19.08.2025.
Date of judgment : 19.08.2025.
Appearance: Mr. Salim Khan, Substitute Chief Public Prosecutor for the State.
Accused Mr. Sachin @ Sucha on bail with counsel Mr. Anand
Kumar Pandey and Mr. Khalak Singh.
************************************************************
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Sachin @ Sucha, the accused, has been charge sheeted by Police Station Okhla Industrial Area for the offences under sections 324/341/394/397/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as Sessions Case No. : 335 of 2024. Digitally signed FIR No. : 660/2023. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Under Sections : 323/341/394/397/34 of the IPC. ANIL PS : Okhla Industrial Area. Date:
State versus Sachin @ Sucha. SHARMA 2025.08.19 -:: Page 1 of 12 ::-
13:11:49 +0530
-:: 2 ::-
the IPC).
2. On the complaint of HC Narshi, an FIR No. 335 of 2024, under Section 324/34 of the IPC was registered at the PS Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. The requisite investigation culminated into the charge sheet, which was filed against the accused, for the offences under sections 324/341/394/397/34 of the IPC, in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 22.03.2024. After compliance of provisions of Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.), learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi committed the case to the Court of Sessions under provisions of Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. on 21.06.2024 for trial.
3. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.09.2023, on receipt of GD No. 140-A regarding stabbing, HC Narshi alongwith HC Ram Raj went to the spot of incident i.e. A-115, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi, where they came to know that a quarrel had taken place and the injured had been removed to hospital by the PCR Van. On 18.09.2023, on receipt of another GD No. 9-A dated 18.09.2023 regarding admission of the injured in AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi, HC Narshi alongwith other police official went to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi, where injured Mr. Suraj son of Mr. Pratap was found under treatment and he told that he would give his statement later on. On the MLC of injured Mr. Suraj, the doctor had mentioned history of physical assault on 18.09.2023 at about 12:00 am by unknown person near Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi. On 19.09.2023, the injured Mr. Suraj came to the Police Station and gave his statement that on 18.09.2023 at about 10:00 pm when he alongwith his friend Mr. Janu was returning Sessions Case No. : 335 of 2024.
FIR No. : 660/2023.
Under Sections : 323/341/394/397/34 of the IPC. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA PS : Okhla Industrial Area. ANIL ANIL SHARMA State versus Sachin @ Sucha. -:: Page 2 of 12 ::-
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.19 13:11:58 +0530
-:: 3 ::-
home and reached at Gali No. 1, Cloth Market, Sanjay Colony, accused Mr. Sachin @ Sucha alongwith his two accomplices namely Mr. Karan and Mr. Mangoor (who could not be arrested), restrained and demanded money from him and on his refusal, the accused and his associates gave beatings to him with fist and leg blows. Mr. Janu, friend of injured Mr. Suraj ran away from the spot, but in the meantime, the accused Mr. Sachin @ Sucha took out a knife from his pocket and caused injury on the thigh and shoulder of the injured. The other accomplice of accused namely Mr. Karan took out Rs. 250/- from the pocket of the injured and the third person Mr. Mangoor gave fist and leg blows to him. HC Narshi at the instance of accused, recovered the knife, used in the commission of offence from his house i.e. A-294, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi, kept it in pullanda, sealed and seized it and sent to FSL. Accused had shown the place of incident to the police and thereafter, in place of Section 324 IPC, Sections 323/341/394/397 of the IPC were added. HC Narshi also made enquiry from other injured Mr. Chand Mohd. @ Jaanu, recorded his statement and collected the MLCs of both the injured persons i.e. Mr. Suraj and Mr. Chand Mohd., on which the nature of injuries were mentioned as simple.
4. Despite best efforts of the police, the co-accused persons namely Mr. Karan and Mr. Mangoor could not be arrested and thereafter, HC Narshi filed the charge-sheet under Sections 323/341/394/397/34 of the IPC against the accused Mr. Sachin @ Sucha.
5. Vide order dated 03.08.2024 of the learned predecessor of this Court, charge was framed against accused Mr. Sachin @ Sucha under sections 323/341/392/394/34 of the IPC read with Section 397 IPC, stating that on 17.09.2023 at about 11:30 pm infront of A-115, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Sessions Case No. : 335 of 2024.
FIR No. : 660/2023. Digitally signed Under Sections : 323/341/394/397/34 of the IPC. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA PS : Okhla Industrial Area. ANIL ANIL SHARMA State versus Sachin @ Sucha. Date: 2025.08.19 -:: Page 3 of 12 ::-
SHARMA 13:12:06 +0530
-:: 4 ::-
Phase-II, New Delhi, accused alongwith two other boys namely Mr. Karan and Mr. Mangur (not arrested), in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the complainant Mr. Suraj and Mr. Chand Mohd. @ Jaanu, gave beatings to them, committed robbery of Rs. 250/- from the person of complainant Mr. Suraj and in committing the robbery, the accused used deadly weapon i.e. knife and caused injuries on the person of the complainant Mr. Suraj. Accused Mr. Sachin @ Sucha pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as eight (08) witnesses.
7. HC Amit Kumar (PW-1) is the duty officer who had recorded the formal FIR of the case. Dr. Varun Kumar, Senior Resident, Radiologist, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi (PW-2) has proved that X-ray reports of Mr. Suraj and Mr. Chand Mohd. as well as the MLC of Mr. Suraj. Dr. Arth Patel, Junior Resident, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi (PW-3) has proved the MLC of Mr. Chand Mohd. Mr. Shiv Kumar (PW-4) is a friend of Mr. Suraj, who had reached the spot, saw Mr. Suraj in injured condition and informed the police that he was stabbed. Mr. Jan Mohd. @ Janu (PW-5) is witness/injured and was with injured/complainant Mr. Suraj when the alleged offence was committed. Mr. Suraj (PW-6) is the injured/complainant. Dr. Gudeti Babu Rao, Senior Resident, Department of Emergency Medicine, JPNATC, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi (PW-7) has proved the MLC of Mr. Suraj and the record of the signature of Dr. Rakesh Nayaka maintained by the office. SI Satish Bhati (PW-8) is the Investigation Officer.
8. On 05.06.2025, the accused, who was identified by his counsel, admitted Sessions Case No. : 335 of 2024.
FIR No. : 660/2023.
Under Sections : 323/341/394/397/34 of the IPC. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA ANIL PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
ANIL SHARMA
Date: 2025.08.19 -:: Page 4 of 12 ::-
SHARMA 13:12:15 +0530
-:: 5 ::-
under section 294 of the Cr.P.C./330 BNSS, 2023, the evidence of prosecution witnesses namely ASI Subhash, MHC (M), HC Kushal Pal Singh who deposited the exhibits in the FSL and HC Narshi, 1 st Investigation Officer including the documents prepared/signed by them. Therefore, they were not examined by the prosecution and on the submission of the Substitute Chief Public Prosecutor for the State, the prosecution evidence was closed.
9. On 23.07.2025, the statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the accused was recorded wherein he has denied the allegations and the evidence against him. He has preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence.
10. I have heard final arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
11. The Substitute Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that from the evidence and other material on record, the prosecution has been able to successfully prove its case. It is prayed that the accused may be convicted for the commission of the alleged offences.
12. The counsel for accused has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. The complainant / victim and the eye witness have not supported the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged offences. It is prayed that as the prosecution has failed to prove its case, the accused may be acquitted.
Digitally signedSessions Case No. : 335 of 2024. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. : 660/2023.
Under Sections : 323/341/394/397/34 of the IPC.
ANIL Date:
PS : Okhla Industrial Area. SHARMA 2025.08.19
State versus Sachin @ Sucha. 13:12:23 +0530 -:: Page 5 of 12 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
13. It is very relevant to elaborate the evidence of the most material witness i.e. Mr. Suraj (PW-6) who is the complainant and injured/victim and Mr. Jan Mohd. @ Janu (PW-5) who is an eye witness and injured.
14. Mr. Suraj (PW-6) has deposed that ".....On 18.09.2023 at about 10.30 pm I alongwith my friend Jaanu was coming from the house of his friend and were going to our houses. On the way when we reached at Gali No. 1, Kapra Market, Sanjay Colony, where three boys met us, whose name I do not know." He was cross examined at length on behalf of the State as he had retracted from his previous statement and was hostile to the prosecution case. However, nothing material for the prosecution came forth as he continued to depose that the accused is not the culprit. After seeing accused Sachin @ Sucha, the witness remained fail to identify him as the assailant of the present incident. He has failed to assign any criminal role to the accused. In fact, in his cross examination on behalf of the accused, he has deposed that "It is correct that accused Sachin @ Sucha present in the Court today has not committed any wrong and police has falsely implicated him instead of apprehending the real culprit. It is wrong to suggest that accused Sachin @ Sucha was not arrested in my presence. It is also correct that I had not given any statement to the police."
15. Mr. Jan Mohd. @ Janu (PW-5) has deposed that "....On 18.09.2023 at about 10.30 pm I alongwith my friend Suraj were coming towards out house and had reached in Gali No. 1, Kapra Market, Sanjay Colony, Okhla, New Delhi, 3-4 boys came and obstructed our way. All those boys were drunk and they enquired as to where we were going. One of the boy took out a knife and threatened myself and my friend Suraj. Those boys told me and Suraj to give them whatever belonging we were having and Sessions Case No. : 335 of 2024.
FIR No. : 660/2023.
Under Sections : 323/341/394/397/34 of the IPC. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by PS : Okhla Industrial Area. NIVEDITA ANIL State versus Sachin @ Sucha. ANIL SHARMA Date: 2025.08.19 -:: Page 6 of 12 ::- SHARMA 13:12:31 +0530 -:: 7 ::-
those boys slapped me. I pushed the boy who was having knife and fled towards my home while shouting Suraj Bhag. My friend Suraj also tried to flee, but those 3-4 boys chased us and someone of them gave a knife blow to Suraj on his leg. Thereafter, all those 3-4 boys fled away from the spot. As it was dark in the gali, I could not see faces of those 3-4 boys properly. However, while those boys were talking, I heard name Sachin @ Sucha with which some of the boys were calling one of their associates, but I do not know as to who was said associate / boy, who was being called as Sachin @ Sucha...Since I had not seen those 3-4 boys, who obstructed me and my friend, gave beatings to me and stabbed my friend Suraj, I cannot identify the accused present in the Court." He was cross examined at length on behalf of the State as he had retracted from his previous statement and was hostile to the prosecution case. However, nothing material for the prosecution came forth as he continued to depose that the accused is not the culprit. He has failed to assign any criminal role to the accused. In fact, in his cross examination on behalf of the State, he has deposed that "...It is wrong to suggest that at the time of the incident, I have seen the assailants who gave beatings to me and one who gave stab injury to my friend Suraj.... Witness states that he cannot identify the present accused as one of the assailant as he had not seen any of the assailants / 3-4 boys who obstructed his way on the day of the incident and committed robbery...."
16. As Mr. Suraj (PW-6) who is the complainant and injured/victim and Mr. Jan Mohd. @ Janu (PW-5) who is an eye witness and injured had retracted from their previous statements and were hostile to the prosecution case, they were cross examined at length on behalf of the State. However, nothing material for the prosecution could be brought Sessions Case No. : 335 of 2024.
FIR No. : 660/2023.
Under Sections : 323/341/394/397/34 of the IPC. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA PS : Okhla Industrial Area. ANIL ANIL SHARMA State versus Sachin @ Sucha. -:: Page 7 of 12 ::-
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.19 13:12:39 +0530
-:: 8 ::-
forth.
17. It is clear from the record that nothing material for the prosecution came forth in the lengthy cross examination on behalf of the State of Mr. Suraj (PW-6) and Mr. Jan Mohd. @ Janu (PW-5) as they have failed to identify the accused as the culprit who committed the offences against them and they have failed to assign any criminal role to them. They have not deposed an iota of evidence against the accused that he committed the offences of wrongfully restraining and beating Mr. Suraj (PW-6) and Mr. Jan Mohd. @ Janu (PW-5) thereby causing simple injuries on them; robbing them using a knife and causing injuries to Mr. Suraj; and using a deadly weapon i.e. knife while committing robbery.
18. The evidence of the other prosecution witnesses is not sufficient for establishing the prosecution case or for convicting the accused as they are the doctors, police witnesses of investigation, recording of FIR, etc. From the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, no conclusive evidence has been come forth which would prove that the accused Mr. Sachin @ Sucha has in furtherance of his common intention with co-accused namely Mr. Karan and Mr. Mangur (not arrested) wrongfully restrained and beat Mr. Suraj (PW-6) and Mr. Jan Mohd. @ Janu (PW-5) thereby causing simple injuries on them; robbing them using a knife and causing injuries to Mr. Suraj; and using a deadly weapon i.e. knife while committing robbery.
19. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of Mr. Suraj (PW-6) who is the complainant and injured and Mr. Jan Mohd. @ Jaanu (PW-5) who is an eye witness and injured, who are the star witnesses and the most material witnesses of the prosecution, I am of the considered view that Sessions Case No. : 335 of 2024.
FIR No. : 660/2023. Digitally signed Under Sections : 323/341/394/397/34 of the IPC. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA PS : Okhla Industrial Area. ANIL State versus Sachin @ Sucha. Date: -:: Page 8 of 12 ::-
SHARMA 2025.08.19 13:12:47 +0530
-:: 9 ::-
the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable as the witnesses have retracted from their earlier statement and turned hostile. Nothing material for the prosecution has come forth in their cross examination on behalf of the State. They have, in fact, deposed that accused Mr. Sachin @ Sucha has not committed any offence against Mr. Suraj (PW-6) and Mr. Jan Mohd. @ Janu (PW-5). Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
20. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
21. In the judgment reported as Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and others v.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 381, it was held that where the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and there are large number of contradictions in his evidence not on mere matters of detail, but on vital points, it would not be safe to rely on his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of accused.
22. If one integral part of the story put forth by a witness was not believable, then entire case fails. Where a witness makes two inconsistent statements in evidence either at one stage or both stages, testimony of such witness Sessions Case No. : 335 of 2024.
FIR No. : 660/2023.
Under Sections : 323/341/394/397/34 of the IPC. PS : Okhla Industrial Area. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA State versus Sachin @ Sucha. ANIL ANIL SHARMA -:: Page 9 of 12 ::-
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.19 13:12:56 +0530
-:: 10 ::-
becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).
23. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and "must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where once the star witnesses namely Mr. Suraj (PW-6) and Mr. Jan Mohd. @ Janu (PW-5) have themselves not deposed anything incriminating against accused namely Mr. Sachin @ Sucha. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
24. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused namely Mr. Sachin @ Sucha is guilty of the charged offences of in furtherance of his common intention with co-accused namely Mr. Karan and Mr. Mangur (not arrested) wrongfully restrained and beat Mr. Suraj (PW-6) and Mr. Jan Mohd. @ Janu (PW-5) thereby causing simple injuries on them; robbing them using a knife and causing injuries to Mr. Suraj; and using a deadly weapon i.e. knife while committing robbery punishable under sections 323/341/34, 392/394/34 and 397 of the IPC.
25. There is no material on record to show that on 17.09.2023 at about 11:30 pm infront of A-115, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi, accused Mr. Sachin @ Sucha alongwith two other boys namely Mr. Karan and Mr. Mangur (not arrested), in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the complainant Mr. Suraj and Mr. Chand Mohd. @ Jaanu, gave beatings to them, committed robbery of Rs. 250/- from the person of complainant Mr. Suraj and in committing the robbery, the Sessions Case No. : 335 of 2024.
FIR No. : 660/2023.
Under Sections : 323/341/394/397/34 of the IPC. PS : Okhla Industrial Area. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA State versus Sachin @ Sucha. ANIL ANIL SHARMA -:: Page 10 of 12 ::-
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.19 13:13:03 +0530
-:: 11 ::-
accused used deadly weapon i.e. knife and caused injuries on the person of the complainant Mr. Suraj.
26. From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the offences against accused namely Mr. Sachin @ Sucha alongwith two other boys namely Mr. Karan and Mr. Mangur (not arrested), in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restraining the complainant Mr. Suraj and Mr. Chand Mohd. @ Jaanu, giving beatings to them, committing robbery of Rs. 250/- from the person of complainant Mr. Suraj and in committing the robbery, the accused used deadly weapon i.e. knife and caused injuries on the person of the complainant Mr. Suraj and causing simple injuries to him. The most material witnesses i.e. Mr. Suraj (PW-6) and Mr. Jan Mohd. @ Janu (PW-5) have not deposed an iota of evidence that accused Mr. Sachin @ Sucha has committed the charged offences.
27. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against accused namely Mr. Sachin @ Sucha for the offences of, in furtherance of common intention with co-accused namely Mr. Karan and Mr. Mangur (not arrested), wrongfully restraining and beating Mr. Suraj (PW-6) and Mr. Jan Mohd. @ Janu (PW-5) and causing simple injuries to them; committing robbery of Rs. 250/- from the person of complainant Mr. Suraj; and in committing the robbery, the accused used deadly weapon i.e. knife and caused injuries on the person of the complainant Mr. Suraj punishable under sections 323/341/34, 392/394/34 and 397 of the IPC.
Sessions Case No. : 335 of 2024. Digitally signed FIR No. : 660/2023.
Under Sections : 323/341/394/397/34 of the IPC. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA PS : Okhla Industrial Area. ANIL Date:
State versus Sachin @ Sucha. -:: Page 11 of 12 ::-
SHARMA 2025.08.19 13:13:11 +0530
-:: 12 ::-
28.Consequently, accused namely Mr. Sachin @ Sucha is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offences of wrongfully restraining and beating Mr. Suraj (PW-6) and Mr. Jan Mohd. @ Janu (PW-5) and causing simple injuries to them; committing robbery of Rs. 250/- from the person of complainant Mr. Suraj; and in committing the robbery, using a deadly weapon i.e. knife and causing injuries on the person of the complainant Mr. Suraj punishable under sections 323/341/34, 392/394/34 and 397 of the IPC.
29. Compliance of section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet of even date.
30. Case property be confiscated and be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
31. One copy of the judgment be given to the Substitute Chief Public Prosecutor for the State, as requested.
32. After the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal and completion of all the formalities, the file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
ANIL SHARMA Date:
+0530
2025.08.19 13:13:18
Announced in the open Court (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA)
on this 19th day of August, 2025. Principal District & Sessions Judge, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi. 19.08.2025. (KSR).
**************************************************************** Sessions Case No. : 335 of 2024.
FIR No. : 660/2023.
Under Sections : 323/341/394/397/34 of the IPC. PS : Okhla Industrial Area.
State versus Sachin @ Sucha. -:: Page 12 of 12 ::-