Delhi District Court
State vs Sadil on 21 February, 2026
SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-09
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
SC No. 777/2022
CNR No. DLWT-011100-2022
FIR No. 1141/2020
Police Station NANGLOI
Under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Sadil
S/o. Dilshad
R/o. H.No. A-45, Camp No. 2,
Nangloi, Delhi.
2. Shamshuddin
S/o. Dilshad
R/o. 23, Kavita Colony,
Nangloi, Delhi. ... Accused Persons
Date of institution 19.11.2022
Digitally
signed by
Conclusion of arguments 08.01.2026
PRIYA
PRIYA MAHENDRA
MAHENDRA Date:
2026.02.21
Judgment Pronounced on 21.02.2026
17:15:50
+0530
JUDGMENT
Judgment Page No. 1 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
1. Accused Sadil S/o. Dilshad and Shamshuddin S/o. Rahisuddin are facing trial in present case on the allegations that on 09.12.2020 at 7.20 a.m., they along with their associate/CCL 'S' committed robbery on the point of knife with the complainant and robbed Redmi Note 4 Golden
- white colour mobile phone from the complainant.
2. Factual matrix of the case as per Prosecution is that on 09.12.2020, HC Niranian and Ct. Dharambir were on patrolling duty. They nabbed two boys on hearing alarm of the complainant Santosh Kumar who was shouting 'Chor-Chor'. They brought the complainant Santosh to the police station along with two apprehended boys namely 'S' (CCL) and Sadil, and also knife and one mobile phone make Oppo company recovered from the said apprehended boys.
3. The statement of the complainant was recorded in the police station . The complainant stated that he does the work of shoe stitching at Nangoi. On 09.12.2020, he was going to his work from his house in the morning at around 7.20 a.m. When he reached Rail Neer Plant near Surajmal Stadium Metro Station, one boy came from behind and choked his neck. In the meantime, two boys came from the side and pulled him inside the Rail Neer Plant. One of the two boys who came later, put the knife on his neck and the another boy took the Redmi mobile phone from Judgment Page No. 2 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
the pocket of his wearing pant. After this, the boy who had choked his neck, pushed him on the ground. All the three boys started fleeing towards Main Rohtak Road, Rail Neer Plant. He started shouting 'Chor- Chor'.
3.1 The Police officials who were passing from there, got down from the Motorcycle and caught two of those three boys i.e. one who choked his neck and the one who had kept a knife on his neck. Third boy who took out his phone from his pocket managed to escape from there with his mobile. The knife was recovered from right pocket pant of one of the apprehended boys who put the knife on his neck. On interrogation of both the apprehended boys, their names were revealed as Sultan S/o Hanif and Sadil S/o. Dilshad.
3.2 A recovered mobile phone from Sadil, was found snatched in FIR No. 1120/20 PS Nangloi and a knife recovered from Sultan S/O Hanif, were sealed and seized. On the basis of the statement and circumstances, the case under section 392/397/34 IPC was registered.
4. During investigation, the Site Plan was prepared at the instance of complainant Santosh Kumar. Copy of FIR and original Rukka was obtained from the Duty Officer. CCL 'S' and Sadil were Judgment Page No. 3 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
apprehended/arrested in this case. CCL 'S' and Sadil disclosed that their third associate Shamsuddin had taken away robbed mobile phone. Accused Shamsuddin was arrested on the pointing out of CCL 'S' and Sadil. He produced robbed mobile phone of this case after taking it out from a plastic Katta/Sack from heap of garbage lying near wall at Rail Neer Plant, near Maharaja Surajmal Stadium. The said mobile phone was seized. Disclosure statement of accused Shamsuddin was recorded.
5. Supplementary statement of the complainant and statements of the witnesses were recorded. On 21.12.2020, age verification of 'S' was got conducted on the directions of the Court and as per School Record, his age was found as 02.02.2003. 'S' was found to be CCL and he was produced before JJB-II. After completion of investigation, separate PIR was filed against CCL 'S' before JJB and Sadil and Shamsuddin were charge sheeted for the offences u/s. 392/397/411/34 IPC. Charge
6. On 30.01.2024, charge for the offence punishable under Section 394/397/34 IPC was framed against accused persons Sadil & Shamshuddin. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution Evidence
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses in all i.e. PW-1 Santosh Kumar/complainant, PW-2 SI (Retired) Judgment Page No. 4 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
Suresh Chand Sharma, PW-3 HC Dharambir, PW-4 ASI Niranjan Singh and PW-5 SI Shri Krishan.
8. PW-1 Santosh Kumar is the victim and his testimony would be discussed in later part of this Judgment.
9. PW-2 SI (Retired) Suresh Chand Sharma registered the FIR of present case. He proved Endorsement on Rukka as Ex.PW2/A, copy FIR as Ex.PW2/B and Certificate u/s. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW2/C.
10. PW-3 HC Dharambir was on Highway Patrolling Duty on Motorcycle with HC Niranjan at the time of incident. He deposed that while patrolling when they were going towards Surajmal Stadium from Camp no. 4 Red Light, on or about 07:20 a.m., when they saw one person running behind three persons while raising alarm of 'Chor Chor '. Upon seeing this, they also started chasing the three boys and managed to apprehend two of the said boys near Rohtak Road, Surajmal Metro Station. In the meantime, Santosh who was chasing the said boy also reached there and stated to them that the said boys robbed his mobile on knife point. He took the formal search of the said two boys and one buttondar knife was recovered from the possession of JCL 'S' and one mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Sadil. He Judgment Page No. 5 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
correctly identified the accused Sadil in the court. Thereafter, both the aforesaid offenders were brought to police station and he produced them before ASI Shri Krishan. ASI Shri Kishan checked the mobile phone and on the basis of its IMEI number, it was found to be case property of FIR No. 1120/2020. SI Shri Kishan also prepared the Sketch of knife Ex. PW1/F and seized the same vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW3/A. IO also seized the knife and also prepared the apprehension memo of JCL 'S' and Arrest Memo of accused Sadil. Accused Shamsuddin was apprehended from his residence at the instance of JCL and Sadil. IO prepared his Arrest Memo and Disclosure Statement Ex.PW3/B.
11. PW-3 further deposed that accused Shamsuddin led them to Rail Neer Plant near Maharaja Surajmal Stadium and near the wall, he picked up one sack and upon checking, it was found containing one robbed mobile of complainant Santosh. Complainant Santosh identified the said mobile as belonging to him. IO seized the said mobile vide Seizure Memo. He correctly identified accused persons in the Court and knife as Ex.P-1.
12. PW-4 ASI Niranjan Singh deposed that on 09.12.2020, he along with HC Dharambir were on patrolling on motorcycle and at about 07:20 a.m., they were going towards Surajmal Statdium from Camp no. 4 Red Light. They saw one person running behind three persons while raising noises of "Chor-Chor". On seeing them, they also started chasing the three Judgment Page No. 6 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
boys and managed to apprehend two of the said boys near Rohtak Road, Surajmal Metro Station. At that time, the boy namely Santosh who was chasing the said boys also reached there and stated to them that the said boy robbed his mobile on knife point. They took the formal search of the said two boys and one buttondar knife was recovered from the possession of JCL 'S' and one mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Sadil. Thereafter, both the said boys were brought to police station and produced them before ASI Shri Krishan. ASI Shri Kishan checked the mobile phone and on the basis of IMEI number, it was found to be case property of FIR No. 1120/2020. The said mobile was seized vide Memo Ex.PW1/E. SI Shri Kishan also prepared the Sketch of knife vide Ex.PW1/F and after sealing with said knife with the seal of PK and seized the same vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW3/A. IO recorded statement of complainant Santosh Kumar and got the FIR registered. The IO also seized the said knife.
12.1. PW-4 further deposed that during investigation at the instance of JCL and accused Sadil, accused Shamsuddin was apprehended from his residence. IO prepared Arrest Memo of accused Shamshuddin vide Ex.PW1/C1. Personal search of accused Shamsuddin was conducted vide Memo Ex.PWI/C-2. IO recorded his Disclosure Statement vide Ex.PW3/B. Accused Sadil was arrested vide Memo Ex.PW3/B-1 and Judgment Page No. 7 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
personally searched vide Memo Ex.PW1/B-2. PW-4 proved Disclosure Statement of accused Sadil as Ex.PW4/A. Accused Shamsuddin led them to Rail Neer Plant near Maharaja Surajmal Stadium and near the wall he picked up one sack which upon checking found containing one robbed mobile of complainant Santosh. Complainant Santosh identified said mobile being belonged to him. IO seized the said mobile vide Seizure Memo vide Ex. PWI/D. He also identified accused persons as well as knife as Ex.P-1.
13. PW-5 SI Shri Krishan is the Investigating Officer of this case and he unfolded the sequence of investigation carried out by him. He proved Rukka Ex.PW5/A, rough Site Plan as Ex.PW5/B and rough Site Plan of place of recovery of mobile phone as Ex.PW5/C. He identified Mobile Phone of the complainant as Ex.P-2.
Statement of Accused Persons u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
14. Statement of accused persons were recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein accused Sadil stated that he is innocent. He has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He along with Shamsuddin & CCL 'S' went to District Park, Jwala Heddi. Thereafter, they took bus and got down at Bus Stand No. 4. Their friend CCL 'S' was ahead of them. CCL 'S' had some argument with some person. That person started raising alarm and on this, he and accused Shamsuddin Judgment Page No. 8 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
started running and reached their houses. He does not know what happened to CCL 'S'. He then contacted CCL 'S' as he was having his mobile phone with him and he wanted it back. CCL 'S' was in police station and he made him talk to one police official. The said police official told him to come to police station to collect his mobile phone. When they reached the police station, he was falsely arrested in this case.
15. Statement of accused Shamsuddin was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. He stated that he is innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He along with CCL 'S' and Sadil went to District Park, Jwala Heddi. Thereafter, they took bus and got down at Bus Stand No. 4. Their friend CCL 'S' was ahead of them. He further stated that suddenly, his friend CCL 'S' told them to run away. So, he and accused Sadil started running and reached their houses. At around 3.30 a.m., when he was sleeping, accused Sadil along with police came to his house. All three of them i.e. he, CCL 'S' and Sadil were taken to Surajmal Stadium Bus Stand No. 4 and asked them what they have done. Thereafter, they were taken to Metro Station No. 4, Gate No. 1 from where one old mobile phone was recovered. CCL 'S' told them that the said mobile phone was given to the person to whom it belonged in the police station.
Judgment Page No. 9 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
Defence Evidence :
16. Accused Sadil chose to lead DE and produced one witness i.e. DW-1 Dilshad/his father. DW-1 Dilshad deposed that on 09.12.2020, his son Sadil was with him since morning till 12:00 noon. He is a hawker and running his Rehri (Hawker stall) beneath the Metro, near Kirari Mode, Nangloi, Delhi. Thereafter, he sent his son to home for lunch. After that, he does not know where his son, Sadil, went and whereabouts of his son Sadil. On that day, in between 09:00 to 10:00 PM, he telephonically contacted his son on his mobile phone to ask him to come and assist him for the closure of his Rehri/ Hawker stall. But some police official answered his telephonic call on his son's mobile phone and replied that his mobile phone was in the police station. The said police officials told him to visit police station for the taking the mobile phone of his son. His son was falsely arrested in this case. He does not want to say anything else. Arguments of Defence :
17. It is argued by Ld. counsel for the accused that the complainant has not supported the case of the Prosecution in entirety and his evidence is full of inconsistencies and contradiction. So, his testimony in isolation is not sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty. Further, the complainant has admitted in his evidence that the robbed mobile was not recovered from accused Shamsuddin in his presence and also denied that another robbed mobile was recovered from the possession of accused Sadil in his Judgment Page No. 10 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
presence. So, his testimony runs contrary to the evidence of PW-3 HC Dharambir and PW-4 ASI Niranjan. It also makes the evidence of both PW-3 and PW-4 doubtful and unreliable. Even otherwise, PW-3 and PW-4 being the police officials are not reliable witnesses.
17.1. It is further argued that the complainant has admitted that he has not provided any document of ownership of alleged robbed mobile phone to the IO. The alleged recovery of robbed mobile phone made from accused Shamsuddin, is also not proved by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. No public witness was roped in at the time of recovery of the robbed mobile phone from accused Shamsuddin. The complainant has also denied that it was recovered from accused Shamsuddin in his presence. It is urged that in these circumstances the involvement of the accused persons in the robbery is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled to be acquitted. Further, the Defence has also examined the father of the accused Sadil and it also establishes false implication of the accused Sadil in the present matter.
18. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that the testimony of complainant is completely credible, truthful, and trustworthy. The accused Sadil along with the CCL were nabbed after a chase just after the incident when they tried to run away from the spot. The accused Judgment Page No. 11 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
Shamsuddin was also arrested on the same day of incident within few hours. The complainant categorically and convincingly identified both the accused in his testimony. The complainant in his evidence also categorically stated that which accused played what role at the time of commission of robbery of the mobile phone from the applicant. The Defence has not been able to establish any motive for false implication of the accused persons by the complainant.
18.1. Further, the complainant has given coherent and consistent testimony regarding the incident as well as involvement of the accused persons. It cannot be discounted on the alleged doubts raised on the recovery proceedings of the robbed mobile phone. So, he submits the case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
19. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
Appreciation of Evidence :
20. Here it would be useful to reproduce the testimony of the complainant/PW-1 Santosh which reads as under :-
"On 09.12.2020 at 7.20 a.m., I was residing in Delhi and was going towards my factory which was near Nangloi Flyover. Just before the Surajmal Stadium Metro Station, when I reached near Rail Neer Water Plant, one boy came and he locked my neck with his Judgment Page No. 12 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
hand. In the meantime, one another boy came and then both of them dragged me inside the Rail Neer plant. A third boy who had come later, kept a knife on my neck and other one took out mobile phone Redmi Note 4 Golden white in which SIM number 6204077979 from my pocket. The boy who had locked my neck with his hand threw me and I fell there. After throwing me, they ran away from there. I raised an alarm. Then two policemen who were on motorcycle chased accused persons and apprehended them.
At this stage, witness has pointed out towards accused Sadil and stated that he was the boy who caught hold of his neck and witness pointed out towards accused Shamshuddin and stated that he had took out his mobile phone from his pocket. Witness submits that the third boy whose name is Sultan and pointed out the knife on his neck, is not present in the court today.
Police apprehended accused 'S' (CCL) and accused Sadil from the spot. A knife was recovered from the possession of CCL. I along with accused persons were taken to Police Station. In the Police Station, my statement was recorded which is bearing my signatures at point A and same is now Ex.PW1/A. Then I was made to sit in the police station. After about half an hour, accused Shamshuddin was brought to the police station with my mobile phone. Police arrested accused Sadil vide arrest memo bearing my signatures at point A and same is now Ex.PW1/B-1. Personal search memo of accused Sadil is bearing my signatures at point A and same is now Ex.PW1/B-2. Police arrested accused Shamshuddin vide arrest memo bearing my signatures at point A and same is now Ex.PW1/C-1. Personal search memo of accused Shamshuddin is Judgment Page No. 13 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
bearing my signatures at point A and same is now Ex.PW1/C-2. My mobile phone was also got recovered vide seizure memo which is bearing my signatures at point A and same is now Ex.PW1/D. One another phone was also recovered from accused Sadil which was seized by police which is bearing my signatures at point A and same is now Ex.PW1/E. I can identify the case property, if shown to me. At this stage, MHC (M) has produced a sealed pullanda in sealed with the seal of PK which is found containing a knife. Witness identifies the same which was shown to him by CCL. Knife is now Ex.P-1.
Court observation : It matches with sketch of the knife which is now Ex.PW1/F bearing the signatures of witness at point A. IO also prepared site plan of the place of occurrence at my instance. At this stage, MHC (M) produced a mobile phone Redmi Note 4 is taken out. Witness identifies to be the same mobile which was robbed from him. Mobile phone is Ex.P-2."
21. The testimony of the complainant along with PW-3 and PW-4 clearly establishes that CCL 'S' and accused Sadil were nabbed by PW-3 and PW-4 just after the incident after a short chase. The complainant/PW-1 Santosh also reached there and identified the CCL 'S' and accused Sadil. The PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 consistently deposed that one buttondar knife was recovered from the possession of CCL 'S' during his search at that time. Accused Shamsuddin was arrested within four hours of the incident and brought to the police station. Importantly, the identification of the Judgment Page No. 14 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
accused persons by the complainant in the dock is quite clear, categorical and specific. While identifying the accused persons in the court, he clearly deposed that accused Sadil caught hold of his neck; CCL 'S' pointed out the knife on his neck and accused Shamsuddin took out the mobile phone from his pocket.
22. Recovery of robbed property is not necessary in all the circumstances for establishing the guilt under Section 392 IPC. In many cases, the robbed property may remain undiscovered despite the best efforts of Investigating Agency. Non recovery of the robbed property does not automatically disprove the offence of robbery. On the same corollary, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved merely because the recovery of robbed property is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court has to carefully scrutinize and appreciate the evidence on record to assess that whether sans recovery, the case of the prosecution stands established.
23. The Court finds the testimony of PW-1 completely credible, truthful, trustworthy and convincing. The Defence has not been able to establish that the complainant had only personal reason or motive to falsely implicate the accused persons. It is correct that no public witness was got involved by PW-3 and PW4 when accused Shamsuddin got Judgment Page No. 15 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
recovered robbed mobile phone. The complainant also denied that it was recovered from the accused Shamsuddin in his presence. So, the recovery of robbed mobile phone from accused Shamsuddin is not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution. However, the coherent and consistent testimony of complainant cannot be discarded only on the failure of the Prosecution to prove recovery of robbed mobile phone beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the complainant clearly and categorically establishes the involvement of accused Shamsuddin in the offence of robbery and that he took out mobile phone of the complainant from his pocket.
24. The convincing and consistent testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 cannot be doubted only because they are police officials. It is a settled law that the witnesses from the department of police cannot per se be said to be untruthful or unreliable. It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and unimpeachability of their testimony. In Kashmiri Lal vs State of Haryana , (2001) 1 SCC 652, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:
"Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If in the course of scrutinising the evidence the court finds the evidence of the police Judgment Page No. 16 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle of quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence."
The defence has not been able to dent the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 and there is nothing on record to see their testimony with suspicion and doubt.
25. The accused Sadil has produced DW-1 Dilshad in his defence. The DW-1 is none other than the father of accused Sadil. He has stated that he runs a Cart/Hawker Stall and the accused Sadil was with him from morning till 12.00 Noon on the day of incident. Firstly, his testimony is inherently weak as he is an interested witness. Secondly, DW-1 admitted that the fact of accused being with him on the day of incident from morning till 12.00 noon, was disclosed by him for the first time in the Court during his testimony recorded on 24.01.2025. He failed to furnish any explanation for not informing the same to any authority after arrest of the accused or thereafter. He gave a specious explanation that he could not do so as he was not knowing anyone in the authority. However, this plea is totally unbelievable and apparently false. It was open to the DW1 to give this information in writing in the police station or to the senior officials of police. The same can also be brought to the notice of the court Judgment Page No. 17 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
after arrest of accused. It is clear that the father of the applicant gave a false testimony in the Court that the accused was present with him at the time of incident as a last ditched attempt to protect his son from the punishment of offence committed by him.
Conclusion :
26. The Prosecution has succeeded in establishing that on 09.12.2020 at 7.20 a.m., the accused persons along with CCL 'S' in furtherance of their common intention robbed the mobile phone of the complainant. The accused Sadil caught hold of the complainant from his neck and the accused Shamsuddin took out the moble phone from the pocket of the complainant while CCL kept the knife on the neck of the complainant. Accordingly accused Sadil and Shamshuddin are convicted under Section 392/34 IPC.
27. However, testimony of the complainant and the record reveals that neither the accused Sadil nor Shamsuddin used any weapon of offence while committing the robbery with the complainant. The same was only used by CCL 'S'. So, accused Sadil and accused Shamsuddin cannot be convicted u/s. 397 IPC. Accordingly, both are acquitted under Section 397 IPC.
Announced in the open Court on 21st day of February, 2026.
(Priya Mahendra) Addl. Sessions Judge-09/West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Judgment Page No. 18 of 18