Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul on 1 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK WASON:
ASJ-04 : SW DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC No. 373/2023
CNR No. DLSW01-005509-2023
State Vs. Rahul
S/o Sh. Anoop Singh
R/o D-1/45, Jeewan Park,
Dabri, New Delhi.
FIR No. : 893/2021
Police Station : Dabri
Under Sections : 394/397/411/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 31.05.2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 24.02.2026
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 01.04.2026
Final Order : Acquitted u/s
394/397/411/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused was sent to face trial under Sections 394/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) on allegations that on 17.10.2021 at about 8:00 pm at service road, near 20 feet road, opposite Arya Hospital, Chanakya Place, accused along with other two co-accused namely Sagar and Mayank (not apprehended), in furtherance of their common intention, while attempting to commit robbery with complainant Suraj had voluntary caused injuries on the hands of the complainant with sharp edged weapon. It was further alleged that accused Rahul had used surgical blade which is deadly weapon while committing the robbery SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 1 of 15 with complainant Suraj. Furthermore as per prosecution, on 18.10.2021 at 40 foota road, near Arya Medicose, Chanakya Place, accused was found in the possession of Rs. 1100/- which is the part of looted amount which he had retained the same knowingly the same was a stolen property. Based on these allegations, FIR No. 893/2021 was registered at PS Dabri, and accused was charged under Sections 394/397/411/34 IPC.
2. Initially the FIR was registered u/s 392/394/34 IPC but later on chargesheet u/s 392/397/411/34 IPC before the Ld. concerned MM and the copies of charge sheet was supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C) and thereafter, matter was committed to the Sessions Court on 31.05.2023 and charge under Section 394/397/411/34 IPC was framed against accused on 04.07.2023.
3. The prosecution was given the opportunity to prove its case and, in support, examined 9 witnesses.
4. PW-1 is SI Chanda Singh. He has filed the charge sheet and who has deposed that he received the file for investigation in October, 2022 and he completed the documents and filed the charge sheet in the court. This witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
4A. PW-2 is Sh. Suraj i.e. complainant in the present case and whose testimony would be considered at later stage.
5. PW-3 is HC Sandeep. This witness has joined the investigation with the IO and as per prosecution, recovery was effected from the accused in his presence. He has deposed that on 17-18.10.2021, he joined the investigation alongwith IO and on receiving of PCR call, he alongwith IO reached at Akash Hospital, where injured Suraj was found.
SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 2 of 15He further deposed that IO recorded his statement. He further deposed that Injured Suraj thereafter, referred to DDU hospital and before going DDU Hospital, injured shown the spot to them. He further deposed that IO prepared Tehrir on the basis of statement of complainant Suraj as Ex. PW-3/A and tehrir was handed over to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he went to the PS Dabri and got registered the present FIR through DO. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, copy of FIR and original Tehrir was handed over to him and thereafter, he went to the spot. He further deposed that he reached at the spot, where he handed over the copy of FIR and original Tehrir to SI Mahavir. He further deposed that IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant as Ex. PW-1/B. He further deposed that thereafter, injured went to DDU hospital and thereafter, he alongwith SI Mahavir returned back to PS and when they were on the way, they met Ct. Muniraj and beat constable Jagbir. He further deposed that they apprehended as boy, whose name later on revealed as Rahul. He further deposed that Rahul disclosed his involvement that he alongwith his associates Sagar and Mayank robbed money and mobile after giving injury with blade. He further deposed that thereafter, took the cursory search of the accused and during cursory search Rs. 1100/- and two surgical blade were recovered from accused Rahul. He further deposed that accused Rahul disclosed that the recovered Rs. 1100/- were the robbed money and remaining money had been spent. He further deposed that thereafter, IO seized both the surgical blade and Rs.1100/- in a plastic transparent dibbi and the said transparent dibbi sealed with the help of doctor tape and sealed with the seal of MK. He further deposed that Rs. 1100/- ( 500x2, 100x1) and seized vide memo as Ex. PW-3/A. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Rahul was arrested vide arrest memo as Ex. PW-3/B. He further SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 3 of 15 deposed that personal search of accused was conducted vide memo as Ex. PW-3/C. He further deposed that during personal search one mobile phone oppo was recovered. He further deposed that IO recorded disclosure statement of accused vide memo as Ex. PW-3/D . He further deposed that IO prepared pointing out memo at the instance of accused Rahul as Ex. PW-3/E. He further deposed that when they took the accused to the PS, at that time, complainant Suraj also visited at the PS and after seeing the accused Rahul, complainant correctly identifying him being one of the robber/assailant. He further deposed that after that, medical examination of accused got conducted at DDU hospital, accused was produced before the court and sent to JC. He identified the case property in the court, as Ex. P1(colly). This witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused at length.
6. PW-4 is SI Bishan Prakash. He was the Duty officer at the relevant time. He has deposed that on 18.10.2021, his duty hours were from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 A.M and at about 1:00 A.M Constable Sandeep brought one tehrir sent by SI Mahavir. He further deposed that on the basis of tehrir, he lodged FIR no. 893/21, u/s 392/394/34 IPC and copy of FIR is Ex PW 4/A(OSR). He further deposed that he made endorsement on the rukka as Ex PW 4/B and after registration of FIR, copy of FIR and original tehrir was handed over to Ct. Sandeep for further handing over to SI Mahavir. He further deposed that he also issued a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex PW 4/C. This witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
7. PW-5 is HC Muniraj. As per prosecution, this witness has apprehended the accused and recovery of Rs. 1100/- was recovered from SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 4 of 15 the accused in the presence of this witness. He has deposed that on 17.10.2021, he alongwith Ct. Jagbir were on night patrolling and during patrolling at about 2:30 A.M - 3:00 A.M, they reached at 40 foota road near Arya Medicos, where they noticed that three boys were standing near the Arya Medicos and after seeing them they fled away from there. He further deposed that on suspicion, he and Ct. Jagbir apprehended one person whose name was revealed as Rahul. He further deposed that thereafter, they inquired from accused Rahul, in the meantime IO SI Mahavir alongwith Ct. Sandeep also reached at the spot. He further deposed that thereafter SI Mahavir inquired from the accused Rahul, on which accused Rahul had stated that he alongwith his associates namely Mayank and Sagar had robbed one person with the help of surgical blade on 17.10.2021. He further deposed that thereafter, SI Mahavir took the cursory search of accused Rahul and during cursory search, two surgical blades and Rs. 1100/- were recovered. He further deposed that the accused Rahul also disclosed that he was also involved in several other cases. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Rahul was arrested and Rs. 1100/- and two surgical blades were seized vide seizure memo as Ex PW 3/A. He further deposed that accused Rahul was arrested vide arrest memo as Ex PW 3/B. He further deposed that personal search was conducted vide memo as Ex PW 3/C. He further deposed that during personal search, one mobile phone make OPPO was recovered from the accused. He further deposed that IO recorded disclosure statement of accused, as Ex PW 3/D. He further deposed that thereafter, at the instance of accused, IO prepared pointing out memo, as Ex PW 3/E and thereafter, IO got conducted medical of accused at DDU Hospital and after medical examination, accused was sent to lockup. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement and he can identify the case property as same is SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 5 of 15 already Ex P1 to Ex P3 in the examination of PW-3. This witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused at length.
8. PW-6 is HC Jagbir. As per prosecution, this witness has apprehended the accused and recovery of Rs. 1100/- was recovered from the accused in the presence of this witness and who has deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-5 HC Muni Raj.
9. PW-7 is SI Mahavir Prasad. He is the Investigation Officer of the case and who has deposed that on the intervening night of 17/18.10.2021, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM alongwith Ct. Sandeep and at about 10:40 PM, he received DD no. 158 A that one person has been stabbed by 4-5 persons and the patient has been shifted to Akash Hospital for treatment. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep reached at Akash Hospital where, injured Suraj was under treatment under MLC no. 1254/21. He further deposed that he obtained the MLC and upon MLC doctor advised to shifting the patient to Govt Hospital. He further deposed that thereafter, he recorded the statement of Suraj, as already Ex. PW-1/A and thereafter, he willingly accompany him at the spot alongwith Ct. Sandeep i.e. service road, near 25 feet road opposite Arya Hospital, Chankya Place, Delhi. He further deposed that at the spot, he made an endorsement on the statement of the complainant and prepared a rukka as Ex.PW-7/A and handed over the same to Ct. sandeep for registration of the FIR. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan, at the instance of the complainant, as already Ex. PW-1/B and he left for DDU hospital. He further deposed that after some time, Ct. Sandeep returned to the spot alongwith the copy of FIR and original Rukka and handed over the same to him, and he put FIR in SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 6 of 15 the site plan prepared by him. He further deposed that he tried to search the accused and also search for the CCTV footage, but nothing concrete was found. He further deposed that while searching for the accused, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep reached at 40 Feet road, Chankya place, and while going inside, they heard a noise and they both reached there and find two constables. He further deposed that one Ct. namely Muni Raj and another Ct. Jagbir were there alongwith one person, namely Rahul. Rahul was apprehended by them on the basis of secret information. He further deposed that both the constable informed him that he alongwith his associates stabbed today one person at 25 feet road, Opp Arya Hospital, few hours back. He further deposed that he interrogated him and on interrogation, he disclosed his involvement in the present case. He further deposed that he took the cursory search of Rahul and from his cursory search, 2 surgical blade and 1100/- was found and thereafter, he seized the surgical blades after keeping the same, in a plastic box and sealing with the seal of MK. He further deposed that Seizure memo of the same was prepared vide memo as already Ex. PW-3/A. He further deposed that he arrested the accused vide memo as already Ex. PW-3/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo as already Ex. PW-3/C, thereafter, accused was taken at the spot and pointing out memo was prepared at the spot vide memo as already Ex. PW-3/E and he recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide memo as already Ex. PW-3/P and thereafter, accused was taken into police station where he deposited the case property in the malkhana. He further deposed that thereafter, accused was taken for medical examination and after medical examination, they returned to PS where complainant also came there and identified the accused. He further deposed that he recorded supplementary statement of the accused and thereafter, accused was SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 7 of 15 produced before the Court and sent to JC. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he obtained the opinion on the MLC and he also obtained the CDR of the accused and thereafter, he was transferred to some other police station and file was marked to some other IO. This witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused at length.
10. PW-8 SI Chankya. He received PCR call and who has deposed that on 17.10.2021 he was duty officer and on that day, he received a PCR call that " Ek admio ko 4-5 admio ne dono hatho mai Chaku mar kar paise or phone chhin liya hai jise Akash hospital mai lekar aye hai jo behosh hai" and accordingly, he reduced the same into writing vide DD no. 158 A, dated 17.10.2021 as same is Ex. PW-8/A which is attested by ACP as well as SHO. This witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
11. PW-9 is Inspector Vivek, who has deposed that he never joined the investigation in the present case and it appears that his name has been inadvertently mentioned in the list of witnesses due to the fault of CCTNS. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. defence counsel
12. It is a matter of record that a statement of accused u/s 294 Cr. PC was recorded on 15.01.2026, wherein accused has admitted the documents as CDR report of mobile no. 8076997345 from 17.10.2021 to 18.10.2021, MLC no. 1254/21 of Suraj Maurya, Case deposition of Suraj Maurya as Ex. A-1(colly) to Ex. A-3, and accordingly, one witness was dropped from the list of witnesses.
SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 8 of 1513. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 24.02.2026, wherein accused submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he does not wants to lead defence evidence.
14. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. Sub PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the record.
15. Ld. Adll PP for State has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused regarding recovery.
16. Ld counsel on behalf of the accused has submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and accused is entitled to be acquitted.
17. In order to prove the offense U/s Sec.394/397/411/34 IPC against accused, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Rahul had caused injuries upon the hands of the complainant Suraj with sharp edged weapon i.e. Surgical blade which is deadly weapon while committing robbery with complainant Suraj and also looted Rs. 1100/- cash and retained the same knowingly the same was stolen property.
18. In these circumstances, testimony of complainant is relevant who has been examined as PW-2. PW-2 has deposed that he does not remember the date, month and year of incident but it was two year prior. He further deposed that he was going from his house to his duty on his motorcycle when he reached near Sitapuri Nala, somebody had beaten him on his head and he fell down on the road. He further deposed that he SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 9 of 15 does not know who had beaten him and after three hours and he regained conscious and he went to his house where his uncle had taken him to Akash hospital. He further deposed that thereafter, he was referred to DDU hospital and after his treatment he was discharged in the evening. He further deposed that he had not given any statement to the police.
19. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement wherein he denied various suggestion. This witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. He was even cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, but nothing material/substantive evidence could be extracted from the mouth of this witness. This witnesses has totally demolished the case of the prosecution as the witness has exonerated the accused from the incident in question. This witness has specifically deposed that he could not identify the accused and despite being shown the accused to the witness in the Court, the witness failed to identify him. In cross- examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW-2 stated that it is correct that accused has not done anything with him and he was not involved in the present case.
20. PW-2/Injured has not supported the case of prosecution and has turned hostile and specifically deposed that somebody had beaten him on his head and he fell down on the road and he does not know who had beaten him and after three hours he regained conscious and he thereafter, he went to his house where his uncle had taken him to the Akash Hospital. In his cross examination by Ld. Addl PP for the State, he specially deposed the he cannot identity the said persons as they attacked him from back side.
SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 10 of 1521. The consequential outcome of the ongoing trial is fundamentally rooted in the fact that complainant, also the victim (PW-2), failed to incriminate the accused. His deposition only substantiated an attack upon him by someone, and crucially, he could not identify the accused as the assailants involved in the incident in question. Despite cross-examination by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied various leading questions regarding the identification of accused and the weapon i.e. Surgical blade used in commission of robbery. Consequently, the identity of the assailant remains unproven. With the complainant/eyewitness turning hostile, the case of the prosecution collapsed.
22. In summary, the evidential foundation supporting the charge lacks credibility based on the testimony provided by the prosecution witnesses. In sum, the ocular basis for the charge for the offences 394/397/34 IPC has not been sustained by the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses.
23. The records of the present case reveal that accused is also charged with the offence under Section 411 IPC. It is evident from the record that no independent public person was joined in the proceedings in recovery of cash.
24. It is to be kept in mind that the non-joining of public witnesses itself cannot become a ground for acquittal if the case of the prosecution is otherwise reliable. In State of Haryana Vs. Mai Ram, (2008) 8 SCC 292, it was observed that the ultimate question to be asked is, whether the evidence of the official witnesses suffers from any infirmity. The case of SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 11 of 15 the prosecution cannot be held to be vulnerable to non-examination of persons who were not official witnesses. In such cases, if the statements of official witnesses corroborate the proceedings conducted, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. The proposition is not disputed but the balance has to be maintained if some doubt is created regarding the involvement of the accused. Each case has its own facts and circumstances.
25. Accordingly, it is trite that mere failure to associate public witnesses in search and seizure proceedings is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, in such a case, the burden lies heavily on the prosecution to prove two things. Firstly, a genuine and sincere effort was made by the investigating officer to join independent persons in the proceedings and secondly, the evidence of the official witnesses does not suffer from any infirmity.
26. As per prosecution story, Rs. 1100/- were recovered from the possession of the accused in the presence of PW-3, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7. Though, in the present case, it has been tried to be brought on record from the testimony of prosecution witnesses that sincere efforts were made to join the public witnesses but none of them were inclined to join.
27 The testimonies of the members of the police team suffer from contradictions and it is evident therefrom that the witnesses have remained evasive on material aspects. PW-3 HC Sandeep has deposed in his cross-examination that no public person was joined in the investigation at the time of the recovery. However, he admitted as correct that the public persons were passing through the place of recovery. PW-7 SI Mahvir Prakash has also admitted in his cross-
SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 12 of 15examination that on 08.01.2025, that there were only 2-3 public persons but nobody joined the investigation despite his request and no legal notice was given to them due to lack of time and public persons were of young age. However, the cross-examination reveals that neither any sincere efforts have been made by the IO to join any public person in the investigation or during the recovery process nor served any notice to them for non-joining the investigation despite remaining at the spot for a considerable period. Further, as per PW- 5 HC Muni Raj, there were no public person at that time.
28. Admittedly, the police officials remained on the spot for a considerable time and the IO had ample time to join the independent person in the proceedings. It is the case of the prosecution that public persons were requested to join the proceedings but they declined. It is a quite surprising fact that despite the availability of public witnesses, the investigating agency could not associate even a single public witness at any stage of the investigation. It has been stated casually and routinely that the public persons, who were asked to join the investigation, declined to do so and went away without disclosing their names and addresses. Sub-section (8) of Section 100 Cr.P.C clearly states that if a public witness refuses or neglects to attend a search without reasonable cause despite an order in writing, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 187 IPC. There is nothing on record to indicate that the investigating officer had served or even attempted to serve any order in writing upon any public witness. So much so, neither the names nor the addresses of the persons who refused to join the proceedings have been given. All the above leads to the inevitable inference that the investigating agency was not interested to make any public witness a part of the raiding team and thus there has been a deliberate disregard of the SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 13 of 15 statutory safeguards relating to search and seizure on its part which renders the recovery proceedings unworthy of credence. Hence, all these facts give some doubt to the story of the prosecution.
29. There are certain contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses. As per PW-3 HC Sandeep, arrest memo was prepared at the spot, and it was prepared before 11:30 PM till the time, they remained at the spot. However, Ex. PW-3/B i.e. Arrest memo reveals that date of time of arrest is 03:10 AM. As per PW-3 HC Sandeep, they remained at the spot till 11:30 AM, however, as per PW-7 SI Mahavir Prasad, they remained at the spot till 05:00 AM and HC Sandeep was with them and further as per him, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep, took the accused for medical examination at around 07:00 AM. Further, as per PW-6, certain documents were prepared in his presence but he could not show any document on record which could suggest that he was present at the spot. Hence, there are various contradictions in the story of prosecution and it creates serious doubt.
30. Even otherwise, since the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and specially deposed that accused has not done anything with him, on this short ground, accused cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 411 IPC. Even otherwise, cash of Rs. 1100/- is easily available.
31. The record reveals a glaring absence of evidence to establish the culpability of the accused in the commission of the charged offences. The prosecution has unequivocally failed to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to prove the SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 14 of 15 charge framed against the accused.
32. Accordingly, accused Rahul is acquitted of the charges under Section 394/397/411/34 IPC. Accused is directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.20,000/- . At the request of accused , his previous bail bonds are extended in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C and shall remain in force for six months from today.
33. File be consigned to Record room, after due compliance.
DEEPAK Digitally signed by
DEEPAK WASON
WASON 14:06:23 +0530
Date: 2026.04.01
Announced in the Open Court (Deepak Wason)
today i.e on 01.04.2026 ASJ-04: South-west District:
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
SC no. 373/2023 State Vs. Rahul Page 15 of 15