Delhi District Court
State vs Vinay Kumar@Smarty on 15 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
SC No. 132/2022
CNR No. DL-SE01-001017-2022
State
Through : Sh. A.T. Ansari, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor
Vs.
Vinay Kumar @ Smarty
S/o Shri Raj Kumar
R/o H.No. C-14, Plot No. 9,
Air India Apartment, Sector-3,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
Through : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Ld. Legal Aid Defence Counsel
FIR No. 313/2021
PS: Chitranjan Park
U/s : 392/34 r/w Section 397 IPC
and Section 387/34 IPC &
25 of Arms Act, 1959
Instituted on : 23.12.2021
Committed on : 11.01.2022
Reserved on : 02.04.2026
Pronounced on : 15.04.2026
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 1/43
JUDGMENT
1). Accused has been sent to face trial for offences punishable under section 392/34 IPC r/w Section 397 IPC, 387/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act.
1.1 It is alleged that on 25.10.2021 at about 11:45 AM, at Hotel OYO, South Continental, B-273, C.R. Park, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station C.R. Park, the accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty, along with his two associates (since declared as Children in Conflict with Law), committed robbery in Room No. 201 of the said hotel.
1.2 It is further alleged that the accused persons robbed the complainant Prashant Gupta of the original documents of the hotel and also took away Rs. 8,000/- from the purse of the complainant and his brother Sushant by pointing a pistol and knife at them, thereby instilling fear of death. It is further alleged that accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty pointed a deadly weapon, namely a pistol, at Sushant and forcibly obtained the signatures of the complainant and his brother on certain papers brought by him. After committing the robbery, the accused persons allegedly threatened the complainant and his brother with dire consequences and demanded a sum of Rs. 4 crores, putting them in fear for their lives.
1.3 It is further the case of the prosecution that on 27.10.2021, in the area of AG Block, near CSC Market, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Shalimar Bagh, accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty got recovered two black coloured Air/Splinter Guns from his stolen scooty FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 2/43 bearing registration No. DL-11 SL-3405. It is alleged that the said weapons were in his conscious possession without any valid permit or licence, thereby contravening the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959.
Brief Facts:
2. On 25.10.2021, upon receipt of DD No. 47A, SI Tejender, along with Ct. Ashok, met the complainant Prashant Gupta at the Police Station and thereafter proceeded to the place of incident i.e. B-273, Hotel OYO South Continental, C.R. Park, New Delhi, along with the complainant and his brother Sushant Gupta. The crime team was called at the spot, the scene of crime was photographed, and the CCTV footage of the hotel was checked, wherein the accused persons were allegedly seen. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant was recorded.
2.1 In his statement, the complainant stated that he is the owner of Hotel OYO South Continental and had published an advertisement in the newspaper Hindustan Times for sale of the said hotel. After seeing the advertisement, one person namely Vinay contacted him and informed that his uncle Mittal was interested in purchasing the hotel. On 22.10.2021, the complainant met them and handed over copies of the registry documents of the hotel.
2.2 The complainant further stated that on 25.10.2021, accused Vinay called him and informed that his uncle wished to inspect the property and the original registry documents. The complainant asked him to meet at the FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 3/43 hotel at about 11:30 AM. At Room No. 201 of the hotel, accused Vinay stated that his uncle had also arrived and stepped out to bring him. After some time, he returned along with two boys, who allegedly tied the hands and legs of the complainant and his brother, whereupon one boy placed a knife on the neck of Sushant and the other placed a pistol on the complainant.
2.3 It was further alleged that accused Vinay forcibly obtained the signatures of the complainant and his brother on certain papers, removed the original property documents from the complainant's bag and threatened them to arrange Rs. 4 crores by 6:00 PM, failing which they would be killed. Thereafter, Sushant Gupta made a call at 100 number. The investigation commenced and accused was arrested during course of investigation.
2.4 After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Section 173 CrPC against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 384/392/397/411/34 IPC.
3. Upon completion of investigation and after necessary formalities, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
3.1 Vide order dated 05.07.2022, charge under Section 392/34 IPC read with Section 397 IPC, 387/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty to which he pleaded not guilty and FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 4/43 claimed trial.
4. During course of trial, accused admitted following documents in terms of section 294 of CrPC:-
(a) FSL report of Cyber Forensic Division dated 26.05.2023 prepared by Sh. Vikas Kumar, JR (F/ACE (CED)) Ex.
PW11/P1.
(b) Certificate u/s. 65B of IEA of Shri Vikas Kumar, JR (F/ACE (CED)) Ex. PA.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
5. In support of its allegations, prosecution produced 13 witnesses. A summary of the witnesses produced and their connection with the incident is as follows :
Witness Witness Name Purpose
No.
PW1 Sh. Sushant Gupta Brother of the complainant
/eyewitness of the incident.
PW2 Dr. Prashant Gupta Complainant / Eyewitness of the
incident.
PW3 SI Vijay Singh He is the duty officer, who made
endorsement Ex.PW3/B on the
rukka and registered the FIR
Ex.PW3/A.
PW4 ASI Braham Prakash He is the photographer from mobile
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 5/43
crime team, who took photographs
of the scene of crime and proved the
said photographs as Ex. PW4/A.
PW5 Mr. Alok Kumar Mehta, PW-5, the concerned Forensic
Sr. Scientific Officer, Science Laboratory expert, deposed RFSL, Chanakya Puri, that he had examined the questioned signatures appearing on the property documents along with the specimen signatures of the accused.
He proved his detailed report as Ex.
PW5/C. PW-5 opined that certain similarities were observed in the execution of various characters and in their inconspicuous details.
However, he categorically stated that no definite opinion could be expressed regarding the common authorship of the questioned and specimen signatures. In other words, the examination remained inconclusive and the authorship of the disputed signatures could neither be confirmed nor ruled out on scientific basis.
PW6 HC Ashok Kumar He was the Channel Operator, who received the call regarding the robbery and forwarded the information to concerned police station. He proved the PCR form as Ex.PW6/A and E-form event ID as Ex. PW6/B. PW7 SI Ajay PW-7 was the Incharge of the Mobile Crime Team, who deposed that on receipt of information, he along with ASI Braham Prakash (Photographer) and HC Soran Singh (Fingerprint Proficient) reached the scene of crime and inspected the spot. He proved the Crime Team FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 6/43 Inspection Report as Ex. PW7/A. PW8 Ms. Anubha Lal, She proved the FSL report Ex.
Chemical Examiner PW8/A regarding two air pistols (Ballistics), recovered at the instance of accused. As per said report, the pistols were found in working condition and same are fire arm as per extant Act and Rules.
PW9 Sh. Ankit Chauhan, He proved Sanction under section 39 of Arms Act Ex. PW9/A. PW10 Sh. Umang Singh He was the receptionist at Hotel South Continental and stated about visiting of accused alongwith two boys in the hotel and went to the room no. 201 with Prashant and Sushant on the date of offence.
PW11 SI Sunder Pal He filed the FSL report Ex. PW5/A, reports from Ballistics Division Ex.PW8/A, Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act Ex.PW9/A and FSL report of DVR of CCTV footage Ex.
PW11/P1 by way of supplementary charge-sheet.
PW12 SI Tejender Nandal He is the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case and deposed about the investigation carried out by him.
PW13 HC Sudhir Kumar He is the Nodal Officer, posted at CPCR and proved the PCR form as Ex. PW13/P1.
6. MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD: The testimony of material witnesses is being discussed hereinunder, whereas brief of remaining FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 7/43 testimonies has already been given in the preceding paragraph.
7) PW1 Sushant Gupta is the brother of the complainant and one of the eye-witnesses cited by prosecution. His testimony is reads as under :
"I am residing at the above said address with my family and elder brother Prashant Gupta. I am having manufacturing business of lab testing equipments in the factory by the name of D&G Technology at Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I. I and my elder brother Prashant Gupta also having a business of consultancy advisory in the name of Consecration Advisory at Okhla.
Prior to 25.10.2021, we had given advertisement in the newspaper regarding our intention to sell our property i.e. OYO South Continental Hotel, B-273, C.R. Park. In response to this advertisement, Mr. Vinay Kumar introduced himself as a buyer and shown interest in purchasing the property. He had 2 / 3 rounds of meeting and discussion with my brother Prashant Gupta in this regard and discussed in detail about the property and its ownership.
On 25.10.2021, I and my elder brother Prashant had reached in our office at Okhla at around 10 a.m. In between 10:30 - 11 AM a telephonic call was received on the phone of my brother Prashant from Vinay. Mr. Vinay said that the buyer will come with advance and told to bring us the original papers of the said property. We had told him to reach at around 11:30 a.m. at around OYO South Continental Hotel at B-273, C. R Park. We had rented the said premises to Prakash Chandra who was running the hotel under the name of OYO South Continental and having tie-ups with OYO. A meeting was to be held in the said hotel in respect of sale of said property i.e. OYO South Continental Hotel. On which, I and my brother Prashant reached at about 11:30 a.m. at our OYO South Continental Hotel where Vinay was already present at the reception. Vinay had asked me to arrange some private place as deal was to be conducted in a conducive atmosphere. I asked the Manager of the Hotel to provide one room to us. On which, he provided us Room No. 201 of the said hotel. Thereafter, I alongwith my brother Prashant and Vinay had gone in the Room No. 201. Thereafter, Vinay had received a telephonic call by stating that the buyer Mittal had come outside the hotel FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 8/43 and he is going down to accompany Mittal to the room.
After 10 minutes, Vinay alongwith two young boys had entered in the room who were wearing caps and carrying knives in their hands. As far as I remember both of the boys were wearing caps.
Out of those boys, one had put knife on my neck and told not to shout otherwise he will kill me and threatened that they had received supari to kill me. I told them that we are not having enmity with anyone. They had tied my hands and hands of my brother with a rope and laid down on bed on downward face. Vinay was having pistol in his hand when he entered into the room. He had pointed the pistol on me and my brother. One boy was having pistol and a knife in his hand. The rope was removed from hand of my brother Prashant. We were carrying original papers of the property and same were kept in the room. Accused Vinay was having Agreement to Sell and Receipts in his bag and he had taken the signatures of my brother Prashant Gupta on the said paper forcefully and threatening to sign his original signature otherwise he will kill him. Thereafter, hand of my brother Prashant Gupta was tied again. Thereafter, rope of my hand was removed and asked me to sign forcefully on the documents as a witness. Thereafter, accused Vinay had taken our original papers of the property and the documents /papers brought by him on which signatures of my brother and my signatures were forcefully obtained by Vinay. He had kept the said documents in his bag. At the time of above said initial threatening by accused Vinay, he had demanded Rs. 4 crores from us otherwise he will kill us if the amount was not given to him. Thereafter, they had tied my hands as above. Vinay demanded to give Rs. 4 crores from us and he told that he will tell us about the time and place as to where and when the said amount was to be given by us at 6 p.m. Before leaving the room, accused Vinay had opened two layers of the tied rope of my hand and asked us not to come downstairs till 5 to 10 minutes. Thereafter, I had opened the rope of my hands and then, I opened the rope tied on my brother's hands. Thereafter, we waited for 5 / 10 minutes and thereafter, we came downstairs and found that Vinay and two boys had left the hotel. Thereafter, we returned to our house in our vehicle. After reaching at home, we had told about the incident to the family members and relatives. At about 1 p.m., I had made a call from my mobile No. 9873001516 on 112. Thereafter, I and brother Prashant Gupta had separately gone to PS C. R. Park. There we met the police officials and FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 9/43 narrated the fact of incident. Thereafter, police officials had accompanied us at the spot of incident and police had conducted some proceedings at the spot of incident. My statement was recorded by the police. Accused Vinay is present in Court today and correctly identified by witness.
The Agreement to Sell & Purchase / Bayana dated 23.10.2021 in the name of Prashant Gupta and Vinay Kumar running into four pages including E-Stamp is Ex.PW1/A which bears my signature at point A on the fourth page at the column of witness.
The Receipt dated 25.10.2021 in respect of receiving of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- by Prashant Gupta (seller) against the said property is Ex.PW1/B which bears my signature at point A at the column of witness.
The Agreement to Sell & Purchase / Bayana dated 23.10.2021 in the name of Prashant Gupta and Vinay Kumar running into four pages including E-Stamp is Ex.PW1/C which bears my signature at point A on the fourth page at the column of witness.
The Receipt dated 25.10.2021 in respect of receiving of Rs.1,00,00,000/- by Prashant Gupta (seller) against the said property is Ex.PW1/D which bears my signature at point A at the column of witness.
The Agreement to Sell & Purchase dated 24.10.2021 in the name of Prashant Gupta and Vinay Kumar running into four pages including E-Stamp is Ex.PW1/E which bears my signature at point A on the fourth page at the column of witness.
The Receipt in respect of receiving of Rs.2,50,00,000/- by Prashant Gupta (seller) against the said property is Ex.PW1/F which bears my signature at point A at the column of witness. The column of date is left blank in the said receipt.
The above said documents were brought by the accused on which accused had forcefully taken the signatures of my brother Prashant Gupta and forcefully asked to sign me at the point of witness on the said documents.
My brother Prashant Gupta had moved an application before FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 10/43 the concerned Court for releasing of original documents of the property and currency notes to him. The original documents and currency notes were released to us.
On 14.06.2022, the said property was sold by my brother Prashant Gupta to Smt. Sunita Chabra against the Sale Deed executed in respect of above said property.
The original Sale Deed in the name of my brother Prashant Gupta was submitted in the office of Sub-Registrar at the time of execution of above said Sale Deed vide which my brother had sold the property to Ms. Sunita Chabra vide Sale Deed Ex.PW1/G (certified copy seen and returned).
Today, I have brought the certified copies of Sale Deeds in the name of Ms. Varsha Hoon and Prashant Gupta in respect of the above said property. Same are taken on record which are exhibited as Ex.PW1/H (certified copy seen and returned) and Ex.PW1/I (certified copy seen and returned).
I can identify the accused Vinay and his two associates (both JCL)in the footage.
(At this stage, MHC(M) had produced one sealed parcel no. 1 bearing the seal of FSL CFD Delhi bearing the particular of the case. The parcel is opened and from it one DVR with cable found in a unsealed cloth parcel. The DVR is make CP PLUS. The footage played in the computer screen and is shown to the witness).
I have seen the footage and I identify the accused Vinay and the two other offenders who are not present in Court (both accused are JCL). In the footage me and my brother are also visible at the reception of the hotel and this DVR was installed at the hotel. The DVR and footage are Ex. MO-1.
The accused persons obtained my signature and the signature of my brother forcibly on the gun point upon the documents pertaining to sale and purchase of our hotel which were already written. The accused persons snatched our pocket money which was about Rs 7000/- to Rs. 8000/-.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 11/43He identified the pistols, used by accused as Ex.MO-1 and Ex.MO-2.
(emphasis supplied) 7.1 During his cross-examination, he deposed that he is unable to recollect any person by name of Sushil Kumar Modi, he admitted that his brother had got issued an advertisement regarding the sale of the hotel in question, he denied the suggestion that Sushil Modi had assured them that he would arrange a loan against the said hotel from MSME Depatment and that he had provided the property documents of the hotel and cash Rs. 8000/- to him for that purpose, he denied the suggestion that the said Modi had also told him and his brother that the said loan will incur 02% to 04% expenses of the income amount and that they had paid Rs. 4 lakh in advance to said Sushil Modi as commission for arranging the said loan, 7.2 Witness deposed that he was carrying mobile phone at the time of incident, that he did not reveal the incident to the person available at the reception nor he made a call to the police, he volunteered to deposed that they straightway went to their home and from there they made call to their relatives as well as to the police, that he had not made any call to any person by name of Sushil Modi prior to the present incident, that he does not know if accused Viay Kumar @ smarty and the said person Sushil Modi had visited the hotel prior to the incident.
7.3 PW1 further deposed that he had not made any call to the accused after the present incident, accused had not made any call to him prior to coming to hotel.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 12/438) PW2 Dr. Prashant Gupta is the complainant and the other eye-witness examined by the prosecution. He deposed as as under :
"I am residing at the above said address with my family and younger brother Sushant Gupta. I am having manufacturing business of lab testing equipments in the factory by the name of DNG Technology at Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I. I and my younger brother Sushant Gupta also having a business of consultancy advisory in the name of Consecration Advisory at Okhla.
I am owner of property No. B-273, C R Park, New Delhi. I had given said property on rent to Prakash Chand who was running the hotel in the name of OYO South Continental after tie-up with OYOs. I had to sell the said property for which I had given an advertisement in Hindustan newspaper regarding the sale of the said property. After advertisement, I had received a call from prospective buyers. I had received a telephonic call on 17/18 and 19.10.2021 from a mobile phone number whose number I do not remember today. However, I had mentioned the mobile number given to the police. The caller had introduced himself as Vinay Kumar. He had taken the detailed description of my property and shown his interest in the purchase of said property. I told him that I want to sell the said property. He asked me to meet him at the above said hotel in respect of the said deal. As far as I remember a meeting was fixed for 20.10.2021 or 21.10.2021. Thereafter, I met Vinay and he visited the above said property. He had seen my complete property from ground floor to upper floors of the said property. On the next day, Vinay had asked me to provide the cancelled photocopy documents of the said property. I had given the photocopy of the documents of the said property after marking crossing upon it at the above said hotel. When I asked accused Vinay who wants to buy the said property on which he told that his uncle namely Mittal from Ashok Vihar was interested in the purchase of my property.
On 23.10.2021 and 24.10.2021, accused Vinay had told that he wants to cross-check the authenticity of the documents and his uncle Mittal will be available on 25.10.2021 with advance / Bayana regarding the deal of said property. He had also asked me to bring the original documents of the property on 25.10.2021. The time for the meeting at FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 13/43 the hotel was fixed 11:30 a.m. for 25.10.2021.
On 25.10.2021, I received a call of accused Vinay from his mobile phone on my mobile phone that he had reached at the hotel and I informed him that I will also be reaching at the hotel after 11:30 a.m. I alongwith my brother Sushant were in our office at Okhla. Thereafter, we reached at the Hotel OYO South Continental at around 11:40 a.m. where we found accused Vinay was present at the reception of the hotel. I asked the Manager of the Hotel as to which room is available on which he told that Room No. 201 is vacant. Thereafter, I alongwith my brother Sushant Gupta and Vinay had gone to Room No. 201 of the Hotel and entered in the said room. After sitting in the room, I asked accused Vinay as to where is the buyer. Meanwhile, he pretended to receiving a call on his phone and told me that Mittal had come downstairs and he is going to receive him. Thereafter, accused Vinay left the room. After sometime, accused Vinay came alongwith two young boys in the room. I was sitting on the bed and Sushant was sitting on the chair. Accused Vinay after entering in the room reached before Sushant and put pistol on his head. Out of the two boys, one boy put knife on my neck and another boy put knife upon the neck of my brother and accused Vinay was freely moving in the room. Accused Vinay told me that he had taken the supari to kill us and his job is to kill us in 10 minutes and thereafter he will leave. On which, I asked him as to who would take the supari for killing us as there was no enmity with anyone at the personal level or business level.
Accused Vinay had demanded ransom (phiroti) of Rs. 4 crores till the evening. Thereafter, my hands and hands of my brother were tied with rope by the accused persons. Accused Vinay had taken some documents from his bag and kept on the table and asked me to sign on the said documents. Thereafter, he had opened the rope from my hand and asked me to sign on the documents brought by him. He threatened me to sign the original and genuine signature on the documents otherwise he will kill me. On this, he had obtained my signature forcefully on the said documents i.e. Agreement to Sell and Receipts. When I asked from accused Vinay about the amount while signing the Receipts, he asked me to just sign the same. We were having the original documents of the above said property. Accused Vinay had kept my original documents of the property and the documents brought by him in his bag.FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 14/43
Thereafter, my hands were tied with the rope by the accused Vinay. The rope of the hands of Sushant was opened and accused Vinay asked him to sign on the said documents which were brought by him at a point of witness forcefully. My brother Sushant Gupta had signed on the said documents as a witness. Thereafter, the hands of Sushant Gupta was again tied with a rope by the accused Vinay. Accused Vinay had laid us on the bed face downwards while my hands were tied on my back. Thereafter, accused Vinay had robbed our wallets from our back pockets. He opened the wallet and found Rs. 4,000/- in my wallet and Rs. 4,000/- in the wallet of my brother Sushant Gupta and then he kept the said amount with him. Accused Vinay told me that I used to keep such a little amount in wallet.
The accused Vinay had asked us that he will call at around 6 p.m. and will tell as to where and when the amount of Rs. 4 crores was to be given to him by us. He had threatened that if the amount of Rs. 4 crores was not given to him, then he will kill us. He had also threatened us not to approach police in this regard.
Thereafter, accused Vinay had taken out a bottle containing acid from his bag and threatened to pour upon us. I tried to convince the accused Vinay that I have no money that is why I am selling the property and to give some time to pay the ransom amount to him on which he did not agree and told that he will call me in the evening as to when and where the ransom money was to be given to him.
The accused Vinay had cut some layers of the rope from the hands of my brother Sushant Gupta and told us not to follow him down while leaving the room and asked us to come down after 10 minutes as their associates are present outside the hotel and they will shoot us. My brother had somehow opened the rope of his hand and thereafter, he opened rope from my hands.
Thereafter, we came downstairs and sat in the car and came back to our house. I had told to the family members and relatives about the incident which was happened with us. Sushant had made a call 112 from his mobile phone. Thereafter, I and my brother Sushant Gutpa had reached at PS C.R. Park. Some of the relatives to whom I had informed about the incident also reached at the PS. My statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded by the police, which bears my signature at FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 15/43 point A."
The police inspected the spot and prepared the site plan at my instance which is Ex. PW2/B which bears my signature at point A. The police seized the DVR make CP Plus from the Oyo hotel through seizure memo Ex. PW2/C which bears my signature at point A. the police had also seized the pieces of rock by which we were tied from the place of occurrence through seizure memo Ex.PW2/D which bears my signature at point A. The advertisement regarding the selling of property which I had given in English Newspaper published on 21.08.2021 and it bears my advertisement at point A in the paper cutting Mark PW 2/1.
I can identify the papers regarding the sale of property upon which the accused taken the signature of mine and my brother forceibly on the point of gun. My brother had signed the papers as witness. I have seen the said papers i.e. agreement to sale and purchase vide Ex. PW1/A. It bears my signature at points A on each page and signature of my brother at points A now it is given point A1. The receipt vide Ex. PW1/B which bears my signature at point B and the signature of my brother at point A. the second agreement to sale vide Ex.PW1/C which bears my signature at points B on each page and the signature of my brother at point A. The receipt vide Ex. PW1/D which bears my signature at point B and the signature of my brother at point A. The agreement to sell vide Ex. PW1/E which bears my signatures at points B on each page and signature of my brother at point A. The receipt vide Ex. PW1/F which bears my signature at point B and the signature of my brother at point A. All these documents were signed by me and my brother under threat and on the point of gun at the instance of accused. No any payment of consideration was made in respect of the said papers regarding the selling of property.
(emphasis supplied) 8.1 During his cross-examination, he admitted that on 19.10.2021, he had telephonic conversation with one Sushil Modi (financer) regarding some loan, he further admitted that on 19.10.2021 Sushil Modi and accused Vinay came to Continental Hotel after the telephonic conversation, he FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 16/43 further admitted that the said conversation was with respect to selling of Continental Hotel by Sushil Modi for about of 7-8 Crores.
8.2 PW2 denied the suggestion that when the deal of the Continental Hotel got settled, Sushil Modi offered him to get a loan through MSME, he denied that it was further agreed that file charge would be 2% of the loan amount, that when conversation took place between them it was agreed @ 8 crore, that however, accused Vinay told them that his uncle will finalize the deal, that accused Vinay introduced Sushil as MSME loan provider agent and he further told me that "Sushil mujhe MSME se loan provide karwayga "
8.3 PW2 admitted that during occurrence, the accused Vinay went out from the room once and then he again entered the room, that he admitted the suggestion that if a person had entered in the room (wherein incident took place), he would have been captured in the camera, that he did not make call to Sushil after reaching in the Police Station, that he did not talk to Sushil after the incident, that he admitted that Sushil came to his Hotel but he does not remember the date, that the accused Vinay also accompanied Sushil to his Hotel, that he denied the suggestion that the accused Vinay alongwith Sushil came to see his property for the purpose of loan, that he admitted that he talked Sushil regarding MSME loan, that he denied the suggestion that Sushil would take some commission in lieu of sanctioning the loan 8.4 PW2 volunteered that the talks could not culminate upto the FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 17/43 such stage, that he admitted that it "2-4 percent kharche ki baat hue thi", that he denied the suggestion that Rs. 14 lacs was fixed, that he volunteered that nothing was fixed in the name of commission, that only once a meeting took place between him and Sushil, that he met Sushil only once in his life, he denied the suggestion that he had given Rs. 4 lacs as part of commission to Sushil Modi of total advance of Rs. 14 lacs, 8.5 PW2 further denied the suggestion that after two days i.e. 25.10.2021 of giving Rs. 4 lacs to Sushil, accused Vinay came to him for taking the remaining amount of commission i.e. Rs. 10 lacs, that he denied the suggestion that he had cancelled the deal with the accused as he found some other buyer of the property, that he denied the suggestion that the accused persons, seen entering the property, had actually come to collect the commission of Rs. 10 lacs. He denied the suggestion that he had given beatings to the accused at the relevant time and then threw him out of the Hotel, that he does not remember if he had any telephonic conversation with Sushil Modi after the incident, that Sushil Modi never came to PS in his presence, he denied the suggestion that the entire case is false and fabricated just to seek a return of Rs. 4 lacs advanced to Sushil Modi for arranging a loan MSME department.
9) PW-10 Sh. Umang Singh is the concerned receptionist and the material witness examined by the prosecution. He deposed as as under :
"I am working as receptionist in South Plaza Hotel, Chattarpur for last 2 years. Before that I was working as receptionist in Hotel South Continental, at B-273, CR Park.FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 18/43
On 25.10.2021, Prashant Sir who is the owner of Hotel South Continental, called me telephonically and informed me that "mere kuch guest aa rahe hai unko room no. 201 in baithana ". At about 11/11:30 AM, one uncle along with 2 boys came to Continental Hotel and asked me that "Prashant Sir ne appko bataya hoga" thereafter, I told them that " haa bataya tha" thereafter, I sent the said uncle to room no. 201. thereafter, the said uncle went to room no. 201 and after 5 minutes he returned back to the reception. Thereafter, Prashant and his brother Sushant reached at Continental Hotel.
Thereafter, the said Uncle along with one boy who came with said uncle went to the room no. 201 along with Prashant Sir and his brother Sushant. However, the second boy who came with the uncle remained at the reception. After 5-10 minutes the first boy who went to room no. 201 with uncle came back to the reception and took the second boy to room no. 201. After 30 minutes said uncle along with two boys left the hotel. After 5-10 minutes Prashant Sir and his brother Sushant came to reception and both of them were seems terrified. Thereafter, after 5-10 minutes Prashant Sir called the police and police reached at the spot. I came to know later on that the above said three persons who went to the Room no. 201 with Prashant Sir and Sushant, they had tied the hands of the Prashant Sir. I do not know rest of the incident.
I can identify the three assailants who came to the Continental Hotel on that day.
At this stage, witness has pointed out towards the accused Vinay Kumar and states that he is the same uncle who came to Continental Hotel along with 2 boys on that day and went to the room no 201 with Prashant Sir and Sushant. (Witness has correctly identified the accused )."
(emphasis supplied) 9.1 During his cross-examination, he deposed that accused never came to Hotel Continental after his joining in the said Hotel apart from the date of incident, that he does not remember if any person namely Sushil Modi came to the Hotel Continental 2-3 days prior to the date of incident or not.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 19/43He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the behest of Prashant Sir being my Ex-employer.
10. PW-12 IO SI Tejender Nandal deposed as under:-
"On 25.10.2021, I was posted at PS CR Park. On that day, I received DD No. 47 A. The true copy of which is Ex. PW12/P1. Upon receiving the said DD, the complainant and his brother Sushant reached in the PS by that time. I took the complainant namely Prashant Gupta and Sushant to the place of occurrence i.e. hotel OYO Continental i.e. B-12, C R Park. Upon reaching there, I called the crime team at the spot.
I checked the CCTV footage of the hotel in which the alleged accused persons were seen. Thereafter, I recorded the statement of complainant Prashant Gupta which is already Ex. PW2/A. I also made inquiry from Sushant. Thereafter, I made my rukka Ex. PW12/P2 which bears my signature at point A. I sent the rukka appended to the statement of complainant to PS through Ct. Ashok. I made the video from my mobile phone from the CCTV Camera where in the accused were seen. I seized the exhibits at the spot i.e. cotton rope/ cord from the spot which was used by the accused persons in tying of the victims. I sealed the said rope in a parcel and seized through seizure memo Ex. PW2/D which bears my signature at point B. I had also seized the DVR make CP Plus and adaptor that I sealed in a parcel with the seal of TSN and then seized through seizure memo Ex. PW2/C which bears my signature at point B. Ct. Ashok brought the copy of FIR with rukka at the spot and then I put the FIR number on the above seizure memos and obtained the signature of Ct. Ashok on both the seizure memos. I prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of complainant. The same is Ex. PW2/B which bears my signature at point B. I examined the manager of the hotel and the Sushant and recorded their statements with Ct. Ashok. Thereafter, we returned to PS. I sent letter to the mobile service provider to collect the CDR of FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 20/43 mobile number of accused through which he contacted the complainant. I obtained the CDR of mobile number 7701854154. after analyse the CDR the said number was found to be registered in the name of Piyush Verma S/o Vinay Kumar, the accused. On 26.10.2021 we reached at the address given in the CAF and there Piyush Verma met us . On asking the said Piyush that the said mobile number was registered in his name and the same was being used by his father i.e. Vinay Kumar, the accused. I had shown the accused in the video to Piyush which I had made from my mobile phone and he identified his father Vinay Kumar. On inquiry Piyush told that accused Vinay Kumar had left the house on 25.10.2021 and he had not returned since then. I instructed my staff to look after the surrounding of the accused in civil dress and as and when he came there they would inform me.
We were continued doing the investigation and on the next day i.e. on 27.10.2021, when we were returning from the house of accused then on the way near Dwarka District Court then one secret informer met me and he told that the alleged Vinay Kumar would come in Dwarka Court in afternoon. Then we reached at Dwarka Court along with the secret informer. I asked some public person to join us but none could prepare to join and went away without disclosing their names and addresses.
We were waiting for the accused at the main gate of Dwarka Court and at about 04:15 PM then one person came out and to whom the secret informer pointed out as the accused Vinay Kumar wanted in this case and then the informer went away. We apprehended the said Vinay Kumar, now accused present in court today. (Correctly identified by the witness).
On inquiry, his name revealed as Vinay Kumar, the father of Piyush. On inquiry he did not admit his involvement in this case then I then conducted his cursory search. I made search of his bag and it was found containing original documents of the hotel OYO Continental i.e. Sale deed etc including the chain of ownership of said hotel. The documents which he had prepared in his name for purchasing the hotel also recovered from his bag. Rs. 8000/- cash also recovered from the pocket of his wearing pant. The clothes that he was wearing at the time of occurrence and shown in the CCTV Footage were also recovered from his bag. I had seized the aforesaid documents cash and the original FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 21/43 agreement to sell/ purchase and receipt property documents through seizure memos Ex. PW12/P3, Ex. PW12/P4 and Ex. PW12/P5 respectively all bears my signature at point A. The clothes of accused were sealed in a parcel with the seal of TSN and then seized through seizure memo Ex. PW12/P6 which bears my signature at point A. I arrested the accused in this case and prepared his arrest memo Ex. PW12/P7 which bears my signature at point A. The personal search of accused was also conducted and prepared the memo thereof which is Ex. PW12/P8 which bears my signature at point A. One mobile phone of accused was recovered in his personal search. I interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW12/P9 which bears my signature at point A. During the interrogation the accused Vinay Kumar disclosed that he had stolen a scooty from the area of PS Prashat Vihar and the same was parked at his shop in the area of Shalimar Bagh and the weapons which were used in the commission of the offence were lying in the said scooty. He could, get recovered he same. He further disclosed that the two boys of his associate in this case were also living in the area of Shalimar Bagh and he could get them arrested from there.
In pursuant of the disclosure statement the accused Vinay led us at his shop at Shalimar Bagh A G Block on the corner of CSC Market. Upon reaching there, he pointed out one scooty bearing registration number DL 11SL 3405 in front of his shop. I checked the dikki of the scooty and found two air/splinter gun and two knives of different size. I prepared the sketches of the two guns which are Ex.PW12/P10 and EX.PW12/P11 both bears my signature at point A. I also prepared the sketches of both knives which are Ex. PW12/P12 and Ex. PW12/P13 which bears my signature at point A. I then seized both the guns through separate seizure memos Ex. PW12/P14 and Ex. PW12/P15 both bears my signature at point A. I had also seized both the knives through separate seizure memos Ex. PW12/P16 and Ex. PW12/P17 both bears my signature at point A. Before seizure, I had sealed both the guns and knives in a separate parcel whit the seal of TSN. All the aforesaid memos bearing the signature of accused Vinay Kumar at point B. I also seized the scooty through seizure memo Ex. PW12/P18 which bears my signature at point A and the signature of accused at point B. I prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of scooty with weapon. The same FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 22/43 is Ex. PW12/P19 which bears my signature at point A and and the signature of accused at point B. A park situated nearby the place of recovery of scooty. Accused Vinay Kumar pointed out two boys as his associate in this case who were sitting in the park. We apprehended both the said boys whose names were revealed as K and F. Both were revealed to be JCL. The apprehension memo of both the JCL were prepared by SI Sanjeev Kumar CWPO. The copy of apprehension memos are Mark A and B. Both the JCL were got recovered their wearing clothes that were worn by them at the time of occurrence from their respective houses. The copy of seizure memo of JCL K is Mark C which bears my signature at point A and the copy of seizure memo of JCL F is Mark D which bears my signature at point A. I prepared the site plan of the place of the recovery of clothes situated in a one lane. The site plan is Ex. PW12/P20 which bears my signature at point A. I took the accused along with the JCL to the place of occurrence and they had pointed out the same as the place where they had committed the present offence. In the meantime the complainant reached at the spot and he had identified the accused and both the JCL as the same persons who had committed offence against him. I had recorded the statement of complainant in this regard. In this process the next date came that is 28.10.2021 and thus we took the accused to Court and produced him before the concerned Magistrate. Both the JCL were produced before JJB. The accused was remanded to JC by the Magistrate. I recorded the statement of witnesses. I may state that I had also seized the original bank account opening form of accused Vinay Kumar through seizure memo Ex PW12/P21 which bears my signature at point A. the original form is already Ex. PW5/A colly.
On 23.12.2021 I had obtained the specimen signature of accused Vinay Kumar on 5 sheets. The same are Ex. PW5/B Colly attested by the Magistrate at points A. Thereafter, I had sent the specimen signature with the documents in question and the weapons to FSL. Some report of FSL was received later on which was filed with the supplementary charge-sheet by some other IO. I had recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of the investigation I prepared the charge sheet and put in court. I can identify the case property if shown to me.FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 23/43
He correctly identified the case property as under:-
(i) Splinter guns recovered from the dikki of accused Ex. MO-1 and Ex.MO-2 (bearing FSL Mark F1 and F2 respectively).
(ii) One cord (sutli) Ex. MO-3.
(iii) Knife recovered from the dikki, Ex. MO-4.
(iv) Knife recovered from the dikki, Ex. MO-5.
(v) Clothes i.e. one blue jeans shirt and one shirt having white base and navy blue strips of accused wearing at the time of occurrence Ex.- MO-6 (colly)."
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC:
11. Examined under section 313 of CrPC, the accused either pleaded ignorance about the incriminating evidence or denied the same as incorrect. He claimed to be falsely implicated.
12. Accused examined two witnesses in his defence.
13. DW-1 is accused Vinay who examined himself in terms of Section 315 CrPC and deposed as under :
"In the month of May 2021, I was running in Judicial Custody, however, after being granted parol I was released from jail. Thereafter, I started helping my father who used to run a garment shop.
Sumit Modi had been my neighbour. He talked to me and assured me that he would arrange loan of Rs. 10 lakhs for me if I wish to do the business on large scale. I was running a Trust namely Charitra Nirman Sevadas Trust.
On the assurance of Sumit Modi I gave hims Rs. 20,000/- and FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 24/43 also provided him the document of the said trust. He assured me that he would get the loan arranged within one and half months from MSME. Sumit Modi had also been dealing in the sale of property. There was an advertisement of sale of three properties. Sumit told me to obtain the details of those properties. I contacted the owner of the property i.e. Hotel OYO, B-273, CR Park and a meeting was fixed by him on coming Sunday i.e. on 17.10.2021. On that day, Sumit Modi and owner of that property Sh. Prashant Gupta reached the said hotel. Prashant Gupta got his property inspected from the basement to the top floor. He put the demand of Rs. 7.5 Crores for sale of that property. Sumit Modi purposed to buy the property for Rs. 5.5 Cr to Rs 5.4 Cr as due to Covid period. However, Sh. Prashant Gupta, owner of the house refused to sell the property for that consideration.
Thereafter, Sumit Modi had also assured Sh. Prashant Gupta that he can arrange loan of Rs. 7 Cr -8 Cr from MSME, if he is not able to sell the property on that consideration. It was also agreed that 02 % commission would be required to be paid to MSME and Sumit Modi would charge 1% commission for his services.
Next day, on 18.10.2021 I collected the photocopy of the documents of that property from his property at Okhla and gave the documents to Sushil Modi for further documentation. I also gave Rs. 8000/- for documentation to Sumit Modi which was given to me by Prashant Gupta.
On 20.10.2021, Sumit Modi told me that he had received Rs. 4 lakhs from Sh. Prashant Gupta out of 8 lakhs. Objected to by Ld. Addl. PP for State being hearsay.
On 23.10.2021, Sh. Prashant Gupta told Sumit Modi that he did not want to take loan and that he had got NRI customer to purchase the property in question for Rs. 8 Cr. Then Sumit Modi told him that his loan was ready and he need to pay only remaining amount of Rs. 4 lakhs for that purpose.
On 24.10.2021, on the asking of Sunil Modi I visited the house of Sh. Prashant Gupta at GK I to get signature of his wife on the documents but she was not available at her house and I left the document there.FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 25/43
On 25.10.2021, Sumit modi told me to reach the hotel at 10:00 AM and also bring the paper from the house of Sh. Prashant Gupta. I reached the hotel at about 10:00 am- 10:15 AM. At about 11:00 AM Sh. Prashant Gupta and Sushant Gupta also came at the said hotel. That after we went to room no. 201. After entering the room Sh. Prashant Gupta talked to Sumit Modi and during that conversation they had an altercation regarding loan of property. Sh. Prashant Gupta returned the paper to me stating that "hum loan ke paper sign nahi kar rahe hai inko wapis le jaao aur mere paise wapis karwado".
On 25.10.2021, at about 04:00 PM police came to my shop and lifted from me there, took me to the house of Sumit Modi to find him out but he was not present at his house. Thereafter, I was brought to PS and was arrested."
14. DW2 is Sumit Modi and his testimony reads as under :
"In the year 2021, I along with my family was residing at premises no. AH-92, Shalimar, New Delhi. Some time in June/July, in the year 2021 accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty present in the Court, his brother and his father had opened a garment shop at DDA Market, known as AG Market, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
My wife had also purchased some garment from the shop. On the asking of the brother of the accused, I told them I along with my wife was also in the business of supplying readymade ladies suit.
During that period accused told me that he had a buyer for purchasing ready made ladies suit and assured me to arrange our meeting with him at Safdarjung Enclave.
On that pretext, accused took me to a hotel telling me that he had some urgent meeting in some hotel. After reaching that hotel I was made to sit at the receptions, thereafter accused went to a room on the ground floor of that hotel and held a meeting with somebody. After 15- 20 minutes, he alongwith 3/ 4 more persons came out of the room and further ask me to wait for sometime and thereafter they also took me to the roof top of that hotel.FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 26/43
While I was standing aside at some place and accused along with the said 3-4 accused persons were having some conversation among themselves. That conversation lasted for about 08-10 minutes. Thereafter, we all came downstairs and out of the hotel. Thereafter, I along with accused hire an auto for Shalimar Bagh. When I asked him why we were not going to Safdurjung Enclave, he replied that " mere ghar se phone aa gaya ab mai ghar jaaunga aur safdarjung kissi aur din chalenge". On the way back to Shalimar Bagh, accused alighted the TSR near some metro station and I went to Shalimaar Bagh. I do not know where the said 03-04 persons had gone from the hotel.
After about 08/10 days I received a call from one Police Inspector PS CR Park. He inquired from me if I knew accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty. I answered in affirmative telling him that accused is running a shop opposite to my residence in Shalimaar Bagh. Thereafter, said Inspector asked me to come to PS CR Park. On the very same day I went to PS CR Park along with my wife and my brother in law namely Lokesh Gupta.
At the asking of police I narrated the above story in the PS. I was asked if anything had happened in my presence at the hotel. I replied in negative.
At this stage, Ld. LADC seeks permission of this court to cross examine the witness u/s 157 BSA. Heard. Allowed.
I do not know any person by name of Prashant Gupta and Sushant Gupta. I also do not know if the said persons accompanied us to the roof top of the hotel at the relevant time. Except the said garment I did not do any other business during those period. I did not come across any advertisement regarding sale of any hotel.
I identify accused present in Court. I never arrange any loan for accused from MSME Department.
It is wrong to suggest that once I had seen advertisement for sale of a hotel, thereafter, I along with the accused visited the hotel for inspection and to finalize the deal to buy the hotel. It is wrong to suggest that thereafter, I had assured one Prashant Gupta to arrange FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 27/43 loan from MSME Department after the deal for purchase of the hotel had collapsed. It is wrong to suggest that on that account I had received Rs. 4 lakhs as commission from Prashant. It is wrong to suggest that to facilitate the said loan I had sent accused to Prashant Gupta to obtain his signature on some documents on 25.10.2021.
It is correct that it was the month of October when I was called by the said Inspector at PS CR Park.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately concealing the true facts of the case and deposing falsely for the reason not to return the money of Rs. 4 lakhs to Prashant Gupta".
15. After conclusion of defence evidence, final arguments were advanced by both the parties.
16. Ld. Addl. PP argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that PW2 (complainant) gave a consistent and reliable account of the incident which remained unshaken in cross-examination. PW1 fully corroborated him on all material particulars regarding use of weapons, tying of hands, forcible signatures on documents, robbery of cash and threats with ransom of ₹4 crores.
16.1 It was further argued that PW10 (receptionist) independently corroborated the presence of accused and his associates at the hotel and their visit to Room No. 201. CCTV footage and admitted FSL reports support the prosecution version and that the inconclusive handwriting report is irrelevant since the case is of forcible signatures, not forgery.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 28/4316.2 Ld. Addl. PP contended that the defence story of MSME loan and commission is an afterthought and stands contradicted by DW2, who denied arranging any loan or receiving money. It was lastly contended that the recovery of air pistols, supported by FSL report and sanction, proves the Arms Act offence. Conviction was accordingly prayed for.
17. Per contra, Ld. Legal Aid Defence Counsel argued that the case is false and arises from a business/loan dispute. It was submitted that material inconsistencies exist in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 regarding the incident and their conduct after the occurrence, creating doubt about the prosecution story.
17.1 Reliance was placed on admissions of PW2 regarding discussions with Sushil Modi about MSME loan and commission, suggesting that the accused had visited the hotel in connection with a financial transaction and not to commit robbery.
17.2 It was further argued that the handwriting expert gave an inconclusive opinion, the delay in reporting the matter is unexplained, and the recovery of weapons is doubtful. The defence evidence offers a plausible alternative version, and therefore benefit of doubt should be granted and the accused acquitted.
18. Heard. Record perused.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 29/4319. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
20. This Court has carefully examined the testimony of PW1 Sh. Sushant Gupta and PW2 Dr. Prashant Gupta, both of whom are eye- witnesses to the occurrence. Their presence at the spot is natural and undisputed, being the owners of the property in question and having admittedly fixed a meeting with the accused for the proposed sale of the hotel. The defence has not disputed that the accused had been in contact with PW2 prior to the incident or that he had visited the hotel earlier. In fact, during cross-examination, PW2 admitted that accused Vinay had visited the property and discussions regarding sale had taken place. Thus, the foundational fact that accused had access to and acquaintance with the complainant stands established.
21. The core question is whether on 25.10.2021 the accused, in furtherance of common intention with his associates, committed robbery and put the complainant and PW1 in fear of death or grievous hurt while armed with deadly weapons, and whether he committed extortion by putting them in fear of death.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 30/4322. PW1 and PW2 have given substantially consistent accounts regarding the manner of occurrence. Both have deposed that after entering Room No. 201, accused Vinay went downstairs on the pretext of bringing his uncle and returned with two boys. Both witnesses stated that weapons were used
--pistol and knife--and that their hands were tied with rope. They have consistently deposed that signatures were forcibly obtained on Agreement to Sell and receipts brought by the accused and that original property documents were taken away. They have also deposed regarding demand of Rs. 4 crores and threats extended to them.
23. The testimony of PW10 Sh. Umang Singh, the receptionist, lends material corroboration to the prosecution version to the extent that accused Vinay had come to the hotel with two boys; that they went to Room No. 201 along with PW1 and PW2; that after about 30 minutes they left; and that PW1 and PW2 appeared terrified thereafter. PW10 correctly identified the accused in Court. His presence at the reception is natural and there is no reason brought on record to falsely implicate the accused at the instance of his former employer. His cross-examination does not reveal any material contradiction or motive to depose falsely.
24. Further corroboration emerges from the CCTV footage (Ex. MO-1), which was played in Court and identified by PW1. The DVR was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/C. The FSL report of Cyber Forensic Division (admitted under Section 294 CrPC) does not suggest tampering. Though the CCTV footage may not capture the incident inside the room, it FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 31/43 establishes the entry and exit of accused and his associates at the relevant time, thereby supporting the ocular testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW10.
25. The defence has attempted to build a theory that the dispute was purely civil in nature, arising out of a proposed MSME loan transaction through one Sushil/Sumit Modi and that the present case has been fabricated to avoid payment of commission allegedly agreed to be paid. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon certain admissions elicited from PW2 in cross-examination regarding conversation with Sushil Modi and discussion about 2-4% expenses.
26. However, even if it is assumed that there were parallel discussions regarding MSME loan, the same does not probabilize the defence version that the accused had gone merely to collect commission and was beaten and falsely implicated. No suggestion has been substantiated by any independent material. No complaint was lodged by the accused alleging assault by PW1 or PW2. The defence version remains uncorroborated.
27. DW1 (accused himself) has deposed about alleged dealings with Sumit Modi and about arranging loan. However, his testimony is self- serving in nature and suffers from material infirmities. He admits his presence at the hotel on 25.10.2021 and in Room No. 201 with PW1 and PW2. His explanation that PW2 returned loan papers and asked him to get money refunded does not inspire confidence, particularly in the absence of any contemporaneous communication, message or complaint evidencing FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 32/43 such transaction.
28. Further, DW2 Sumit Modi has not supported the defence case. Rather, he denied arranging any loan for accused from MSME and denied receiving Rs. 4 lakhs from Prashant Gupta. He also denied visiting the hotel for finalizing any deal. Thus, the very foundation of the defence theory stands demolished by its own witness.
29. It is true that PW5, the handwriting expert, gave an inconclusive opinion regarding common authorship of questioned signatures. However, the prosecution case is not that the accused forged signatures; rather, the case is that signatures were forcibly obtained. The inconclusive FSL opinion does not advance the defence case nor does it discredit the ocular testimony of PW1 and PW2 who have admitted their signatures but stated that the same were obtained under threat.
30. As regards recovery of two air pistols, PW8 has opined that the weapons were in working condition and fall within the definition of firearm under the Act. Sanction under Section 39 Arms Act (Ex. PW9/A) has been duly proved by PW9. The accused has not been able to show that he was holding any valid licence or permit. The recovery, as deposed by IO PW12, has remained unshaken in cross-examination.
31. Minor discrepancies pointed out by defence--such as exact sequence FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 33/43 of tying of hands, exact amount robbed, or who made the call to police-- are natural variations arising from lapse of time and do not go to the root of the matter. The substratum of prosecution case, namely that accused entered the room with associates, used weapons, tied the victims, forcibly obtained signatures, robbed cash and threatened them with death while demanding Rs. 4 crores, remains intact.
32. The testimony of injured/eye-witness stands on a higher pedestal and unless there are compelling reasons to discard the same, the Court ought not to reject it. In the present case, PW1 and PW2 have withstood lengthy cross-examination. No material contradiction affecting the core of the prosecution story has been elicited. Their version finds corroboration from PW10 and the electronic evidence.
33. From the evidence on record, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 25.10.2021 accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty, in furtherance of common intention with his associates, committed robbery of cash and property documents from PW1 and PW2, and at the time of commission of robbery used a deadly weapon, thereby attracting Section 397 IPC. It is further proved that he put the complainant and his brother in fear of death and demanded Rs. 4 crores, thereby committing offence under Section 387 IPC.
34. Further, the recovery of air pistols from his possession without licence establishes offence under Section 25 Arms Act. Reliance is placed FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 34/43 upon the judgment in People for Animals Vs. Union of India & Others 2011 SCC OnLine Del 235 which reads as under:-
"24. An air gun/air rifle/air pistols uses the energy or force produced from compressed air or other gas for discharging of the pellet or projectile. Normally these air guns, etc. use metal projectiles and the ones which use plastic projectiles are Air (soft) Guns. General internet search on air guns reveals that these are distinguished from firearms, which burn a propellant in order to shoot the projectile but under the definition of firearms, as provided under the Act and as extracted above, it is clear that the air guns/air rifles/air pistols are also covered, for not only the arms which discharge projectile(s) by action of any explosive are covered under the definition, but also arms which use other forms of energy, in this case being the energy or force generated from compressed air or gas. Thus, it is safe to conclude that air guns/air rifles/air pistols are not mere toys, as against the assertion of the respondents and they are very much subject to the provisions of the Act, being firearms."
35. Accordingly, accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty is held guilty and is hereby convicted for offences punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC read with Section 397 IPC, Section 387/34 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act.
36. Let the convict be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.15
14:39:48 +0530
Announced in the open (ANUJ AGRAWAL)
Court on 15.04.2026 Additional Sessions Judge-03,
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 35/43
Appendix
Chart for witnesses examined:
Prosecution Name of Description
Witness No. Witness
PW1 Sh. Sushant Gupta Brother of the complainant
/eyewitness of the incident.
PW2 Dr. Prashant Gupta Complainant / Eyewitness of the
incident.
PW3 SI Vijay Singh He is the duty officer, who made
endorsement Ex.PW3/B on the
rukka and registered the FIR
Ex.PW3/A.
PW4 ASI Braham Prakash He is the photographer from mobile
crime team, who took photographs
of the scene of crime and proved the
said photographs as Ex. PW4/A.
PW5 Mr. Alok Kumar PW-5, the concerned Forensic
Mehta, Sr. Scientific Science Laboratory expert, deposed Officer, RFSL, that he had examined the questioned Chanakya Puri, signatures appearing on the property documents along with the specimen signatures of the accused.
He proved his detailed report as Ex.
PW5/C. PW-5 opined that certain similarities were observed in the execution of various characters and in their inconspicuous details.
However, he categorically stated that no definite opinion could be expressed regarding the common authorship of the questioned and specimen signatures. In other words, the examination remained inconclusive and the authorship of the disputed signatures could neither be confirmed nor ruled out on scientific basis.
PW6 HC Ashok Kumar He was the Channel Operator, who received the call regarding the robbery and forwarded the information to concerned police station. He proved the PCR form as Ex.PW6/A and E-form event ID as Ex. PW6/B. PW7 SI Ajay PW-7 was the Incharge of the Mobile Crime Team, who deposed that on receipt of information, he along with ASI Braham Prakash (Photographer) and HC Soran Singh (Fingerprint Proficient) reached the scene of crime and inspected the spot. He proved the Crime Team Inspection Report as Ex. PW7/A. PW8 Ms. Anubha Lal, She proved the FSL report Ex.
Chemical Examiner PW8/A regarding two air pistols (Ballistics), recovered at the instance of accused. As per said report, the pistols were found in working condition and same are fire arm as per extant Act and Rules.
PW9 Sh. Ankit Chauhan, He proved Sanction under section 39 of Arms Act Ex. PW9/A. PW10 Sh. Umang Singh He was the receptionist at Hotel South Continental and stated about visiting of accused alongwith two boys in the hotel and went to the room no. 201 with Prashant and Sushant on the date of offence.
PW11 SI Sunder Pal He filed the FSL report Ex. PW5/A, reports from Ballistics Division Ex.PW8/A, Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act Ex.PW9/A and FSL report of DVR of CCTV footage Ex.
PW11/P1 by way of supplementary charge-sheet.
PW12 SI Tejender Nandal He is the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case and deposed about the investigation carried out by him.
PW13 HC Sudhir Kumar He is the Nodal Officer, posted at CPCR and proved the PCR form as Ex. PW13/P1.
Chart of Exhibited Documents
Exhibit Description of the exhibit Proved by /
No. Attested by
1 Agreement to Sell & Purchase / Bayana PW1
dt. 23.10.2021 in name of Prashant Gupta
and Vinay Kumar - Ex.PW1/A
2 The receipt dt. 25.10.2021 in respect of PW1
receipt of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- by Prashant
Gupta (seller) against the said property
Ex.PW1/B
3 Agreement to Sell & Purchase / Bayana PW1
dt. 23.10.2021 in name of Prashant Gupta
and Vinay Kumar - Ex.PW1/C
4 Receipt dated 25.10.2021 in respect of PW1
receipt of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- by Prashant
Gupta (seller) against said property
-Ex.PW1/D
5 Agreement to Sell & Purchase / Bayana PW1
dt. 23.10.2021 in name of Prashant Gupta
and Vinay Kumar - Ex.PW1/E
6 Receipt in respect of receipt of Rs. PW1
2,50,00,000/- by Prashant Gupta (seller)
against said property- Ex.PW1/F
7 Original Sale Deed by Prashant Gupta PW1
sold the property to Ms. Sunita Chabra -
Ex.PW1/G
8 Certified copy of sale deed in name of PW1
Ms. Varsha Hoon and Prashant Gupta in
respect of above said property.
Ex.PW1/H and Ex.P1/I
9 Statement of Prashant -Ex.PW2/A PW2
10 Site plan - Ex.PW2/B PW2
11 Seizure memo of DVR make CP Plus PW2
from the OYO Hotel - Ex.PW2/C
12 Seizure memo of pieces of rock by which PW2
they were tied - Ex.PW2/D
13 Paper cutting of newspaper regarding PW2
selling property Ex.PW2/1
14 Computer generated copy of FIR - PW3
Ex.PW3/A (OSR)
15 Endorsement on the rukka - Ex.PW3/B PW3
16 GD No. 72A Ex.PW3/C PW3
17 The digital photographs Ex.P4/A(colly) PW4 18 Certificate - Ex.PW4/B PW4 19 The Standard document Ex.A1 to A14 PW5 Ex.PW5/A 20 Specimen signature of Vinay Kuamr PW5 from S1 to S61 on five sheets Ex.PW5/B(colly) 21 Report of Mr. Alok Kumar Mehta. Sr. PW5 Scientific Officer - Ex.PW5/C 22 The PCR form duly filled - Ex.PW6/A PW6 23 E-Form Event ID 40815149 alongwith PW6 Certificate u/s 65B of IEA - Ex.PW6/B 24 Crime Scene report - Ex.PW7/A PW7 25 Detailed report qua examination of said PW8 two pistols 26 Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act for prosecution PW9 Ex.PW9/A 27 FSL report regarding the DVR / footages PW11 of CCTV camera alongwith certificate Ex.PW11/P1 28 DD No.47A - Ex.PW12/P1 PW12 29 Rukka Ex.PW12/P2 PW12 30 Seizure memos of documents cash and PW12 the original agreement to sell / purchase and receipt property documents Ex.PW12/P3, Ex.PW12/P4 and Ex.WP12/P5 respectively.
31 Seizure memo of clothes of accused PW12 Ex.PW12/P6 32 Arrest memo of accused - Ex.PW12/P7 PW12 33 Personal search memo of accused PW12 Ex.PW12/P8 34 Sketch of two guns - Ex.PW12/P10 and PW12 Ex.PW12/P11 35 Sketch of both knives - Ex.PW12/P12 PW12 and Ex.PW12/P13.
36 Seizure memo of both the guns - PW12 Ex.PW12/14 and Ex.PW12/15 37 Seizure memo of both knives - PW12 Ex.PW12/P16 and Ex.PW12/P17.
38 Seizure memo of scooty - Ex.PW12/P18 PW12 39 Site plan of place of recovery of scooty PW12 with weapon - Ex.PW12/P19 40 Site plan of place of recovery of clothes PW12
- Ex.PW12/P20 41 Seizure memo of bank account opening PW12 form of accused vinay Ex.PW12/P21 42 PCR form pertaining to the Event ID PW13 4085149 dt. 25.10.2021 - ExPW13/P1 and certificate u/s 63 BSA in this regard Ex.PW13/P2 Chart for Material Objects/Muddamals Material Description of the Proved Object no. Exhibit by/Attested by
1. DVR and footage Ex.MO-1
2. Pistol (Mark F-1) Ex.MO-1
3. Pistol (Mark F-2) Ex.MO-2
4. Cord (sutli) Ex.MO-3
5. Knives (used by two associates Ex.MO-4 and Ex.MO-5 (JCL) of Vinay)
6. Clothes of accused Vinay Ex.MO-6 (colly)