Delhi District Court
State vs Shubham on 24 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs Shubham & Ors.
FIR No.: 316/2023
U/s : 386/392/397/411/
120B/34 IPC & U/s 4/25 Arms Act
PS : Badarpur
SC No. : 201/2024
Brief Details Of The Case
FIR Number : 316/2023
Offence complained of : U/s 386/392/397/411/
120B/34 IPC & U/s 4/25 Arms Act
Date of Offence : 21/22.08.2023
Name of the complainant : Manoj Kumar Yadav
S/o Sh. Sanjay Yadav
R/o H.No.13, Gali No.1,
Nangli Razapur, Sarai Kale
Khan, New Delhi
Name of the accused : 1. Shubham
S/o Sh. Niren
R/o Gali No.1, Tailor Ka
Kamaan, Nangli Razapur, Sarai
Kale Khan, New Delhi
FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 1 of 36
2. Anoop Tiwari @ Pandit
S/o Sh. Chander Sain Tiwari
R/o H.No.C-120, Devli Road,
Jawahar Park, Khanpur, New
Delhi
3. Rohan Singh
S/o Sh. Sunil Kumar
R/o H.No.S-270/10, T-Huts,
Pandara Road, Lodhi Road,
Delhi
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Institution : 25.04.2024
Date of Arguments : 16.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 24.03.2026
Decision : Accused persons acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Shubham, Anoop Tiwari @ Pandit and Rohan Singh, faced trial in this case, for committing offence punishable under Section U/s 386/392/397/411/120B/34 IPC & U/s 4/25 Arms Act.
2. Prosecution case, as per charge-sheet was that on 23.08.2023 SI Dharamvir Singh was on night emergency duty and on the night of 24.08.2023 he was present at PP Sarai Kale Khan. AT that time HC Mukesh alongwith complainant Manoj Yadav came to him, HC Jagresh FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 2 of 36 came with one person namely Shubham and produced him to SI Dharamvir Singh. SI Dharamvir was informed that accused Shubham alongwith some other accomplices were trying to extort money from complainant Manoj Yadav by showing a knife and had taken money from complainant by putting him under fear. Thereafter, HC Jagresh handed over Rs. 2000/- to the IO alongwith one button actuated knife in this regard. Subsequently, IO recorded the statement of complainant Manoj Yadav who informed that he was having one tea and cold drink rehdi at Sarai Kale Khan, near ITO carriage and on 22.08.2023 around 1:00 a.m. in the night, one white Honda City car whose number he did not remember came towards his rehdi and five persons came to his shop/ rehdi. Among the five persons one persons name was accused Anoop who told him "Sarai Kale Khan ka mai badmash hu or mera gang hai or mai uska head hu. Anoop ke sath aye ek or ladke ne apna naam Sanu @ Nishu bataya, or unhone ek swar me bola ki agar yaha rehdi lagani hai to Rs. 2000 hafta dena padega. " Further that the complainant objected to aforesaid demand, upon which the said person said " Hafta nahi dega to chaku mar denge." Thereafter, the aforesaid persons also told the friend of complainant namely Shekhar S/o Balram also to give hafta and threatened him and further, "Anoop Sanu @ Nishu bol kar gaye the ki pehchan karlo, inmese koi bhi vasooli karne aega jo tum logo ko dena hoga.. He further stated at around 9:30 p.m. 2 persons came to his shop, who identified them as persons of Anoop and Shanu @ Nishu. One of the person was carrying a knife and both of them said to the complainant FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 3 of 36 "Mughe Anoop or Sanu @ Nishu bhai ne bheja hai or jaldi se hame hamara hafta de do jispar humne hafta dene se talmatol kia to unme se ek ladke ne apne hath me liye hue chaku ko vaar kar diya, jispar maine apne aap ko peeche karke bachaya, iske baad mai dar gya aur apne galle me se Rs. 2000/- de diye." Further, he tried to made at call at 112 number but found some police officials near the spot and thereafter accompanied 2 police officials near the flyover and found accused Shubham and remaining accused ran away from spot and amount given of Rs. 2000/- was recovered from his possession n presence of police officials and thereafter they went to police station.
3. Upon aforesaid complaint, FIR was registered and IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Shubham and arrested him. Search was made for remaining accused persons and thereafter, CCL S was also apprehended and PIR was also filed qua him. Co-accused Rohan and Gaurav @ Nishu and Anoop Pandit were also searched. Accused Anoop Tiwari @ Pandit was subsequently arrested in another case FIR no. 400/2023 PS S.L. Colony U/s 25 Arms Act and thereafter was apprehended by IO in present matter on 05.11.2023 and his disclosure statement was recorded and accused Anoop @ Pandit was chargesheeted by way of supplementary chargesheet.
4. Further, co-accused Rohan S/o Sunil and Gaurav @ Shanu were also searched but could not be found. Search was also made for the Honda FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 4 of 36 City car. Subsequently, accused Rohan had moved an anticipatory bail application which was dismissed and on 27.03.2024 accused Rohan Singh S/o Sunil Kumar surrendered before police station and joined investigation in the present matter. On 02.04.2024 TIP proceedings were conducted qua accused Gaurav @ Nishu @ shanu and accused Rohan Singh in which complainant identified both abovesaid accused. The car used in offence was seized on 04.04.2024 at the instance of accused Rohan Singh bearing registration no. DL10CM8586, which belonged to the cousin sister of the accused. The car was got identified from the complainant and the same was seized. The call detail record pertaining to mobile phone of accused Gaurav @ Nishu @ shanu was ascertained and it was found that aforesaid accused was present at the spot at the intervening night of 21/22.08.2022. Subsequently, age verification of accused Gaurav @ Nishu @ Shanu was conducted and he was found to be CCL. Accused Rohan was chargesheeted by way of supplementary chargesheet.
5. After investigation chargesheet was filed U/s 392/397/452/411/34 IPC. Court took cognizance of the offence against accused persons. Proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were concluded.
6. Arguments on charge were heard and based on the contents of chargesheet, accused persons was charged with offences punishable under Section U/s 386/392/397/411/120B/34 IPC & U/s 4/25 Arms Act FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 5 of 36 to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. Prosecution has examined 4 witnesses in support of its case: -
Serial Name of the Crux of deposition
Number Witness
PW-1 Manoj Kumar To prove the complaint upon which the
(complainant) FIR in the present matter was registered
being the complainant. He tendered the
following documents in evidence :-
a) statement/complaint Ex. PW1/A
b) Site Plan Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C
c) Seizure memo of currency notes
Ex.PW1/D
d) Seizure memo of knife Ex.PW1/E
e) Sketch memo of knife Ex.PW1/F
f) Arrest memo of accused Shubham
Ex.PW1/G
g) Disclosure statement of accused
Shubham Ex.PW1/H
The witness also identify the case property
that is currency notes Ex.P1 and knife
FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 6 of 36
Ex.P2.
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-2 Shekhar The witness was selling eggs on rehari
(eye witness) besides rehari of complainant and did not
identify the accused persons.
The witness did not support the story of
prosecution and turned hostile and did not
identify the accused persons.
PW-3 HC Mukesh Witness joined the investigation with IO
and deposed regarding the different stages
of investigation conducted and prove the
following documents:
a) Personal search memo of accused
Shubham Ex.PW3/A
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-4 SI Dharambir Witness deposed regarding the different
Singh stages of investigation conducted and
prove the following documents:
a) Rukka Ex.PW1/4
b) Pointing out memo at the instance of
accused Ex.PW4/B
c) Arrest memo of accused Anoop Tiwari
Ex.PW4/C
FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 7 of 36
d) Arrest memo & personal search memo
of accused Rohan Ex.PW4/D & Ex.PW4/E
respectively
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
8. Vide statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. recorded on 26.04.2025, the accused has admitted the genuineness of the following documents: -
S. No. Documents Admitted
1. FIR No.316/2023 PS S L. Colony recorded by SI Ex.A
Sohan Lal
2. DD No.73 dated 23.08.2023 recorded by HC Ex.A1
Narender Kumar
3. CDR pertaining to mobile no.9818255871, Ex.A2
8527379376, 9971494373, 9560892706 and
(Colly)
9958771061 from 20.08.2023 to 14.08.2023 provided by Bharti Airtel alongwith certified copy of CAF, CDR with location chart (from page no.149-419)
4. CDR pertaining to mobile no.9958771061 and Ex.A3 9560892706 from 15.08.2023 to 26.02.2024 provided (Colly) by Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel alongwith CAF and location chart and certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act (from page no.153 to 267 in supplementary chargesheet)
5. TIP Proceeding qua CCL 'S' conducted by Sh. Kumar Ex.A4 Rahul, Ld. MM, dated 06.11.2024
6. TIP Proceeding qua accused Anoop Tiwari @Pandit Ex.A5 dated 08.11.2024 conducted by Ms. Twinkle Chawla, Ld. MM FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 8 of 36
7. TIP Proceeding of accused Gaurav @ Shanu @ Ex.A6 Nishu conducted by Ms. Twinkle Chawla, Ld. MM dated 02.04.2024
8. TIP Proceeding of accused Rohan Singh S/o Sh. Ex.A7 Sunil Kumar conducted by Ms.Twinkle Chawla, Ld. MM dated 02.04.2024
9. CDR of mobile no.9205514198 from 20.08.2023 to Ex.A8 03.11.2023 with CAF and location chart alongwith certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act (from page no.1029 to 1035 of supplementary chargesheet)
9. Prosecution witnesses deposed regarding the offence in the present matter as follows:
PW-1 Manoj Kumar Yadav (complainant) deposed that he was selling tea and cold drinks on rehri near Bus Stand Sarai Kale Khan. In the intervene night of 21/22.08.2023 he was present at his above said shop. In the night around 12-1 am 4-5 persons came in white color Honda City Car. At that time, the aforesaid persons told him that if he wish to place his rehri, he will have to pay them Rs.2,000/-. At that time, accused Anoop Pandit, Shubham and Nishu told him that anyone among them will come and collect the aforesaid amount from him. After that they had left the spot. On the next day, accused persons namely Shubham and one person namely Saksham came to him and started demanding money. When, he refused to give the money, the accused Shubham pointed a knife towards him and they started threatening him. He got scared and handed over Rs.2,000/-. The currency had Rs.500/- in two note, Rs.200/-
FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 9 of 36 in four notes and Rs.100/- of two notes. Meanwhile, he thought of calling at 112 number but he saw one police official coming on motorcycle and he stopped him. Thereafter, the accused persons had already left the spot. But he pointed out towards the direction of the accused persons and informed the police official regarding the entire incident. Thereafter, the police official took him to look for the accused persons and at that time, 4-5 persons were standing in a dark place and accused Shubham was apprehended by the police official and remaining had run away from the spot. Accused Shubham was taken to police station and over there from his left pocket of the jeans worn by him, the money which was taken by him was recovered and from his right side pocket of jeans one knife was recovered. Police recorded his statement in the police station and the same was Ex. PW1/A. He had shown the place of occurrence to the police and site plan was prepared by the IO which was Ex.PW1/B & Ex.PW1/C. The above said currency notes which was recovered from the possession of accused Shubham was the same note which he had handed over to him under his fear and the same was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. The knife was recovered from accused Shubham and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. The sketch memo of knife was prepared vide Ex.PW1/F. Accused Shubham was arrested in his presence vide memo Ex.PW1/G. Disclosure statement of accused Shubham was recorded by IO vide memo Ex.PW1/H. Accused Shubham, accused Rohan was present in the Court and correctly identify by the witness deposed that same person FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 10 of 36 who had robbed him of the money after showing the knife. Accused Anoop @ Pandit was also identify by the witness and witness deposed that accused Anoop @ Pandit had came to his rehri on the previous night and extended threats to him and demanded money and had also said that any one among them shall come to collect the money from him. The witness has correctly identify accused Anoop @ Pandit. Accused Anoop @ Pandit had not come on the night to his rehri when he was robbed by the other two accused persons. During examination, MHC(M) produced the case property in a sealed transparent plastic box duly sealed with the seal of DS and was found containing currency notes. The same was opened in the Court and upon seeing the currency notes the witness identify the same. The same containing currency notes of Rs.500/- (two notes), Rs.200/- (four notes) and Rs.100/- (two notes). Witness was correctly identify the case property and the aforesaid currency notes was Ex.P1 (Colly). During examination MHC(M) produced another case property (knife) in a sealed pulanda with the seal of DS and particulars of the case written on the same. The case property was opened and found containing one knife and upon seeing the same, the witness has correctly identify the case property. The knife was Ex.P-2 which was seized by the IO in his presence and recovered from accused Shubham.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Shubham deposed that he was running a rehri of pani/cold drinks. He did not have any MCD licence to run his stall/rehri. There was one more rehri which was next to FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 11 of 36 mine. His timings of the rehri are from 8-9 pm in the night to 8-9 am in the morning near the bus stand. He did not remember the number of the Honda City Car which had come in the intervening night of 21- 22.08.2023. He did not know who was driving the aforesaid Honda City Car. The car stopped at a distance of 100 meter from his rehri. He did not know the accused persons prior to the incident. He had given currency notes containing Rs.100/- /Rs.200/- notes to the accused. He did not remember the number of the currency notes given to the accused persons as he had randomly taken out the same from my pocket. He had not made call to the police. In fact seeing the crowd the police officials who were there stopped and came to enquire about the matter and he had narrated the incident to them. He did not know the name or rank of the police official who had enquired about the matter from him. There was one police official who had stopped and enquired about the matter. He did not know where the other accused persons were standing as it was very dark. He was asked by the police officials to come under the fly over and after pointing out towards some boys he was asked to identify the accused persons but he could not identify them as it was dark. No police official joined the aforesaid police official from the concerned police station. When he went near the fly over there were some police officials who were already present there. In his presence, police officials had not enquired about the matter from any other rehri wala or public persons to verify the incident. His statement was recorded only once by the IO. He had not shown the place of incident to the police. It was FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 12 of 36 correct that he was told by the police officials the identity and name of the accused persons and only upon the aforesaid mentioning he was able to identify the accused persons in the present matter in the presence of police officials. It was correct that no personal search of the accused persons was conducted in his presence by police officials. It was correct that he was made to sign on blank papers by the police officials. He had joined the investigation and also participated in the TIP proceedings and he was shown photographs of the accused persons prior to the TIP.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Rohan Singh PW1 deposed that it was correct that one of the accused namely Rohan was shown to him at PS Lajpat Nagar when he was in lock-up in some other matter by the police officials. It was correct that he had seen the accused Rohan in the police station prior to conducting of TIP proceedings at Tihar. It was correct that he had identified the accused Rohan in the TIP proceedings at the behest of IO. He did not know if accused Rohan had come to his rehri on the day of incident as he had not seen him. It was correct that the place where he put his rehri is not well lit. It was correct that no currency note were recovered from the possession of accused persons. It was correct that none of the accused persons had shown knife to me at the time of incident. It was correct that his statement was not recorded by the police in the present matter and he was made to sign on blank papers.
FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 13 of 36 During cross examination on behalf of accused Anoop Tiwari PW1 deposed that it was correct that accused Anoop Tiwari had never come to his rehri on the date of incident. It was correct that he was shown the photograph of accused Anoop Tiwari prior to TIP proceedings by the IO.
Witness did not support the story of prosecution and cross examined on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for State and declared hostile.
PW-2 Shekhar deposed that he knew Manoj Yadav as he also put a rehari besides his rehari at Ring Road, Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi for the last 10 years. They used to sell cold drinks, tea and eggs on their reharis. He did not remember the exact date but it was around one and half years ago two-three boys in drunken condition came to their rehari at about 9 pm. Initially they went to the rehari of Manoj Yadav and then they came at his rehari. Again said, they were 3-4 boys. They said " agar dukan legani hai toh paise dene padenge" "kissi ka naam leh rahe they". He did not remember the exact date, month and year of the incident. He was running a rehadi at Sarai kale Khan, Ring Road. On that day, three boys came on his rehadi and they told him that "agar tumhe dukan legani hai toh paise dene padenge". The said boys came at around 10 pm. He could not see their faces as it was night time and there was no light where his rehadi was situated. In the meanwhile, police official reached there and thereafter the said boys ran away from the spot. Police had enquired me regarding the incident.
FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 14 of 36 The witness did not identify the accused persons and was declared hostile by the prosecution.
PW-3 HC Mukesh deposed that on 23.08.2023, he was posted as HC at PS Sun Light Colony. On that day, he alongwith HC Jagresh were on patrolling duty on foot in the area of Sarai Kale Khan and during patrolling they reached near Ring Road, Sarai Kale Khan, where one person namely Manoj met them and he told that 4-5 persons committed robbery for sum of Rs.2,000/- by using a weapon i.e. knife and he further told them that the said persons ran away towards Red Light, Flyover. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Jagresh and said person namely Manoj started going towards Red Light Flyover. When they reached at the said place, they saw that 4-5 persons were standing on the road and after seeing them, other co-accused ran away from the spot and they apprehended one of the accused persons at there and his name revealed as Shubham. Complainant namely Manoj had correctly identify him at the spot and said that he had conducted robbery with him. He with the help of HC Jagresh conducted search of the accused and Rs.2,000/- and one knife was got recovered from his possession. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Jagresh, Manoj and accused Shubham came to the police post Sarai Kale Khan and handed over the accused to SI Dharmbir Singh. SI Dharambir Singh had recorded statement of Manoj and prepared the rukka, the case was got registered through him. After registration of the case, he handed over original rukka and copy of FIR FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 15 of 36 to SI Dharambir Singh. IO interrogated the accused Shubham, and thereafter, he got arrested vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/G and personal search of accused got conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/A. IO seized the above mentioned knife and Rs.2,000/- vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E and seal was handed over to him after use. IO recorded his statement in this case. On 24.04.2024, one person namely Rehan had produced a vehicle which was used in the crime and IO seized the same. The case property i.e. Rs.2000/- was exhibited as Ex.P1 (Colly) and knife as Ex.P2.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW3 deposed that on the day of incident he was on duty from 8 pm to 8 am at Police Post Sarai Kale Khan. He did not remember the DD number in which he and HC Jagresh were on patrolling duty. They left from police post at about 09:30 pm for patrolling. He reached where the complainant met us within five minutes i.e. 09:35 pm. Many other public persons was also present with complainant Manoj when they reached there. The spot was a public place as it was a bus stand Sarai Kale Khan. Complainant Manoj met us at Red Light of Sarai Kale Khan road towards ITO. When he reached at the place where complainant met them, he asked him whether he had called on 100 number or not. Upon which Manoj told me that the incident had just taken place, so he did not call on 100 number. It was took 10-15 minutes to search the accused persons. He did not give information regarding the robbery to chowki in-charge between the FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 16 of 36 period when complainant met us and apprehended of accused Shubham. He did not remember whether IO had prepared the site plan at his instance from where accused Shubham was apprehended. IO visited the spot in his presence after registration of the case. IO had made enquiry from the nearby rehadi/patri regarding the incident after registration of case in his presence. He did not remember whether IO had served any notice to those rehadi/patri vendor to join the investigation. The denomination of currency note was of two note of Rs.500/-, four notes of Rs.200/- and two notes of Rs.100/-. Complainant did not tell him the number of currency note. He did not remember whether IO had obtained the signature of complainant on the search memo or not. IO prepared the seizure memo of knife vide Ex.PW1/E in his presence and he had signed the same. IO did not deposit the case property in the malkhana. Again said, he did not remember who had deposit the said case property in the malkhana. The total length of the knife was 32 cm. He did not remember the make and branch of the said knife. The measurement of knife was done by IO in his presence. IO had recorded his statement at police post twice. He did not remember whether accused Shubham was residing in the jurisdiction of police post Sarai Kale Khan or not.
PW-4 SI Dharambir Singh deposed that on 23.08.2023, he was posted as SI at PP Sarai Kale Khan, PS Sun Light Colony. On that day he was on emergency duty from 8 pm to 8 am. On that day at about 10:30 pm HC Jagresh alongwith complainant Manoj and Shekhar came to police post FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 17 of 36 and they handed over accused Shubham Singh to him. HC Jagresh handed over him Rs.2,000/- and one buttondar knife and stated that the same was got recovered from the possession of accused Shubham Singh. He prepared the sketch of the knife vide sketch memo already Ex.PW1/F and the same bears seal of DS vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/E. He also seized Rs.2000/- vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/D. He recorded the statement of complainant Manoj and prepared the rukka which was Ex.PW4/A and the case was got recovered through HC Mukesh Kumar. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant, Shekhar went to spot i.e. at Flyover Sarai Kale Khan. After registration of case HC Mukesh came back to spot i.e. at Flyover Sarai Kale Khan and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant vide site plan already Ex.PW1/C. He also prepared site plan regarding recovery of case property vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, they came back to police post Sarai Kale Khan. He interrogated the accused Shubham Singh. He arrested the accused Shubham Singh vide arrest memo already Ex.PW1/G, and conducted his personal search vide memo already Ex.PW3/G and disclosure statement recorded vide memo Ex.PW1/H. Thereafter, they took the accused to the above mentioned spot and prepared pointing out memo at his instance vide memo Ex.PW4/B. Medical examination of accused Shubham Singh was conducted at AIIMS Hospital and he was produced in the court concerned and sought two days PC remand for search of co accused persons. During PC remand no other co-accused was arrested and FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 18 of 36 accused Shubham Singh remanded for JC. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the chargesheet against accused Shubham Singh and same was filed before the court concerned. During investigation of this case, he obtained NBW of accused Rohan Singh and CCL G from the court concerned and proceeding u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was initiated against accused Rohan and he was declared proclaimed offender in this case. On 05.11.2023, he came to know that accused Anoop Tiwari was already in the custody in FIR No.400/2023 PS Sun Light Colony and he arrested him with the permission of the Court vide arrest memo of accused Anoop Tiwari Ex.PW4/B1 and he got one day PC remand for search of co accused but during PC remand no co- accused was arrested and he was produced before the court and remanded for JC. He moved an application for conducting TIP proceeding of accused Anoop Tiwari and during TIP proceeding he was correctly identified by complainant in this case. He prepared the supplementary chargesheet against accused Anoop Tiwari and filed before the concerned Court. On 27.03.2024 accused Rohan Singh and Gaurav were came to the police post Sarai Kale Khan and they were arrested in this case vide arrest memo of accused Rohan Ex.PW4/C and his personal search conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/D and they were produced before the court. Accused Gaurav was remanded for JC and he obtained one day PC remand of accused Rohan for search of co-accused and recovery of case property. During the PC remand of accused Rohan, he led them to Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi to search one Naveen Kumar FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 19 of 36 but he could not be found there, he then collected that address of the said Naveen Kumar and then went to the said address which was of village Ladpur, North-West Delhi. After reaching at the address of Naveen Kumar, he came to know that Naveen Kumar has went to Sonipat, Haryana. He then contacted Naveen Kumar telephonically and he informed that he would come to the PS on 05.04.2024. Thereafter, on 05.04.2024, Naveen Kumar came to the PS and met him. Thereafter, he made inquiry from him and recorded his statement. Thereafter, he along with accused Rohan and other police officials went to DDA Flats, Sarai Kale Khan for the recovery of vehicle which was involved in the present case. The said vehicle was of one Ms. Sharal and she produced the said vehicle to him and he seized the said vehicle bearing registration No. DL 10 CM 8546 make Honda City (white colour) vide seizure memo which was Ex.PW4/E. Thereafter, accused Rohan was produced before the Court and was remanded to JC. During the investigation of the present case, he obtained CDR of mobile number of accused persons and placed the same on record. During the investigation of this case, the age of 'S' @ 'G' was verified and he was declared juvenile in this case. During the investigation of this case, TIP of accused Rohan and CCL S @ G was got conducted and both the accused persons were correctly identified by complainant namely Sh. Manoj Kumar. CCL 'S' @ 'G' was shifted to observation home from Tihar Jail. He prepared the PIR qua CCL 'S' @ 'G' and same was filed in the concerned JJB. He prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of accused Rohan and placed the same on FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 20 of 36 record, the same was Ex.PW4/F. He recorded statement of the witnesses and prepared the challan and filed the same before the Court.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW4 deposed that complainant along with Shekhar came to the police post Sarai Kale Khan. At that time, 2-4 other police officials were present in the police post. However, he did not remember the names of the said police officials. He did not give information to the SHO PS Sunlight Colony with respect to the said incident. Accused Shubham was not taken to the spot. He visited the spot along with the complainant on the same day of the incident. There are around 8-10 vegetable vendors near the spot. He made inquiry from the said vegetable vendors, but they did not join the investigation. He did not serve any notice upon the said persons. It was correct that the spot of the incident was thickly populated area. On 23.08.2023, he left from the police post at about 11:15 PM for the spot. He did not remember whether he had made any departure entry before leaving from the police post for the spot. HC Jagresh and HC Mukesh were already on patrolling duty vide different DD entries. It was correct that HC Jagresh had handed over the robbed cash to him. He did not put any specific mark on the said currency notes. The statement of the complainant was recorded at the police post. The same was recorded as per the instructions of the complainant and on his own Will. He also recorded the statement of one person namely Shekhar. He had obtained the signatures of the complainant namely Sh. Manoj, Shekhar and HC FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 21 of 36 Mukesh on the site plan.
10.After examination of aforesaid witnesses prosecution closed its evidence and matter was fixed for recording of statement of Accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, and all the incriminating evidence was put to accused which he denied. Accused claimed that they were innocent and claimed that have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the present matter.
11.Accused persons did not lead defence evidence and matter was fixed for final arguments. After hearing final arguments, matter was listed for judgment.
12.In order decide present case, I have to appreciate evidence brought on record by prosecution. How that appreciation of evidence has to be done, was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, wherein it was observed that :-
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 22 of 36 the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases" .
13. So, above mentioned observation, clearly indicates that evidence has to be read as a whole and not in piecemeal. It is the impression of the court, of whole of the evidence, which is to be borne in mind, while deciding a case. Minor discrepancies should not weigh much, while deciding a case. The inconsistencies, which go to the root of the matter, as such are to be appreciated, for deciding a case.
FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 23 of 36 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
14.It has been argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that in the present matter all the three accused persons in connivance with each other and two more CCLs had committed offence on the night of 23.08.2023, when they reached the shop of the complainant and extended threats to him by showing a knife and extorted money from the complainant. It has been argued that the accused persons having criminal conspiracy extorted an amount of Rs. 2000/- from the complainant by putting him under fear of death and thereby committed offence charged against them. It has been argued that the complainant/ PW-1 in the present matter has categorically mentioned the manner in which the offence was committed and has described that the accused persons even one day prior had visited the shop of the complainant and extended threats to him. It has been argued that the complainant being the star witness of the prosecution has identified accused Shubham and Rohan and therefore, the story of the prosecution stands proved and accused persons are liable to be convicted.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS.
15. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Counsel for accused Anoop Tiwari @ Pandit that he has been falsely implicated in present matter and has not committed any offence. It has been argued that accused never visited the spot or the shop of the complainant either FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 24 of 36 on intervening night of 21/22.08.2023 or on 23.08.2023 and the allegations against him are vague. It has been argued that he was never identified by the complainant in the present matter and that he was falsely implicated at the behest of complainant and therefore, he is liable to be acquitted.
16. Ld. Counsel for accused Rohan Singh has argued that accused has been falsely implicated and had not committed any offence. It has been argued that the alleged recovery of car shown from the possession of the accused is not substantiated by any cogent evidence and even in the complaint there was no mention of recovery of any such car or identification of such car at the behest of complainant. It has been argued that that the complainant never disclosed the vehicle number which allegedly stopped near his shop on the intervening night of 21.22/08/2023. It has been argued that no money was recovered from the possession of the accused and therefore, accused is liable to be acquitted.
17. It has been argued on behalf of accused Shubham that he has been falsely implicated in present matter and had not committed any offence and he had been implicated falsely by complainant on 23.08.2023 and was taken to the police station and arrested in the present matter. It has been argued that the alleged knife, shown to be in the possession of accused was planted upon him and he had never visited the place of FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 25 of 36 incident and therefore, he is liable to be acquitted. It has been argued that at the time of alleged recovery of the robbed amount and button actuated knife from possession of accused Shubham, no public person was made to join the investigation. It has been argued that the accused was falsely implicated at the behest of the police officials and the complainant PW-1 during cross examination has admitted that he identified the accused even during TIP proceedings as photographs of accused were shown to him.
THE OFFENCE
18.Accused in the present matter has been charged for the offence punishable U/s 386/392/397/411/120B IPC R/w Section 34 IPC.
Section 386 IPC mentions that Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt - "Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
As per Section 392 IPC 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.
FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 26 of 36 As per Section 397 IPC 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, so attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
Section 411 IPC mentions that 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."
19.To constitute an offence U/s 386 IPC it is required that the accused had put the person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other person and that the accused did so while commission of extortion. If the fear caused is that of death or grievous hurt, it naturally causes great alarm. Therefore, Section 386 IPC provides for severe penalty and embodies an aggravated form of offence punishable U/s 384 IPC. In an offence of extortion, one compels the victim to part away with money or to do something which he would not do. It is always done under the fear of injury.
20.Further, for the offence U/s 392 IPC which is the punishment for FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 27 of 36 robbery, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had intention to deprive the complainant of the property and for the said purpose, the accused either hurt him or place him under wrongful restraint. Robbery has been defined U/s 390 IPC. To establish the offence of robbery it was required for prosecution to prove that the accused while committing the aforesaid theft or in order to commit aforesaid theft voluntarily caused or attempted to cause any person either death, or hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. As per Section 390 IPC theft is robbery, if in order to commit theft or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of the above.
21.At the same time to constitute an offence U/s 397 IPC which defines robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. Section 397 and 398 IPC do not create any offence but merely regulate the punishment for robbery and dacoity when the commission of robbery and dacoity is committed by use of any deadly weapon or causing of grievous hurt of attempting to cause death or grievous hurt. Thus, to constitute an offence U/s 397 it is required that the accused committed robbery or dacoity within the meaning of Section 392 and Section 395 IPC and that while committing such offence, the accused, used any deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt to a person or attempted to cause FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 28 of 36 death or grievous hurt to any person.
DECISION
22.In the present matter, the accused persons have been charged for commission of offence on two dates i.e. on the intervening night of 21/22.08.2023 and the other committed on 23.08.2023. It has been alleged by the complainant Manoj Yadav that on the intervening night of 21/22.08.2023, five persons came to his shop/ rehdi in a white Honda City car around 1:00 a.m. and among them one person was named Anoop who threatened the complainant and told him that if the complainant wanted to work he should pay Rs. 2000/- as hafta to them and if he denied he would be stabbed. At that time the aforesaid persons also told Shekhar who was friend of complainant and demanded money and also extended threats and said that whenever among them anyone would come the amount is required to be paid.
23.In the complaint the complainant has also alleged regarding incident dated 23.08.2023 wherein around 9:30 p.m. two persons visited his shop who introduced themselves to be sent by Anoop and Shanu @ Nishu and were having knife in their hand and thereafter, both persons told the complainant to handover the money and when the complainant objected one of them took out a knife and tried to stab the complainant but complainant saved himself and handed over Rs. 2000/- to him.
FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 29 of 36
24.Upon the aforesaid allegations the complainant alongwiht HC Jagresh and HC Mukesh reached the police station and at that time accused Shubham was apprehended by aforesaid police officials at behest of the complainant having aforesaid amount of Rs. 2000/- and one button actuated knife. Upon the aforesaid complaint, FIR was registered and investigation ensued.
25.The case of prosecution pertains to two incidents which allegedly took placed with complainant, the prosecution was required to prove the commission of offence qua the accused persons regarding both incidents. IN the present matter to prove the aforesaid offence the prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses. PW-1 Manoj Kumar Yadav and PW-2 Shekhar were the eye witnesses and the victims in present matter. Both aforesaid witnesses were star witnesses of prosecution. The criminal law was set to motion on the complaint of the complainant. The complainant who was examined as PW-1, during his testimony before the Court deposed regarding the incident of intervening night 21/22.08.2023 that on aforesaid day around 1:00 a.m. 4 to 5 persons came in white Honda City car and demanded Rs. 2000/- if he wish to work on his shop and that this it was accused Anoop Pandit, Shubham and Nishu told the complainant amongst them would come to collect the amount and thereafter they left the house. The complainant in his complainant Ex. PW1/A does not disclose the name of Shubham and FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 30 of 36 only mentions the name of accused Anoop and CCL Sanu @ Nishu who had visited his shop. Further, PW-1 disclosed that aforesaid persons also threatened PW-2 Shekhar and demanded money from him and threatened to be stabbed by a knife, if he refused. The aforesaid fact regarding threats extended to Shekhar does not find mentioned by complainant in his testimony before court.
26.Therefore, with regard to allegations pertaining to incident of 21/22.08.2023 the complainant does not corroborate his version with Ex.PW1/A. There are material contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and PW2. PW2 does not support the version of complainant and has categorically stated that no such incident had occurred and he had not witnessed the same. Even PW1 during his cross examination categorically stated that he identified the accused persons only upon the asking of the police officials. Further, no TIP of any of the accused persons, to establish their identity was conducted by the prosecution. Accused persons namely Anoop Tiwari @ Pandit and Rohan Singh were arrested only upon the disclosure of co-accused persons and their presence at the spot on the intervening night of 21.08.2023 and 22.08.2023 was not established. Further, the accused persons in the present matter have been charged for offence U/ 120B IPC for incident dated 21/22.08.2023, for commission of a criminal conspiracy. In the present matter the prosecution failed to establish as to why the accused persons entered into a conspiracy or there was meeting of minds.
FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 31 of 36 Further, to substantiate the allegations the complainant/PW-1 is not supported by PW-2 Shekhar. PW-2 Shekhar did not disclose regarding of commission by any of accused persons on alleged date. The aforesaid witness PW-2 did not identify any accused persons in court and was declared hostile. Therefore, allegations against accused persons for commission of offence U/s 120B IPC did not stand proved. Further, the accused persons had been charged for commission of offence U/s 386/392/120B R/w Section 34 IPC and Section 397/411 IPC for alleged incident dated 23.08.2023. However, the complainant PW-1 during examination in chief stated that on 23.08.2023 it was accused Shubham and one person Saksham came to him and started demanding money and when the complainant refused, it was accused Shubham who pointed out a knife and extended threats. Further, he handed over Rs. 2000/- to them. However, the complainant in complaint Ex. PW1/A has stated that on 23.08.2023 at around 9:30 p.m. two persons came to his shop who were earlier accompanied with accused Anoop and CCL S on the previous day and were carrying knifes in their hand and both of them demanded money and when complainant refused to give, one of them tried to stab the complainant but he saved himself and due to fear handed Rs. 2000/- to them who thereafter left the spot. The complainant also narrated that thereafter while he was trying to make a call at 112 no. he found some police officials crossing spot and thereafter with help of police apprehended accused Shubham and other persons ran away from the spot. Further, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2000/- and one button FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 32 of 36 actuated knife was recovered from possession of accused Shubham. He also discloses in his complaint that thereafter he alongwith accused Shubham and both police officials went to the police station where the sketch memo of knife was prepared and he gave his complaint. However, in the present matter, during the apprehension of accused Shubham IO failed to examine any public person. Further, all the investigation qua search of the accused, recovery of knife, and button actuated knife was conducted by HC Jagresh and HC Mukesh at the spot, however, the aforesaid fact is not corroborated by any independent evidence. The IO failed to substantiate as to how the recovery was effected by aforesaid two police officials, from accused Shubham and it was only complainant who was present. Further, PW-1 during his examination in chief stated that subsequently he alongwith police officials went to a dark place and accused Shubham was apprehended and at the police station money was recovered alongwith one knife. The aforesaid witness stated that accused Anoop @ Pandit had not come on second day to commit any robbery with other accused persons. The aforesaid witness during his cross examination categorically deposed that he did not remember the number of Honda City car and did not know as to who was driving the same. He further deposed that the identity of accused persons was told to him by police officials and only then he was able to identify the accused. PW-1 also deposed that personal search of accused was not conducted in his presence and he was made to sign on some blank papers and before TIP proceedings of FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 33 of 36 accused persons were conducted, their photographs were shown to him. The aforesaid witness was not supported by PW-2 Shekhar and there were several contradictions in testimony of aforesaid witness. The aforesaid witness was not reliable and trustworthy and therefore, his testimony did not inspire confidence.
TESTIMONY OF FORMAL WITNESSES/POLICE OFFICIALS
27.In the present matter HC Mukesh and IO SI Dharambir was examined by prosecution who disclosed regarding various stages of investigation and the apprehension of accused persons in present matter. The IO in the present matter arrested the accused Anoop @ Pandit upon getting information regarding his arrest in some other matter and further accused Rohan Singh himself surrendered before the Police officials but their presence at the spot was not corroborated by examining any independent public witness. The testimony of aforesaid witnesses was inconsequential in the absence of corroborative evidence by PW1 and PW2.
28.Therefore, the testimony of aforesaid police officials was not reliable and hence discarded. The aforesaid witnesses examined by the prosecution who had conducted the investigation in the present matter and in the absence of corroboration by public witnesses, the testimonies of police witnesses being formal in nature was of little relevance and of no consequences. Their testimonies as such were not sufficient to FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 34 of 36 convict accused persons with the offences with which they were charged. In the light of absence of veracity of testimonies of public witnesses, their testimonies became inconsequential. It did not help the cause of prosecution.
29.Further, there were no public witnesses examined in the present matter and even the weapon of offence was recovered by the police at the police station and the same be planted, as stated by accused persons could not be ruled out. Further, in the present matter, none of the witnesses deposed that the accused had given injuries with an intention or knowledge to kill.
30.Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, and after perusing the testimony of witnesses, the evidence available on record, the guilt of the accused persons is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
31.Prosecution thus, failed to prove the essential ingredients to constitute an offence u/sec. 386/392/397/411/120B/34 IPC & U/s 4/25 Arms Act.
32.Per contra, accused persons were able to raise probable defence for themselves being falsely implicated in this case. So, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 35 of 36
33.In view of aforesaid appreciation and record of this case, accused persons namely Shubham, Anoop Tiwari @ Pandit and Rohan Singh are acquitted for all the offences.
Digitally signed by SheetalSheetal chaudhary chaudhary Date:
2026.03.24 Announced in open Court 14:21:29 +0530 on 24.03.2026 [Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan] Additional Sessions Judge-02, SE District, Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No.316/2023 State Vs. Shubham & Ors. PS S L Colony date 24.03.2026 Page No. 36 of 36