Delhi District Court
State vs Ashwani @Ashu on 4 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02,
DWARKA COURTS, S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of: -
State Vs. 1. Ashwani @ Ashu
S/o Late Sh. Inderjeet Rajora
R/o H. No.N-27, Gali No.7,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
2. Sahil @ Chintu
S/o Sh. Satish
R/o H. No.Z-14/16,
Ashiyana Apartments,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
Digitally
signed by
3. Anil
SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
S/o Sh. Satpal
2025.12.04
16:20:27
+0530
R/o H. No. D-25,
Vipin Garden, Nawada,
New Delhi. (Since deceased)
4. Aarif
S/o Sh. Yasin Ali
R/o R-3, A-2/130A,
Gali No.11, Mangal Bazar
Balaji Chowk, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi. ...Accused Persons
Sessions Case No. 1032/2018
e-FIR No. 29163/2018
PS Dwarka North
CNR No. DLSW01-019602-2018
Charge-sheet filed U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC
Charge(s) framed against Sahil U/s 397 IPC
@Chintu
e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 1 of 31
PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others
Charge(s) framed against accused U/s 411 IPC
Ashwani @ Ashu, Sahil @ Chintu
and Anil
Charge(s) framed against Sahil @ u/s 392/34 IPC
Chintu, Anil and Aarif
Date of institution of case 29.10.2018.
Date of case received to Sessions 27.11.2018.
Court
Date of arguments 24.11.2025
Date of judgment 04.12.2025
Decision ACQUITTAL
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons are facing trial for commission of offences Digitally signed by punishable U/ss. 392/397/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:26 1860 (in short 'IPC') and u/s 27 of the Arms Act. +0530
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.08.2018, complainant Devi Dutt Singh lodged an e-FIR reporting the robbery of his Bullet motorcycle No. DL8S CF 2333 at Main Road, opposite Pink Apartment, Sector 18B, Dwarka, New Delhi. The investigation was initially assigned to HC Naveen Kumar, who recorded the complainant's detailed statement on 22.08.2018. The complainant stated that on 19.08.2018, at around 8:00 PM, he had visited the residence of his friend at Golf Link Apartment, Sector 18B, Dwarka, for a party. At about 1:30 AM, when he came out of the apartment, four boys on two motorcycles approached him, stopped, and surrounded him. One boy, wearing a red shirt, pointed a pistol-like weapon at him and threatened him to hand over his motorcycle. Out of fear, the complainant handed over the e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 2 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others Bullet motorcycle, and the assailants fled with it. He further reported that his khaki-coloured wallet, containing his and his spouse's PAN cards, his driving licence, two credit cards, some photographs, a prescription, and ₹200, was inside the motorcycle at the time of the incident. On these allegations, an FIR under Sections 392/397/34 IPC was registered. On 22.08.2018, vide DD No. 38B, PS Dwarka Sector-23 it was informed that the stolen motorcycle had been recovered and that accused Ashwani, Sahil, and Anil had been arrested by SI P.R. Hudda. On 23.08.2018, accused Aarif was also arrested by Special Staff, Dwarka District, through SI Ranjeev. Disclosure statements of all the accused were recorded, and Digitally signed by TIP proceedings were conducted. The weapon used, initially SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:28 described as a pistol-like object, was found to be a country- +0530 made pistol, which was sent to FSL for examination. During the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded. On the basis of the investigation, the accused persons were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 392/397/411/34 of IPC and u/s 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Vide order dated 09.01.2019, charge for offence punishable u/s 397 IPC was framed against accused Sahil @ Chintu;
charge for offence punishable u/s 411 IPC was framed against accused Ashwani @ Ashu, accused Sahil @ Chintu and accused Anil; and charge for offence punishable u/s 392/34 IPC was framed against accused Sahil @ Chintu, Anil and Aarif to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 3 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others
4. During the proceedings of the trial, accused Anil got expired and vide order dated 16.2.2024 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, proceedings against him stood abated.
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined 18 witnesses.
6. PW1 HC Satwanti deposed that on 22.08.2018, she was posted at PS Dwarka North and was working as DD writer. At about 01:35 PM, she received information from SI P.R Hooda on phone that accused Ashwani, Sahil and Anil were arrested in case FIR No. 219/18 u/s. 186/353/307/411/34 IPC and 25/25 of Arms Act PS Sector 23 Dwarka and in that case accused have made disclosure statements of the present case e.FIR no. 29163/18. The said information was reduced into Digitally signed by writing in DD register vide DD No. 38-B dated 22.08.2018, SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:30 she proved the true copy/attested copy of the same as +0530 Ex.PW1/A. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Aarif, she denied that false entry has been made in the register at the instance of IO.
7. PW-2 Devi Dutt Singh is the complainant who deposed that on 19.08.2018, after attending a party at the residence of his friend Anurag at Golf Link Apartments, Sector-18, Dwarka, he left at about 1.25-1.30 a.m. on his Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle bearing No. DL-8S-CF-2333. When he reached near Pink Apartments, Dwarka, he was intercepted by four persons on two motorcycles. One person from each motorcycle alighted, surrounded him, and, as per the witness, accused Sahil pointed a "pistol-like weapon" at him while all the assailants exhorted him to hand over whatever he had and to leave the motorcycle. PW-2 identified all the accused e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 4 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others persons present in court as the assailants. They took away his motorcycle along with his wallet containing ₹200/- and personal documents belonging to him and his wife. He proved his statement as Ex.PW2/A. PW-2 further stated that he participated in the judicial Test Identification Proceedings (TIP) at Tihar Jail, where he identified all the accused. PW2 proved TIP proceedings as Ex.PW2/B (colly). PW2 also stated that he showed the place of occurrence to the Investigating Officer and proved site plan as Ex.PW2/C. The witness deposed that only his motorcycle was recovered during investigation. He got it released on superdari vide superdarinama-Ex.PW2/D, and took possession of it through Digitally signed by panchnama-Ex.PW2/E. PW-2 also identified the photographs SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:28 of his motorcycle as Ex.PW2/F (colly). +0530
8. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, PW-2 stated that he had given the description of wearing clothes of accused persons to the IO. He first lodged an e-FIR on the day of incident. PW2 had gone to the Police Station when his bike was recovered. Police never visited his house. The entire incident of snatching his purse and bike happened within one minute. As per PW2, he had little span of time for identifying the offenders and he might have committed a mistake in identifying them. He further stated that as the incident was for a spur a moment so he was not sure of the identity of the assailant and that is why he had not identified accused persons correctly. PW2 admitted that he could not identify accused Ashwani in TIP proceedings.
e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 5 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others
9. PW3 Inspector Shivaji Chauhan proved the FIR as Ex.PW3/A and certificate u/s 65B IEA as Ex.PW3/B. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
10. PW4 HC Rajender deposed that on 22.08.2018, while posted as a Constable at PS Dwarka Sector-23, he accompanied SI P.R. Hudda to the traffic signal at Radha Swami Road in connection with investigation of FIR No. 219/2018. He stated that at the spot, the accused Sahil @ Chintu, Anil and Ashwani @ Ashu were produced before the IO by the Special Staff, and he identified all of them in court. He further stated that the accused were then taken to the police station, where their separate disclosure statements were recorded. PW-4 Digitally signed by proved seizure memo of motorcycle as Ex.PW4/A; the SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:29 disclosure statement of accused Anil as Ex.PW4/B, that of +0530 accused Ashwani as Ex.PW4/C, and that of accused Sahil as Ex.PW4/D. PW-4 also deposed that the accused persons led the police to a plot behind Kakrola Housing Complex, where they pointed out and got recovered a Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle No. DL8S CF 2333. The motorcycle was seized by the IO. He further stated that he could identify the said motorcycle. The five photographs of the motorcycle shown to him in court were correctly identified by him which were already Ex.PW2/F (colly).
11. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW4 stated that adjoining the vacant plot there were built up house. Many public persons were present at the spot who were witnessing the recovery proceedings.
e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 6 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others
12. PW-5 Ms. Upasana Satija, Ld. ACJ/ARC/CCJ deposed that on 11.09.2018, she was serving as MM (NI Act), South-West District, Dwarka Courts, and on that day she conducted the Test Identification Proceedings (TIP) of accused Sahil @ Chintu, Ashwini @ Ashu, Aarif, and Anil at Tihar Jail. She stated that the TIP proceedings of accused Sahil @ Chintu, already on record as Ex.PW2/B, were conducted by her, and during those proceedings the complainant correctly identified the accused. PW-5 proved the TIP proceedings of accused Ashwini @ Ashu as Ex.PW5/A and stated that the complainant failed to identify him during TIP. She further proved the TIP proceedings of accused Aarif as Ex.PW5/B, Digitally signed by and again stated that the complainant failed to identify this SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:29 accused. She also proved the TIP proceedings of accused Anil +0530 as Ex.PW5/C and stated that the complainant correctly identified him during TIP.
13. PW-6 Inspector Arvind Kumar deposed that on the intervening night of 21/22.08.2018, while posted as SI at the Operation Cell, Dwarka District, he along with other staff members--SI Naveen, SI Subhash, HC Umesh, HC Raj Kumar, Const. Ashwani and Const. Raj Kumar--was on night trap and patrolling duty pursuant to DD No. 14 dated 21.08.2018. They were using a private car and a government motorcycle. He stated that at about 3.38 a.m., while they were near Kargil Chowk, SI Naveen received information from the Control Room that three suspicious persons on a black motorcycle were moving from Dwarka Sector-18 towards Golf Course Road, Sector-23. Acting on this information, the e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 7 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others police team moved towards Golf Course Road and, near Shamshan Ghat red light, noticed a black motorcycle moving towards Sector-23. When the suspects saw the police, they attempted to flee. The police chased them and at about 3.45 a.m., the suspects' motorcycle skidded and fell while attempting to turn towards Radha Swami Road. PW-6 further deposed that the police party tried to apprehend the suspects. SI Naveen asked them to surrender, but the rider directed his associates to fire at the police. The person sitting in the middle took out a desi katta and fired towards the police, while the third person aimed a single-barrel rifle at them. In response, SI Naveen fired one round in the air in self-defence, Digitally signed by after which the suspects were overpowered. The person who SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:27 fired was apprehended by SI Naveen and was later identified +0530 as Sahil @ Chintu; the person holding the rifle was apprehended by HC Umesh and identified as Ashwani @ Ashu; and the rider was apprehended by Const. Raj Kumar and identified as Anil Kumar. PW-6 correctly identified accused Sahil, Ashwani and Anil in court.
14. PW-6 further deposed that he conducted their cursory search and recovered one live cartridge from the right pocket of accused Sahil. He checked the desi katta recovered from Sahil and found one empty cartridge inside it. PW-6 prepared the sketch of the desi katta, empty cartridge and live cartridge, which he proved as Ex.PW6/A. He further proved the seizure memo of the said articles as Ex.PW6/B. He also prepared the sketch of the single-barrel rifle and seized it, after completing formalities including preparation of FSL e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 8 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others forms and handing over the seal to Const. Ashwani. PW-6 stated that he seized the motorcycle DL4S BX 8206 recovered from the accused through a seizure memo.
Thereafter, he prepared a rukka and sent it through Const. Ashwani for registration of FIR, after which the further investigation was taken over by SI P.R. Hooda. During his testimony, a sealed envelope was produced from the malkhana and opened in court. PW-6 identified the desi katta and two empty cartridges as the same articles recovered during the incident. The desi katta was exhibited as Ex.P-1, and the empty cartridges as Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3.
15. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, Digitally signed by PW6 stated that on the date of incident, there was no police SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:26 picket from Kargil Chowk to Radha Swami Satsang Cross, +0530 Golf Course Road, Dwarka Sector-23. PW6 did not know whether any CCTV cameras were installed at Radha Swami Satsang crossing. He did not notice any public person walking near the place of incident.
16. PW7 Inspector Ranjeev Kumar deposed that on 23.08.2018, while posted with Special Staff, Dwarka, he was informed that two suspects had been apprehended near Government School, Matiala Village. He reached the spot and took over investigation of FIR No. 725/18, PS Bindapur. He stated that he arrested accused Aarif and another person named Chiranjeet, who had been caught on a scooty. PW-7 identified accused Aarif in court. He proved the arrest memo of Aarif as Ex.PW7/A and his disclosure statement as Ex.PW7/B. e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 9 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others
17. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW7 stated that he did not remember if accused Ashwani, Sahil and Anil were already in custody when FIR No.725/18 was registered. He admitted that there was no public witness in the entire proceedings conducted by him.
18. PW-8 Inspector Naveen Kumar deposed that on the night of 21/22.08.2018, while posted with Special Staff Dwarka, he along with SI Arvind and other staff was on night patrolling duty. At about 3.40 a.m., he received information that three suspicious persons on a black motorcycle were moving from Sector-18 towards Golf Course Road. Near Shamshan Ghat red light, they located the said motorcycle, whose riders Digitally signed by attempted to flee but fell shortly thereafter. PW-8 deposed SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:27 that when the police moved to apprehend them, the rider told +0530 his associates to fire. Accused Sahil took out a desi katta and fired, while accused Ashwani aimed a rifle. PW-8 fired one round in the air in self-defence, after which the police apprehended all three: Sahil (caught by PW-8), Ashwani (by HC Umesh) and Anil (by Ct. Raj Kumar). Their search was conducted by SI Arvind, who recovered one live cartridge from Sahil and one empty cartridge from the desi katta. PW-8 further deposed that SI Arvind prepared the sketch of the desi katta and cartridges, which PW-8 proved as Ex.PW6/A, and also proved the seizure memo of these articles as Ex.PW6/B. The single-barrel rifle was also sketched and seized. The motorcycle DL4S-BX-8206 was seized, and SI Arvind prepared the rukka, after which further investigation was handed over to SI P.R. Hooda. PW-8 further stated that on e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 10 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others 23.08.2018, HC Umesh informed him about suspects Aarif and Charanjeet roaming near DPS School, Matiala, with illegal weapons. PW-8 directed him to form a raiding party, which later apprehended both accused, leading to registration of a separate case at PS Bindapur. In court, a sealed parcel was opened, and PW-8 identified the desi katta and two empty cartridges already exhibited as Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3.
19. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW8 stated that his statement was recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC by IO SI Hansraj. The documents were prepared by SI Arvind which were signed by him. PW8 further stated that he was Digitally signed by sure when he signed the documents about the sections which SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:30 would invoke against accused persons. Till the time PW8 +0530 remained at the spot, accused was not taken to anywhere else for recovery of anything.
20. PW9 Ram Kumar Singh, Primary Teacher, MCD produced the original Admission Register No. 6 and Admission Pasting File No. 12. He stated that Aarif Ali Sayad was admitted to the school on 21.07.2006 in class III under admission no. 3927, with date of birth recorded as 02.09.1998. Admission was based on a self-declaration by his mother Najma. He compared the attested copies with the originals. He proved entry no. 3927 of Admission Pasting File as Ex.PW9/A, the self-declaration as Ex.PW9/B, and entry no. 3927 of Admission Register No. 6 as Ex.PW9/C.
21. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW9 admitted that no proof in respect of date of birth, issued e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 11 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others by either hospital or MCD or any other authority has been produced at the time of admission of Aarif Ali in their school. PW9 further admitted that no document was taken from the parents of Aarif Ali in respect of his previous school as they admitted him in class 3rd.
22. PW10 Prashant Kumar, Junior Assistant in Transport Office deposed that Royal Enfield Motorcycle No. DL8S CF 2333 was registered in the name of Devi Dutt Singh and proved certificate in this regard as Ex.PW10/A. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
23. PW11 ASI Rajpal deposed that on 12.10.2018, while posted as HC at PS Dwarka North, he went to SDMC Razapur Khurd Digitally signed by on IO's instructions, met the Principal, and collected attested SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:29 documents relating to Aarif Ali Sayad, showing his date of +0530 birth as 02.09.1998. He handed over the documents to the IO, including entry no. 3927 of Admission Pasting File already Ex.PW9/A, the self-declaration already Ex.PW9/B, and entry no. 3927 of Admission Register No. 6 already Ex.PW9/C. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
24. PW12 HC Raj Kumar stated that on 23.08.2018, while posted as Constable at Special Staff Dwarka, he received secret information from HC Umesh about two offenders involved in Dwarka robberies coming near DPS School, Matiala. Inspector Naveen directed a raid, and a team including him, ASI Mahavir, HC Umesh, HC Raj Kumar, Const. Raj Kumar, Const. Ashok and Const. Vipin proceeded to the spot. When recalled, he added that accused Aarif (present in Court and e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 12 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others correctly identified) was arrested in FIR No. 725/18 through arrest memo already Ex.PW7/A. He proved Aarif's disclosure statement already Ex.PW7/B.
25. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW12 stated that at the time of recording of disclosure statement of Aarif, no public person was joined in the investigation as the same was recorded in the office of Special Staff. He admitted that no public person was joined at the time of personal search of accused Aarif. Other accused persons namely Sahil, Anil and Ashwani were already in Police Custody prior to arrest of accused Aarif.
26. PW13 SI P.R. Hudda deposed that on 22.08.2018, while Digitally signed by posted at PS Dwarka Sector-23, he took over investigation of SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:28 FIR No. 219/18 and reached the t-point near Radha Swami +0530 Satsang Bhawan, where SI Arvind handed over to him the seized motorcycle DL4SBX8206, a barrel rifle with cartridge, and a desi katta with one live and one empty cartridge, all sealed with seal "AK", along with their seizure memos and sketches. He interrogated and arrested accused Ashwani @ Ashu, Sahil @ Chintu and Anil, conducted their personal search, filled the FSL form, deposited case property in malkhana, and recorded their disclosure statements. He proved disclosure statements of accused Sahil as Ex.PW4/D, Ashwani as Ex.PW4/C and Anil as Ex.PW4/B. PW13 stated that the accused led police to Kakrola Housing Complex where a Royal Enfield Bullet DL8SCF2333 was recovered and seized under memo already Ex.PW4/A; and Photographs e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 13 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others are already Ex.PW2/F. PW13 identified accused Sahil in Court and identity of Ashwani was not disputed.
27. In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, PW13 stated that he did not join any public person at the time of recovery of bullet. He did not verify the ownership of said bullet.
28. PW14 HC Krishan produced Registers No. 19 and 21 of PS Dwarka Sec-23. He stated that on 22.08.2018, SI Arvind deposited a black Apache motorcycle DL4SBX8206 along with other case property in FIR No. 219/18. The motorcycle was later handed over to Constable Parveen for delivery to the IO of e-FIR No. 29163/2018, PS Dwarka North, vide RC Digitally signed by No. 108/21/18. He proved copy of the entry as Ex.PW14/A SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:28 and copy of the RC as Ex.PW14/B. In his cross-examination +0530 conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that he did not make the abovesaid entries.
29. PW15 HC Naveen Kumar deposed that on 20.08.2018, while posted at PS Dwarka North, he received e-FIR No. 29163/18 u/s 379 IPC. He called complainant Devi Dutt Sharma near Pink Apartment, Sector-18, recorded his statement and prepared the site plan already Ex.PW2/C. He then handed over the case file to MHC(R) for further marking. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW15 stated that after receiving copy of e-FIR he went to the spot, called the complainant and recorded his statement. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant at the spot. No public witness was called at the spot by him at the time of preparation of site plan.
e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 14 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others
30. PW16 Inspector Hansraj Swami deposed that on 22.08.2018, while posted as SI at PS Dwarka North, the present case file was assigned to him. He recorded the complainant's statement and then received information about recovery of case property and arrest of accused Ashwani, Sahil and Anil by PS Dwarka Sector-23. He collected documents and the recovered Bullet motorcycle (DL8SCF2333) brought via road certificate. On 24.08.2018, he received information regarding arrest of accused Aarif by Special Staff. On 29.08.2018, he moved an application for court permission to arrest the accused, which he proved as Ex.PW16/A, and thereafter arrested all accused vide arrest memos Digitally signed by Ex.PW16/A-1 to Ex.PW16/A-4. He recorded their disclosure SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:29 statements proved as Ex.PW16/B-1 to Ex.PW16/B-4. He +0530 prepared the age memo of Aarif as Ex.PW16/C. He moved an application for judicial TIP, proved as Ex.PW16/D. On 11.09.2018, judicial TIP was conducted; the complainant identified Sahil @ Chintu, Anil and Aarif but not Ashwani.
He collected TIP proceedings proved as Ex.PW16/E and the TIP proceedings as Ex.PW16/F (colly). On 12.09.2018, he interrogated Ashwani and Aarif in another related FIR and recorded their supplementary disclosure statements Ex.PW16/G and Ex.PW16/H. The complainant later visited the PS and identified Ashwani there. The motorcycle was released on superdari; the superdarinama is Ex.PW2/D, the panchnama Ex.PW2/E, and photographs Ex.PW2/F. He recorded further statement of complainant. Ashwani and Aarif led police to the spot and he prepared pointing-out e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 15 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others memos-Ex.PW16/I and Ex.PW16/J. On 13.09.2018, he interrogated Anil and Sahil and recorded their supplementary disclosures Ex.PW16/K and Ex.PW16/L, followed by pointing-out memos Ex.PW16/M and Ex.PW16/N. He stated that he recorded statements of witnesses and that Const. Giriraj remained with him. He identified accused Ashwani, Sahil and Aarif in Court.
31. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW16 admitted that no case property was recovered in his presence. He further stated that he recorded first disclosure statement of accused persons in the court after their formal arrest. He further admitted that no public person was joined in Digitally signed by SHIVALI the investigation at that time.
SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:27 +0530
32. PW17 HC Girraj Prasad deposed that on 29.08.2018, while posted at PS Dwarka North, he joined investigation with SI Hansraj Swami. At Dwarka Courts, all four accused Ashwani @ Ashu, Anil, Aarif and Sahil were formally arrested with court permission vide arrest memos Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A4. Their disclosure statements were recorded as Ex.PW16/B1 to Ex.PW16/B4. PW17 again joined investigation on 12.09.2018 when accused Ashwani and Aarif were brought in another FIR on police custody remand. They were interrogated in the present case. Complainant Devi Dutt came to the PS, identified both accused as involved in the bike robbery, and stated he could not identify Ashwani during TIP because the accused was staring at him. The motorcycle was released on superdari. Their supplementary disclosures are Ex.PW16/G and Ex.PW16/H. Both accused e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 16 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others led police to the spot and pointing-out memos Ex.PW16/I and Ex.PW16/J were prepared. IO also prepared Adam Baramadagi Purse Memo of Aarif, proved as Ex.PW17/A. On 13.09.2018, he again joined investigation when accused Anil and Sahil were brought on police custody remand. He proved their disclosure statements as Ex.PW16/K and Ex.PW16/L. They led police to the spot and pointing-out memos Ex.PW16/M and Ex.PW16/N were prepared. He identified accused Aarif and Ashwani in Court and stated he could identify Sahil if shown. IO also recorded his statement.
33. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW17 admitted that accused persons were arrested on Digitally signed by SHIVALI 21.8.2018 by the Police Official of some other Police Station SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:27 +0530 but he cannot tell if they were shown to any public person or victim on that day by the concerned police official. He admitted that nothing was recovered in his presence.
34. PW18 Manisha, Data Entry Operator, Transport Authority brought record pertaining to registered vehicle No. DL8SCF2333 and proved the same as Ex.PW18/A. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
35. Statement u/s 313 CrPC of accused persons Ashwani @ Ashu, Sahil @ Chintu and Aarif were recorded wherein accused persons were briefed on all the incriminating ocular and documentary evidence to which they denied and further deposed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 17 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others
36. All the accused persons led defence evidence and examined two witnesses namely HC Mahesh Chand as DW1 and Love Arya as DW2 in support of their defence.
37. DW1 HC Mahesh Chand deposed that he was given custody of accused persons on 22.8.2018 at around 8.45 a.m. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that from the time of arrest of accused persons till they were produced in the court, he remained with accused persons. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were already in police custody on 21.8.2018 at Police Post Dwarka Courts in some other cases.
38. DW2 Love Arya deposed that in 2018, on his Digitally signed by complaint/statement, FIR No.259/18 PS Dwarka South u/s SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:30 327/379 IPC was registered. He relied upon said FIR (Mark +0530 DW2/A). He stated that incident occurred on 19.8.2018 and FIR was registered on 20.8.2018. On 21.8.2018 his stolen motorcycle was recovered from Near Pani Ki Tanki, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar. On 21.8.2018, DW1 saw Ashwani @ Ashu and two other persons in Police Post, Dwarka Sector-10 and identified them. DW1 further stated that he was never called by the Police for investigation of said case.
39. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, DW1 stated that his motorcycle was stolen at about 11.30 PM on 19.8.2018 and he was taken to hospital in midnight.
40. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Krishan Murari, Ld. Addl. PP (substitute) for the State and Sh. L.S. Gautum, Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 18 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others
41. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has argued that PW2 Devi Dutt Singh has supported the case of the prosecution. He has identified all the accused persons in the court who are involved in the commission of robbery. It is further contended that PW2 identified accused Sahil and Anil during TIP proceedings to be the assailants involved in the commission of robbery. It is further argued that stolen bike was recovered at the instance of accused persons when they were arrested by Police Raiding Team in FIR No.219/18 PS Dwarka Sector-23, New Delhi and no recovery was made in the present FIR. PW2 has specifically identified accused Digitally signed by Sahil who pointed pistol like weapon upon him. It is also SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:29 argued that all PWs have supported the story of the +0530 prosecution and therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt. He also argued that the all the proceedings have been duly proved by the police witnesses and hence the accused persons should be convicted under all the Sections of law under which charges have been framed against them.
42. Per Contra, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his point, he argued that during cross-examination PW2 Devi Dutt Singh has stated that he might have incorrectly identified the accused persons. Moreover, no public person has joined the investigation along with the police officials, so as to show that a free and fair investigation was carried out by the police officials. It is also argued that the police officials have made a e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 19 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others false case against the accused persons. It is also argued that he accused persons were in the custody of police officials on 21.08.2018 and the police officials had falsely implicated accused persons Anil, Ashwani and Sahil in case FIR No.219/18 PS Dwarka Sector-23. It is further argued that investigation is faulty and there are major contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses. No public witness was joined at the time of recovery of stolen bike despite their availability at the spot. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has relied upon the testimony of DW2 Love Arya, who is the complainant in FIR No. 259/18 u/s 327/379 PS Dwarka South. It is argued that DW2 in his testimony has specifically Digitally signed by stated that the accused persons were seen by him on SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:27 21.08.2018 in police post, Sector-10, Dwarka. It is also +0530 argued that the prosecution story cannot be relied upon. He further argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, the accused person should be acquitted under all sections of law under which charges has been framed against them.
43. In the present case, charges under Sections 392/397/411/34 IPC have been framed against the accused persons. These Sections have been elaborated as under: -
"392. Punishment for robbery.--Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.--If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 20 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
44. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, Digitally signed by perused the material available on record, scrutinized the SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:28 evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant +0530 provisions of law.
45. As per prosecution story, in the intervening night of 19/20.8.2018 at 1.30 a.m. Near Pink Apartment, Sector-18, Dwarka, New Delhi accused Sahil @ Chintu committed robbery of motorcycle bearing No.DL8SCF-2333 from complainant Devi Dutt Singh and on 22.08.2018 the said motorcycle was recovered at the instance of all the accused persons from a vacant plot at the backside of Kakrola Housing Complex.
46. Though complainant PW2 Devi Dutt Singh identified accused Sahil to be the person who showed him pistol like weapon and also deposed that he had identified accused Sahil and Anil in TIP proceedings, in his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel on 23.7.2022 he stated e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 21 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others that he had a little span of time for identifying the offenders and he might have committed a mistake in identifying them. Taking a U turn, he further admitted that he did not see pistol in hands of accused persons. He further stated that as the incident was for a spur a moment so he was not sure of the identity of the assailant and that is why he had not identified accused persons correctly. He further admitted that he could not identify accused Ashwani in TIP proceedings.
47. A perusal of testimony of PW4 HC Rajender Singh shows that this witness admitted that at the time of recovery of robbed motorcycle, several public persons were present and were witnessing the recovery proceedings. However, no Digitally signed by public person was joined in the invetigation. SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:26
48. There are contradictions in the testimony of other witnesses +0530 also. PW15 HC Naveen Kumar deposed that on 20.8.2018 while being posted at PS Dwarka North, he prepared site plan of the spot (Ex.PW2/C) at the instance of the complainant. On the other hand, PW2 had stated that Police recorded his statement on 22.8.2018 in the morning at Police Station. In his cross-examination, PW2 had stated that police had recorded his statement after 2 days of lodging the e-FIR. He further stated that his statement was recorded at about 10 a.m at the spot. The present incident had taken place in the intervening night of 19.8.2018 & 20.8.2018 at about 1.30 A.M. On 20.8.2018 complainant lodged e-FIR. His statement was recorded after two days of the lodging of the e-FIR. Then, how it is possible that PW15 HC Naveen Kumar prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant PW2 e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 22 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others on 20.8.2018 even prior to recording of his statement. All these facts cast a doubt in the story of the prosecution.
49. There is an other lacuna in the testimony of police officials.
PW16 Inspector Hansraj Swami who stated that on 22.8.2018 the present case was assigned to him and then he recorded statement of complainant u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in the Police Station. He further deposed that on 29.8.2018 he moved an application for obtaining permission from the court for arrest of the accused persons. The question arises when accused Ashwani @ Ashu and Sahil were already in custody, why there is delay of seven days in their formal arrest by the police officials. PW16 also admitted that no public person was Digitally signed by joined in the investigation. In cross-examination, PW16 SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:25 admitted that no case property was recovered in his presence. +0530 He further admitted that no recovery was effected on the basis of disclosure statements of the accused persons.
50. PW17 HC Girraj Prasad also admitted that there were public persons, however, none of them were joined in the investigation. He also deposed that he did not know since when accused persons were in police custody. PW17 admitted that accused persons were arrested on 21.8.2018 by the police officials of some other police station but he cannot tell if they were shown to any public person or victim on that day by the concerned police official. He admitted that nothing was recovered in his presence. He also stated that he did not know the sequence in which statements were recorded and documents were prepared.
e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 23 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others
51. In case FIR No.219/18 PS Dwarka Sector 23 accused Ashwani and Sahil were stated to be arrested by Police on
22.8.2018 at 9.15 A.M.
52. The entire case of the prosecution is built upon the testimony of police witnesses in whose testimonies there are material inconsistencies. However, for conviction of accused persons it is essential that the prosecution proves its case beyond doubt. Upon close scrutiny of testimony of abovesaid witnesses, it is clear that except for police officials, there is no independent witness/public person, who had joined the investigation, at any point in time. There is no witness who had seen police officials recovering the stolen bike. There is Digitally signed by no DD entry showing the departure time or arrival time of the SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:28 police officials at the time of recovery and for carrying out +0530 investigation of the present case.
53. The testimony of PW13 SI P. R.Hudda assumes significance in the facts and circumstances of present case. PW13 SI P.R. Hudda was cross examined in detail and from his testimony the loophole in the investigation at the time of recovery of stolen bike became evident, which has severely dented the story of the prosecution. He deposed as under:-
"... I do not remember whether the key of the bullet motorcycle was also recovered or not. The said bullet was taken to PS with the help of crane. The crane was hired by me. I do not have bill of the same. I did not join any public person at the time of recovery of bullet. I did not verify the ownership of the said bullet. ..."
54. Keeping in mind the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses, the case of the prosecution is examined under the following heads: -
e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 24 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others
(a) Absence of public witnesses
55. It is a well-settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation. Reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of the judgment in Pawan Kumar Vs. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:-
"... According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public Digitally witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL public person was present there. It hardly stands to BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 16:20:26 +0530 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations.
Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
56. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-
e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 25 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been held in Appabhai & Another Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
(b) Departure entry not proved
57. Police officials are under a statutory duty to mark their departure and arrival in the register kept in the police station for the purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules. It is relevant Digitally signed by here to reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:25 Rules, 1934, which reads as under: -
+0530 "22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II- The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered: -
The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained."
58. Since public persons were not joined in the investigation, the departure entry of the aforesaid police official, who were allegedly on patrolling duty at the relevant time and had apprehended the accused with case property, becomes a vital piece of evidence. No departure entry is stated to have been e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 26 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others made while going for the recovery of the stolen bike in the present case. No such daily diary entry regarding departure of police is, however, present on record. The prosecution has not brought on record any proof of the said entries, and the same is indispensable as the present case rests solely on the alleged recovery made by the aforesaid police officials.
(c) Testimony of DW2 Sh. Love Arya who is a complainant in FIR No. 259/18
59. As per the testimony of DW2 Sh. Love Arya, who is the complainant in FIR No. 259/18, PS Dwarka South u/s 327/379 IPC deposed that on 19.08.2018 and 20.08.2018 his bike was stolen for which FIR was registered. On next day Digitally signed by i.e., 21.08.2018, his stolen motorcycle was recovered from SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:26 near pani ki tanki, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, which +0530 means the said stolen bike was never recovered from the accused persons as alleged by the prosecution in the said case.
60. Secondly, he also stated that on 21.08.2018, he had seen accused Ashwani @ Ashu and 2 others in police post, Dwarka, Sector-10. He identified them there. This falsifies the entire case of the prosecution that accused persons were arrested on 22.8.2018 and, consequently, the stolen vehicle was recovered. There is manipulation by the Police officials as is evident from the record.
61. All these casts doubt as to the manner of investigation and these contradictions and lacuna in the investigation gives indication of certain manipulation by the police officials for the reasons best known to them. There is no independent recovery witness examined by the prosecution. The e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 27 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others complainant/PW2 Devi Dutt Singh has resiled from the identification done by him in his examination-in-chief. The story put forth in the chargesheet appears to be highly improbable.
62. It is a settled proposition of law that while the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, the defence of the accused persons has to be considered on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. The accused persons in the present case have been able to create doubt upon the story of the prosecution for which benefit has to be given to them. Accordingly, the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.
Digitally signed by
63. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:25 prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity +0530 but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling quality.
64. In case titled as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, it is held that: -
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness"
should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 28 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of Digitally the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 16:20:26 such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a +0530 witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
65. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) SCC 170, it is held that: -
"23.It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 29 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others quality."
66. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
67. In the instant case, prosecution witnesses had not inspired confidence and their evidence cannot be said to be of sterling quality.
68. It is established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be Digitally accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.12.04 as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable 16:20:29 +0530 doubt.
69. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows: -
"The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the ac- cused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the ap- pellants were the real culprits."
70. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another, 2007 (6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: -
"The golden thread which runs through the web of ad- ministration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 30 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others his innocence, the view which is favourable to the ac- cused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is pre- vented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reap- preciate the evidence where the accused has been acquit- ted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
71. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC and u/s 25/27 Arms Act, against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
72. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused Digitally signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
persons namely Ashwani @ Ashu, Sahil @ Chintu and Aarif 2025.12.04 16:20:30 +0530 are hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 392/397/411/34 IPC. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to the sureties against proper acknowledgment.
73. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(SHIVALI BANSAL) Announced in the open ASJ-02, DWARKA COURTS, Court on 04.12.2025. S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI e-FIR No. 29163/2018. Page No. 31 of 31 PS Dwarka North State Vs. Ashwani @ Ashu & others