Delhi District Court
State vs Kalu @ Raju on 19 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-05, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Dr. Aneeza Bishnoi, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 88106/2016
Unique Case ID No. -: DLSE020011292016
FIR No. -: 209/2016
Police Station -: Sarita Vihar
Section(s) -: 392/411/174A IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
KALU @ RAJU & ANR.
.... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Ms. Mona Balani
1. Kalu @ Raju
2. Name of Accused :
2. Kartar (already acquitted)
Offence complained of or
3. : 392/411/174A IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
5. Date of registration of FIR : 01.05.2016 Date of filing of
6. : 01.07.2016 chargesheet
7. Date of Reserving Order : 27.02.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2026
9. Final Order : Convicted Argued by -: Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Karanjeet, Ld. LAC for accused.
Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI Cr. Case 88106/2016 State v. Kalu @ Raju Page 1 of 11
-:J U D G M E N T:-
1. The case of prosecution is that on 01.05.2016 at about 08:00 PM, near Arya Samaj Road, T-point, Sarita Vihar Road, Sarita Vihar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar, accused Kalu alongwith co-accused (Kartar @ Rinku), in furtherance of their common intention with each other committed robbery by snatching gold chain from the possession of of complainant Ms. Mona Balani. Further, on 12.06.2016, at H.No. H-43, Aali Vihar, Sarita Vihar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar, the piece of above-said gold chain was recovered from the possession of accused as per seizure memo Mark-X, knowing or having reason to believe that the same was stolen property, and thereby accused is alleged to have committed offence punishable u/s 392/411 IPC. Further, on 19.12.2019, accused was apprehended by by the police as he was declared PO vide order dated 15.04.2019 by the then Ld. MM in the present FIR, and thereby accused is alleged to have committed offence punishable u/s 174A IPC.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED-
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed. After taking cognizance of the offence, accused was summoned to face trial.
Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI Cr. Case 88106/2016 State v. Kalu @ Raju Page 2 of 11
3. On their appearance, copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charges were framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE -
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : HC Data Ram PW-2 : Ms. Mona Rani PW-3 : HC Manoj Kumar PW-4 : Ct. Rohtash PW-5 : HC Vinod PW-6 : SI Mukesh Kumar PW-7 : SI Satish Chand PW-8 : Ct. Hansraj WITNESSES OF SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE-SHEET PW-9 : ASI Shambhu Tiwari PW-10 : ASI Dinesh Kumar PW-11 : HC Raj Kumar DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW-1/A : FIR Ex. PW-1/B : Rukka Ex. PW-2/A : Statement of complainant Ex. PW-2/B : TIP Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI Cr. Case 88106/2016 State v. Kalu @ Raju Page 3 of 11 Ex. PW-2/C : TIP of case property Indemnity bond regarding release of Ex. PW-2/D :
chain Ex. PW-3/A : Arrest memo Ex. PW-3/B : Disclosure statement Ex. PW-4/A : Pointing out memo Ex. PW-5/A : DD number Ex. PW-5/B : Seizure memo of mobile phone Ex. PW-5/C : Personal search memo Ex. PW-5/D : Arrest memo of accused Ex. PW-5/E : Disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW-5/F : Seizure memo of motorcycle Ex. PW-5/G : Site plan Ex. PW-5/I : DD no.30A Ex. PW-5/X : Kalandra u/s 41.1(d) Ex. PW-10/A : Arrest memo of accused u/s 174A IPC Ex. PW-10/B : Personal search memo Ex. P1 & P2 : Photographs STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE -
5. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC. Accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed any offence. All the witnesses have deposed against him at the instance of complainant and IO. He is innocent. Thereafter, accused closed his DE without leading any evidence.
Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI Cr. Case 88106/2016 State v. Kalu @ Raju Page 4 of 11 ARGUMENTS -
6. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
7. It is argued by the learned APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offences are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that the testimony of the eyewitnesses has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has argued that the main witness has stated that she could not see the face of accused persons and she has been shown the face of accused Kalu at jail premises before conducting. It has been further argued that no witness has been cited by the prosecution. No independent witness to the recovery has been mentioned in the charge-sheet. The accused has been falsely implicated and there is nothing on record with respect to the bike involved in the alleged incident.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE -
9. Section 390 of the IPC provides that:-
When theft is robbery --Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI Cr. Case 88106/2016 State v. Kalu @ Raju Page 5 of 11 wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery -- Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person, so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
10. As per section 390 of the IPC, a theft is robber when to commit the theft or carry away stolen property, the offender causes or attempt to cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint or instills fear of any of these. Similarly, extortion is a robbery when offender, present at the time , puts the victim in fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint to induce them to deliver the property.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE -
11. The case of the prosecution hinges on the testimony of the star witness, PW-2/Ms. Mona who is not only the sole eye witness but also the complainant/injured himself who has been cited by the prosecution in the list of witnesses and there are no other pubic eye witnesses who were either interrogated or made a witness in the present case. In his examination in chief, PW-2 deposed that she could see the face of pillion rider when he removed his helmet. She has also identified the accused Kalu during the TIP proceedings and has also correctly identified the case property during the TIP proceedings of case property.
12. In his cross-examination, the complainant reaffirmed Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI Cr. Case 88106/2016 State v. Kalu @ Raju Page 6 of 11 the allegations that has levelled against the accused Kalu. Further, she has also denied the suggestions that no such incident ever took place and that she was shown the photographs of accused Kalu before conducting TIP.
13. The testimony of the complainant prove the version/prosecution since complainant's/PW-2 testimony clearly mentions that accused has forcefully snatched her chain. The said testimony of the complainant established all the ingredients of section 390 Indian Penal Code. After perusing the said testimony, the court is of considered opinion that the testimony can be relied upon. The testimony of the complainant has remained consistent with her statement given to the police. The testimony of the complainant has remained unshaken throughout the examination and cross-examination. Ld. counsel for the accused was not able to contradict the version of the complainant on any material count during the cross-examination. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the testimony of the complainant, especially considering the fact that the complainant is an injured witness.
14. It is a settled position of law that the testimony of an injured witness is accorded greater value in law, due to the reason that such a witness would seldom implicate someone falsely and let the real culprit go scot-free. In the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719, the Hon'ble Apex Court relying on its earlier judgments reiterated that special evidentiary status should be accorded to an injured witness. Relevant part of the judgement is reproduced as under:
Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI Cr. Case 88106/2016 State v. Kalu @ Raju Page 7 of 11
28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235, this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629, a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross- examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below.
15. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the evidentiary value of the testimony of an injured witness in the following words:
26. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".
28. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI Cr. Case 88106/2016 State v. Kalu @ Raju Page 8 of 11 injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
16. Accordingly, it is a settled position in law that the testimony of an injured witness is a highly corroborative piece of evidence. Unless 'highly compelling circumstances' are established on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, which cast a reasonable doubt over the statement of the injured witness, such statement can be safely relied upon by the Courts to convict the accused. Therefore, the testimony of PW-2 needs to be accorded great weight considering the fact that she is an injured witness.
17. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that no other public persons has been examined by the prosecution to support the prosecution case. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that independent witnesses were present there, it is pertinent to note that it is not uncommon for independent members of public to be reluctant to become witnesses in criminal proceedings. In fact, this exact contention was dealt in detail and rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambika Prasad v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2000) 2 SCC 646:
12. It is next contended that despite the fact that 20 to 25 persons collected at the spot at the time of the incident as deposed by the prosecution witnesses, not a single independent witness has been examined and, therefore, no reliance should be placed on the evidence of PW 5 and PW 7. This submission also deserves to be rejected. It is a known fact that independent persons are reluctant to be witnesses or to assist the investigation. Reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, in cases where injured witnesses or the close relative of the deceased are under constant threat and they dare not depose the truth before the court, independent witnesses believe that their safety is not guaranteed. That belief cannot be said to be without any substance. Another reason may be the delay in recording the evidence of independent witnesses Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI Cr. Case 88106/2016 State v. Kalu @ Raju Page 9 of 11 and repeated adjournments in the court. In any case, if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, the prosecution cannot be blamed and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses.
18. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of UP v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998, has held that public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the court and that it is not correct to reject the prosecution version for want of corroboration by independent witnesses:
15. Of late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version.
The Privy Council had an occasion to observe this. In Bankim Bihari Maiti v. Matangini Dasi [AIR 1919 PC 157 : 24 Cal WN 626] the Privy Council had this to say (at p. 628):
"That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that a case must be a false case if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly untrue. There is, on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigants ....to back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence."
19. Therefore, lack of joining of public witnesses cannot be termed as major discrepancy which can negative the testimony of the PW-2/complainant. However, the prosecution has failed to show Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI Cr. Case 88106/2016 State v. Kalu @ Raju Page 10 of 11 the part of common intention on behalf of accused in order to commit the present crime.
20. With respect to offence under section 174A IPC against accused, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 have been examined in chief and Ld. Counsel for the accused has not cross-examined the above-said witnesses except PW-9 where only one suggestion was put. Hence, the deposition given by the witnesses has remained unrebutted and stands proved against the accused. Hence, the offence u/s 174A IPC is proved against accused.
-:CONCLUSION:-
21. To conclude, this court is of the opinion that the testimony of complainant is cogent and convincing. There is no reason to disbelieve or doubt the version given by the complainant. Accordingly, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
22. Consequently, accused Kalu @ Raju S/o Nanak Chand is hereby CONVICTED for the offences punishable under section 392/411/174A IPC.
Pronounced in open court on 19.03.2026 in presence of the accused. This judgement contains 11 pages, and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally ANEEZA signed by (Dr. Aneeza Bishnoi) BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI Judicial Magistrate First Class-05 South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/19.03.2026 Cr. Case 88106/2016 State v. Kalu @ Raju Page 11 of 11