Delhi District Court
State vs Md Zubair on 9 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK WASON
ASJ-04 : SW DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC No. 586/2022
CNR No. DLSW01-007712-2022
State Vs. 1. Mohd. Zubair
S/o Mohd. Sarfuddin
R/o Jhuggi no.23, JJ Colony,
Pocket-4, Bindapur, Dabri,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
2. Ravi Jigar
S/o Sh. Nathu Lal
R/o G-146, Gali no.5,
Sitapuri, Part-II, Dabri,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. Taukir
S/o Sh. Abdul Salam,
R/o G-53, Gali no.2,
Saraswati Enclave,
near Radha S, Satrang Village,
Kadipur, Guru Khedki Daula,
Gurgaon, Haryana
FIR No. : 342/2022
Police Station : Dabri
Under Sections : 392/397/201/224/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 27.07.2022
Date on which judgment was reserved : 09.05.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 09.05.2025
Final order : All accused are acquitted for
the offences u/s 392/34 IPC.
Accused Taukir is acquitted
for the offence u/s 397 IPC.
Accused Mohd. Zubair is
convicted for the offences
u/s 201/224 IPC
SC No. 586/2022 State Vs Mohd. Zubair & Ors Page 1 of 9
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
The accused persons have been sent to face trial under Section 392/397/201/224/34 IPC (hereinafter called as IPC) on the allegations that on 06.04.2022 at about 03:45 a.m in street behind Mother Dairy, near Bindapur Police Station, all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention (along with unknown associate) had forcefully taken cash of Rs.5,000/- from complainant Surender by putting him in fear of instant hurt. Further, accused Taukir, also used deadly weapon i.e knife while committing the robbery. It is further alleged against Mohd. Zubair that at unknown date and time at Dabri Nala, he knowingly hid e-rickshaw, which was used in the commission of the offence thereby causing evidence of the commission of the offence to disappear. It is also alleged against Mohd. Zubair that on 10.04.2022, at unknown time, in afternoon near his home i.e Jhuggi no.23, J.J. Colony, Pocket-4, Bindapur, Dabri, Dwarka, New Delhi, he intentionally escaped from the custody of IO/SI Prashant in the present case in which he was lawfully detained. Based on the said allegations, the present FIR bearing no.342/2022 was registered at Police Station Dabri and all accused persons have been charged with the offences under Section 392/397/201/224/34 IPC.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against all the accused before the Ld. concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and the copies of charge sheet were supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 Code of SC No. 586/2022 State Vs Mohd. Zubair & Ors Page 2 of 9 Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C) and thereafter, matter was committed to the Sessions Court on 27.07.2022 and on 31.08.2022, charge under Section 392/34 IPC was framed against all accused persons namely Mohd. Zubair, Ravi Jigar & Taukir. A separate charge under Section 397 IPC was framed against accused Taukir. Further, a separate charges under Section 201 IPC & 224 IPC were framed against accused Mohd. Zubair. They all pleaded pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution was thereafter given opportunity to prove the accusation against all accused persons and in support of its case, prosecution has examined 02 witnesses.
4. PW-1 is Dr. Anshu, CMO, DDU Hospital. She deposed that on 10.04.2022, one patient i.e SI Prashant was examined by Dr. Sonia Sehrawat, Jr. Resident and prepared medical examination paper as Ex. PW-1/A, bearing the signatures of Dr. Sonia Sehrawat at point A. She further deposed that she could identify the writing and signatures of Dr. Sonia Sehrawat as she has worked with her. She was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Mohd. Zubair. However, she was not cross- examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Ravi Jigar and Taukir.
5. PW-2 is Sh. Surender Singh Khurana, S/o Sh. Gurminder Singh Khurana, R/o-BE-115, Street no. 2, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. He is the complainant in the present matter and has deposed that he did not remember the exact date, month, and year, but around one and a half years ago, at about 12:00-1:00 a.m, he was going to Janakpuri to the house of his SC No. 586/2022 State Vs Mohd. Zubair & Ors Page 3 of 9 maternal grandmother (Nani) from his previously mentioned house and had booked a Rapido ride. He further deposed that after taking the Rapido, he was dropped at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and from there, he hired a battery rickshaw to reach his Nani's house. He further deposed that there were four persons including the driver in the e-rickshaw, and when they reached near Azad Juice Shop, he asked the driver to drop him at the Azad Juice shop after dropping the other passenger at his Nani's house. He further deposed that thereafter, the driver of the e-rickshaw took the vehicle to the back side of Mother Dairy located near PS Bindapur, after dropping one passenger at PS Bindapur. He further deposed that after reaching there, the accused persons overpowered him, called one more friend, showed him a knife, and robbed him of Rs. 5000/- and thereafter fled from the spot. He further deposed that he could not identify the accused persons as it was dark and that he did not know anything about the present case.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement and during his cross- examination, he admitted that the present FIR was registered on his complaint Ex. PW-2/A. He also admitted as correct that he was running a mobile repair shop at the above-mentioned address and that on 06.04.2022, at about 03:00 a.m, he was going to his other residence at D-18, Mahindra Park, Dabri, New Delhi, where his Nani used to reside. He also admitted that he had booked a Rapido app ride and that the rider dropped him at the red light of Mata Chanan Devi at about 03:30 a.m. He also admitted that thereafter, he hired an e-rickshaw in which two boys were already sitting and that the name of the e-rickshaw driver was Rahul. He denied that he had used the e-rickshaw of Rahul prior to the incident and therefore knew SC No. 586/2022 State Vs Mohd. Zubair & Ors Page 4 of 9 him. He was confronted with his earlier statement Ex. PW-2/A where it was recorded. He further deposed that thereafter they proceeded towards his Nani's house. He admitted as correct that thereafter, they took the e- rickshaw towards PS Bindapur for going to his Nani's house, they were supposed to take a right turn, but the driver took the e-rickshaw straight, upon which he asked Rahul why they went straight, to which he asked Rahul as to why they had gone straight to which, he told that after dropping the other persons, he will drop him at his Nani's house. He also admitted that at about 03:45 p.m, they reached behind the Mother Dairy situated near PS Bindapur. He denied that after reaching there, Rahul conducted a cursory search on him and robbed him of Rs. 5000/-. He also denied that when he demanded the return of his money, another boy came there and caught hold of him by the neck. He was confronted with his previous statement Ex. PW-2/A wherein it was so recorded. He denied that thereafter, all accused persons started dhakka mukki (pushing and manhandling him) and one of the accused persons took out a knife and threatened him by saying "Yaha se nikal le koi paise waise ni hai." He was again confronted with the statement Ex. PW-2/A wherein it was recorded. He denied that thereafter Rahul and the other three accused persons started talking among themselves and that the boy who came later left the spot, or that Rahul along with two other accused persons left the spot on the e-rickshaw. He was confronted from Ex. PW-2/A where it was so recorded. He admitted as correct that thereafter, he went to PS Bindapur and made a call at 100 number. He further deposed that after some time, the police came to the spot but he refused to give his statement at that time as he wanted to first discuss the matter with his family members. He admitted as correct that the SC No. 586/2022 State Vs Mohd. Zubair & Ors Page 5 of 9 IO prepared the site plan at his instance as Ex. PW-2/B. He denied that the IO recorded his supplementary statement on 06.04.2022, the same being Mark PW-2/X1. He denied that thereafter, he along with the IO tried to trace any CCTV footage but no such footage was found relating to the incident. He denied that the IO recorded his supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C on 07.04.2022, same being marked as Mark PW-2/X2. He also denied that on 07.04.2022, he went to the PS to inquire about the case status and identified accused Rahul, being the driver of the e-rickshaw, as he had used the same vehicle before the incident also. He was again confronted with his earlier statement Ex. PW-2/A, where it was recorded. He denied that Rahul had called him prior to the incident from mobile number 956029344 or that he had visited his shop to get his mobile cover changed. He was confronted with Ex. PW-2/A where it was recorded. He also denied that the IO recorded his supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C on 08.04.2022, marked as Ex. PW-2/X3. He also denied that on that day, he joined the investigation with the IO and they reached Talab Wala Park where they found one intoxicated person at the corner of the park and that he identified him as one of the accused, namely Rahul, who had robbed Rs. 5000/- from him and whose co-accused had shown him a knife. He was confronted with statement Ex. PW-2/X3 where it was so recorded. He denied that upon interrogation, said Rahul disclosed his name as Mohd Zubair @ Rahul or that after interrogation he was arrested vide arrest memo Mark PW-2/X4. He also denied that during his personal search, one mobile phone was recovered and that thereafter IO took Mohd Zubair @ Rahul to the PS. Accused persons were shown to the witness but he failed to identify them. He admitted that on 13.05.2022, he joined the TIP proceedings and SC No. 586/2022 State Vs Mohd. Zubair & Ors Page 6 of 9 identified accused Taukir during the said TIP. He voluntarily stated that he identified Taukir at the behest of the IO, as the IO had shown him photographs of the accused Taukir prior to the TIP proceedings. He denied that he was intentionally not identifying the accused persons as he had been won over or that he had settled the matter with them.
During cross-examination, by the Ld. counsel for the accused persons, he admitted as correct that all the accused were not present in any incident with him and they were not present at the spot. He admitted as correct that he took the name of one person as Rahul at the behest of the IO.
6. The record reveals that all the accused persons are facing trial for the offences under Section 392/34 IPC and accused Taukir is also facing trial for the offence under Section 397 IPC and accused Mohd. Zubair is also facing trial for the offences under Section 201/224 IPC and complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution qua offences 392/397/34 IPC. Today, in the court, separate statement of accused Mohd. Zubair recorded, wherein, he pleaded guilty for the offence under Section 201/224 IPC and he was convicted for the offences under Section 201/224 IPC. The record reveals that complainant was examined as PW-2 wherein, he has specifically deposed that he could not identify the accused persons who had robbed his money i.e Rs.5,000/- by showing knife. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State but he did not support the case of the prosecution regarding identity of the accused person. Hence, accordingly, in these circumstances, it was observed by the court that all accused cannot be convicted for the offences under Section 392/397/34 IPC. Since, one of the accused Mohd. Zubair has pleaded guilty SC No. 586/2022 State Vs Mohd. Zubair & Ors Page 7 of 9 for the offence under Section 201/224 IPC, no purpose would be served by examining the other witnesses, since, no amount of evidence can lead to the conviction of the accused persons for the offences under Section 392/397/34 IPC. Accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed.
7. Since, nothing incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused persons, statement of all accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C was also dispensed with.
8. I have heard the Ld. defence counsel as well as Sh. Brijesh Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
9. As discussed above, complainant has not supported the case of prosecution and totally demolished the case of prosecution and did not identify the accused persons, hence, there is nothing come on record against the all accused persons, accordingly, all accused persons namely Mohd. Zubair, Ravi Jigar and Taukir are acquitted for the offence under Section 392/34 IPC and accused Taukir is also acquitted for the offence under Section 397 IPC, however, accused Mohd. Zubair is convicted for the offence under Section 201/224 IPC.
10. Accused persons namely Ravi Jigar and Taukir are directed to furnish bail bonds / surety bonds in terms of Section 437 A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- . At request of both accused persons, their previous bail bonds are extended in terms of Section 437 A Cr.P.C and shall remain in force for 06 months from today.
SC No. 586/2022 State Vs Mohd. Zubair & Ors Page 8 of 911. Arguments on sentence heard separately qua convict Mohd. Zubair for the offences under Section 201/224 IPC and separate order was passed in this regard.
12. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK WASON Date: WASON 2025.05.09 15:16:21 Announced in open Court today +0530 i.e 09th May, 2025 (Deepak Wason) Additional Sessions Judge-04 South-West: Dwarka Courts: New Delhi SC No. 586/2022 State Vs Mohd. Zubair & Ors Page 9 of 9