Delhi District Court
State vs Rahim @ Puchi on 15 December, 2025
SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 09
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
SC No. 741/2022
CNR No. DLWT01-010649-2022
FIR No. 550/2022
Police Station Patel Nagar
Under Section 392/397/411 IPC
State
Versus
Rahim @ Puchi
S/o. Sajid
R/o. H.No. T-652-B, Near Gali No. 21,
Baljeet Nagar, Patel Nagar,
Delhi. ...Accused
Date of institution 04.11.2022
Judgment reserved on 03.12.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 15.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing trial on allegations of robbing cash of Rs.1200/- and mobile phone from the complainant Sanjay Yadav on the point of knife and recovery of said cash of Rs.1200/- and mobile phone from the possession of the accused on 19.08.2022 at 9.00 pm. Brief Facts
2. On 19.08.2022, ASI Prahlad Meena during Emergency PRIYA MAHENDRA Duty received DD No 89-A. The IO/ASI Prahlad Meena (IO) along with Ct. Kuldeep reached at DMS Road, Baljeet Nagar, Digitally signed by PRIYA MAHENDRA Date: 2025.12.16 10:53:24 +0530 Judgment 1 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi Delhi where the complainant Sh. Sanjay Yadav S/o. Sh. Prayag Yadav produced one boy whose name was revealed as Rahim @ Pucchi S/o. Sajid. The complainant got his statement recorded wherein he stated that he runs a Tea Stall on the footpath outside the office of Delhi Jal Board, Patel Nagar. On 19.08.2022 at around 9.00 p.m., he was at his shop as usual when a boy came and started asking him money for drugs. When he refused to give him money, the boy took out a knife from his right pocket and put the knife on his neck. The boy took out his money from the cash box of his shop at knife point and snatched his mobile phone - Nokia Keypad Black Colour from his hand. Thereafter, the boy started moving towards DMS Road, Baljit Nagar by threatening him. The complainant raised alarm by shouting "Chor Chor" and chased the boy. His nephew Siya Ram was coming from the front and heard his voice/shouting. Siya Ram caught that boy with the help of the public persons. Someone from the public called the police and then Beat Constable Heera Lal reached the spot. In the meantime, ASI Prahlad Meena also reached the spot and the boy was handed over to him. On enquiry, the boy revealed his identity as Rahim @ Puchi S/o Sajid. On the search of accused, a knife, robbed mobile phone and cash of Rs.1200/- were recovered from the right pocket of the pant of accused. Sketch of the knife was prepared after its measurement. The IO seized the knife, mobile phone and the robbed money after converting the same into separate pullandas and sealing it with the seal of PM.
Judgment 2 of 28
SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi
3. On the basis of statement of the complainant and the circumstances and the recovery of robbed articles, IO prepared a Rukka and got FIR of present case registered through Ct. Kuldeep. Further investigation was conducted by ASI Prahlad Meena himself. During further investigation, accused was interrogated and accused was arrested. Disclosure Statement of accused was recorded.
4. Site Plan at the instance of the complainant was recorded. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, accused was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 392/397/411 IPC. Charge
5. On 13.01.2023, charge for the offences punishable under Section 392/397/411 IPC was framed against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution Evidence
6. Prosecution has examined seven witnesses in all. PW-1 Sanjay Yadav (Complainant), PW-2 Siyaram, PW-3 Ct. Kuldeep, PW-4 ASI Mahender Kumar, PW-5 ASI Mahesh Chander, PW-6 HC Heera Lal and PW-7 ASI Prahlad.
7. PW-1 Sanjay Yadav is the complainant/victim who was robbed of the cash of Rs.1200/- and mobile phone on the point of knife as per the case of the Prosecution. He deposed that on 19.08.2022, he was running his tea-stall infront of office of Delhi Jal Board, Baljit Nagar, Delhi. On that day, in between 08.00 to 09.00 PM, he was present at his tea-stall, accused Ram Rahim Judgment 3 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi came at his shop and taken out his mobile phone, make of Samsung keypad from his pocket and forcibly snatched Rs. 1200/- from his Cash Counter/Galla on the point of knife. Accused put the knife on his neck. He raised alarm and accused was apprehended by public persons. In the meantime, his nephew Siyaram also reached at the spot. In the meantime, beat official Hira Lal also reached at the spot. He proved his Statement Ex. PW1/A, Site Plan of the spot prepared at his instance Ex.PW1/B, Sketch of the knife Ex. PW1/B1, Seizure Memo of knife Ex. PW1/C, Seizure Memo of Mobile Phone and cash Ex.PW1/D and Arrest Memo of accused as Ex. PW1/E.
8. During his examination, PW-1 correctly identified the accused by pointing out towards him. On a leading question put by the Ld. APP, PW-1 stated that on the day of incident, accused came at his shop and demanded money from him for consuming some intoxicant which he had denied. On this, the accused had robbed his mobile phone make of Nokia keypad black colour. PW-1 also identified one black colour mobile phone make of Nokia and cash of Rs. 1200/- in denomination of Rs. 500/- X 1, Rs. 100 X 5, Rs. 50 X 1, Rs. 20 X 4 and Rs. 10 X 7 as Ex. P-1 as well as the knife as Ex. P-2.
9. PW-2 Siyaram apprehended the accused while he was absconding from the spot after the incident. He deposed that on 19.08.2022 at about 09.00 p.m., he was coming from the side of Baljit Nagar. At that time, he saw that a boy was running from the side of DMS and he was chased by his uncle Sanjay by Judgment 4 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi shouting "Chor Chor". After hearing the noise of his uncle, he with the help of public persons, apprehended the said boy, whose name was revealed as accused Rahim @ Puchi. In the meantime, some public person made a call to the police and police reached at the spot. They handed over the accused to the Investigating officer. During the cursory search of the accused, Rs. 1200/- and one knife was recovered from him. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
10. PW-3 HC Kuldeep is the witness to the investigation. He deposed that on 19.08.2022, at about 09.20 p.m., on receiving of PCR call, he along with ASI Prahlad reached at DMS Road, Baljit Nagar, Delhi where, complainant Sanjay Yadav along with one Siyaram met them. They produced accused Rahim @ Puchi. Investigating officer took the cursory search of accused and one knife was recovered from the right pocket of his pant. Cash of Rs. 1200/- (500 x 1, 100 x 5, 50 x 1, 20 x 4, 10 x 7) along with one mobile phone make Nokia keypad black colour were also recovered from the accused. Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the complainant and the same was handed over to him for registration of FIR. He got the FIR registered and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to the Investigating Officer.
11. PW-3 proved further deposed that the Investigating Officer seized the cash of Rs. 1200/- in a white cloth pullanda and prepared. The sketch of the knife was prepared and seized. Investigating Officer prepared the Site Plan at the instance of the complainant Sanjay. The accused was arrested. PW-3 proved Judgment 5 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi Personal Search Memo Ex. PW3/A, Disclosure Statement of the accused Ex.PW3/B. PW-3 correctly identified case property Ex. P-1 (Colly) and knife Ex. P-2. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
12. PW-4 ASI Mahender Kumar is the Duty Officer who registered the FIR. He proved Endorsement Ex.PW4/A on Rukka, FIR Ex.PW4/B and Certificate u/s. 65-B Evidence Act Ex.PW4/C.
13. PW-5 ASI Mahesh Chander is another Duty Officer who proved GD No. 89-A Ex.PW5/A.
14. PW-6 HC Heera Lal is the Beat Constable of the area. He deposed that on 19.08.2022, at about 09.15 PM, during the patrolling in the area, he reached at DMS Road, Baljit Nagar, Delhi where complainant Sanjay Yadav produced a boy whose name was revealed as Rahim @ Puchi. He deposed on the lines of PW-3 Ct. Kuldeep in respect of recovery and seizure of robbed articles as well as recording of statement of the complainant by the IO. He also identified the case property i.e. robbed articles Ex.P-1 (colly.) and knife Ex.P-2. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
15. PW-7 ASI Prahlad is the Investigating Officer who along with Ct. Kuldeep went to the place of occurrence. He depsoed that on 19.08.2022, at about 09.20 P.M., DD No. 89-A Ex.PW5/A was marked to him and accordingly he along with Ct. Kuldeep reached at DMS Road, Baljit Nagar, Delhi. At the spot, Ct. Heera Judgment 6 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi Lal, complainant Sanjay Yadav along with one Siya Ram met them and they produced the accused Rahim @ Puchi before them. He made enquiries from complainant Sanjay Yadav and Siya Ram. Thereafter, he took cursory search of accused and one knife was recovered from the right pocket of his pant and cash of Rs. 1200/- (500 x1, 100 x 5, 50 x1, 20 x 4, 10 x 7) was also recovered from the said pocket. One mobile phone make Nokia keypad black colour was also recovered from the accused. Complainant Sanjay Yadav identified the said cash and mobile phone being robbed from his possession from accused Rahim @ Puchi by pointing out knife towards him. At the spot, he recorded statement of the complainant Ex.PW1/A and prepared rukka Ex.PW7/A. Rukka was handed to Ct. Kuldeep for getting the FIR registered. Ct. Kuldeep went to the PS for registration of the FIR and after registration of the FIR, he returned to the spot handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to him. At the spot, he prepared rough Site Plan Ex.PW1/B at the instance of complainant.
16. PW-7 further deposed that he seized the cash of Rs.1200/- and mobile phone in a white cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of PM and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He prepared Sketch Ex.PW1/B1 of the knife. Knife was kept in a white cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of PM and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. Accused Rahim @Puchi was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW1/A and his Personal Search was conducted vide Personal Search Memo Ex.PW3/A, his Disclosure Statement Ex.PW3/B was recorded. Thereafter, they Judgment 7 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi took the accused to the police station after getting him medically examined. He also collected the copy of bill of mobile phone which is now Ex.PX-1. He correctly identified the accused in the Court. He also correctly identified mobile phone and robbed cash Ex.P-1 (colly.) and knife Ex.P-2.
Plea of Accused
17. In his statement recorded under 313 Cr.P.C, accused stated that he is innocent. He has not committed any offence. An FIR No. 0559/2021 u/s. 323/341 IPC was registered on his complaint at PS Patel Nagar against the complainant Sanjay Yadav and other witness Siya Ram. Hence, as a counter blast, complainant along with the police officials have falsely implicated him in this case.
Defence Evidence
18. In his defence, accused examined DW-1 Mohd. Mumtaz and himself as DW-2 (u/s. 353 BNSS/315 Cr.P.C.).
19. DW-1 Mohd. Mumtaz deposed that on 09.10.2021 at around 05:30 p.m. Rahim @ Puchi came at the shop of Auto Repair of Sanjay Yadav and Sunil Yadav. At that time, he was working as a Mechanic at the shop of Sanjay Yadav and Sunil Yadav. Accused Rahim @ Puchi came to the shop of Sanjay Yadav and Sunil Yadav to take Auto on rent since he was no longer having sufficient AC repair work and wanted to ply on Auto for earning his livelihood. But Sanjay Yadav and Sunil Yadav refused to give him Auto. Accused Rahim @ Puchi suddenly asked Sunil Yadav why he is closing his shop so early that day. On this, in his presence, Sunil Yadav and Sanjay Yadav Judgment 8 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi started hitting Rahim @ Puchi with the Danda and beaten him badly first on both his legs and thereafter, when Rahim @Puchi started limping they hit danda on the head of Rahim @ Puchi. As a result, blood started oozing out from his head. Two three persons standing there even tried to intervene but both Sunil Yadav and Sanjay Yadav continued assaulting Rahim@ Puchi and because of the same Rahim @ Puchi collapsed.
20. Accused Rahim @ Puchi stepped into witness box u/s. 353 BNSS/315 Cr.P.C. He deposed that present case is a false one. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is innocent. The CCTV cameras were installed at the place of incident. Anybody can check the CCTV cameras as he did not commit any offence of such kind as mentioned in the FIR. He stated before the then Ld. ACMM, West District Room No. 145, THC, Delhi when his case was heard by Ld. ACMM that he can verify the facts from the CCTV cameras installed near the place of incident. But this request was not allowed by the then Ld. ACMM. There were no fingerprints present on the recovered knife in the present case. In the year 2021, he was attacked by brother of the Sanjay Yadav namely Sunil Yadav and he registered the case against him in this regard vide FIR No. 559/2021 dated 06.11.2021, PS Patel Nagar under Section 323/341/34 IPC. Sunil Yadav @ Jai Hind Yadav had created pressure upon him for the purpose of withdrawing the above FIR. He proved copy of the FIR No. 559/2021, PS Patel Nagar as Ex.DW-2/A and certified copy of Arrest Memo of Sunil Yadav @ Jai Hind Yadav as Ex.DW-2/B. Judgment 9 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi
21. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. defense counsel at length. I have perused the material on record. Arguments
22. It is argued by Ld. counsel for the accused that the complainant/PW-1 and other Prosecution witnesses Siya Ram/PW-2 are not reliable and trustworthy witnesses. PW-2 is the nephew of the complainant/PW-1 and therefore is an interested witness. No independent public witness has been examined by the Prosecution in support of its case. The accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant as FIR No. 559/2021, PS Patel Nagar, was registered prior to the present incident on the complaint of the accused against the complainant and his brother Sunil Yadav. Further, DW-1 and DW-2 have proved the said FIR No. 559/2021, PS Patel Nagar in their testimony. So, the complaint filed by the complainant, is motivated and concocted.
23. Ld. Addl. PP has argued that the complainant/PW-1 and prosecution witness/PW-2 have supported the Prosecution case in all material aspects and withstood the test of lengthy cross- examination. The other Prosecution witnesses have corroborated the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2. The knife used at the time of commission of robbery by the accused, has also been recovered from the possession of the accused along with robbed cash and mobile phone. He further submits that the defence has miserably failed to furnish any plausible reason of false implication of accused by PW-1 and PW-2. FIR No. 559/2021, PS Patel Nagar has nothing to do with the present case. So, it is urged that the Judgment 10 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi case of the Prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be convicted u/s. 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC.
Analysis and Discussion Coherent and consistent testimony of Prosecution witessses
24. The key witnesses of the Prosecution in the present case are PW-1/complainant Sanjay Yadav and PW-2 Siyaram. The complainant/PW-1 has deposed consistently and coherently regarding the entire incident and the role of the accused. Here, it would be apt to re-produce the cross-examination of PW-1 which is as under : -
"It is correct that I have not taken any oath prior to recording my statement today. Today, I am not deposing under influence of liquor. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing today under the influence of liquor.
I am not having any license for running my aforesaid tea-stall at the spot. Vol. I have a slip in this regard issued from MCD. I used to open my said shop at about 08.00 AM and closed at around 12.00 night. Three other shops are also situated near the spot i.e. chholey kulche and two others are of bidi cigarette apart from my shop. Timings of other said three shops are moreover the same. The distance between other shops from my shop is about 20 steps. The accused remained at my shop for about 10 minutes. At that time, no customer was present at my shop. I along with my brother Shiv Kumar used to run our shop. Vol. At the time of incident, my brother Shiv Kumar was not present at the shop. On that day, my brother Shiv Kumar had not come at my shop. The slip issued by MCD for running my aforesaid shop, is in my name. I raised alarm when accused had snatched my mobile and cash.
Judgment 11 of 28
SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi
Upon hearing alarm, 20-25 persons reached at the spot. The accused was apprehended after chasing about 100 meters.
I do not know the name of the person, how had made call at 100 number.
I never visited at the police station. I do not know the sequence of currency numbers allegedly recovered from the accused. Police had recorded my statement. Vol. I joined the investigation as and when police had called me. I do not remember the date when, police had recorded my statement. The date of incident was 22, but I do not remember the month and year right now. I do not remember as to how many papers on which police had obtained my thumb impressions. Police had obtained my thumb impressions on written papers. I do not know the contents of the said papers, on which I had made my thumb impressions. Police had not read over the contents of the said papers before obtaining my thumb impressions.
I do not know the person namely Sanjeev Yadav. Police had not put any specific mark on the knife allegedly recovered from the accused. I had identified the knife as the same was used upon me by the accused. I do not know the person in the name of Rahim. Vol. Accused Rahim is present and standing in the Court. It is correct that the incident was caused by Ram Rahim.
One currency note of Rs. 500/-, one currency note of Rs. 50/-, six currency notes of Rs. 100/-, two currency notes of Rs. 20/- and one currency note of Rs. 10/- denomination were recovered from the accused. At the time of recovery of aforesaid currency notes from the accused, two public persons having a car were present and they were drinking tea at my shop. No public Judgment 12 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi person was made witness to the said recovery from the accused by the Investigating Officer. My nephew Siya Ram heard my cries and rushed towards the spot from the side of DMS when the accused was running away from the spot. I do not know the address of my said nephew Siya Ram. He was and is residing in a room near my shop. The distance between my shop and the room of my nephew Siya Ram is approximately the same which is between this Court Room and the THC Metro Station. The same is approximately 200-250 meters.
I had started making alarm from my shop. Some other public persons had also heard my cries. Names of the said public persons were Madan, Jungli and others mechanic who are running their respective shops near my shop. I do not know if the police had recorded the statements of Madan, Jungli and other mechanic, who were present at the spot. Other shopkeepers also reached at the spot. 2-3 shopkeepers also reached at my shop at the time of incident. I do not know if the police had recorded the statements of the said shopkeepers or not. 25-30 public persons were present when the accused was apprehended. I only know the name of Madan and Jungli amongst the public persons, who were present at the time of apprehension of the accused.
Police had measured the length of the knife, allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused in my presence. While the accused was robbing my money, two auto drivers were present at my shop. Vol. The quarrel between me and accused continued for about 10 minutes. The said auto drivers intervened the quarrel and told the accused not to do such act with me. I do not know the name of the said auto drivers.
Judgment 13 of 28
SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi
Police remained at the spot for about 10 minutes. My statement was recorded by the police at PS. I went to the police at about 09.00 PM after the incident. I remained at the spot for about 10 minutes along with public persons when the accused was apprehended. My statement as well as statement of my nephew were recorded on the same day. It is wrong to suggest that no such incident as stated by me occurred with me. It is wrong to suggest that I do not know the accused and I have falsely implicated him in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that nothing was incriminating was recovered from the possession of the accused and recovery is planted on the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
PW1 was recalled for his cross-examination and his cross examination recorded on 20.03.2025 reads as under:
"I am not under the influence of liquor. On the date of incident, I had seen accused Rahim for the first time. On the date of incident, accused along with three four persons had robbed me. Besides the present case, no other case is pending against me. It is incorrect to suggest that a case FIR No. 559/2021, PS Patel Nagar was registered against me and my brother Sunil Yadav on the complaint of accused. It is incorrect to suggest that due to previous enmity with the accused I got the present case registered against him."
Thus, the defence has failed to assailed the credibility and trustworthiness of PW-1 during his detailed cross-examination. His testimony is completely reliable, credible and trustworthy.
Judgment 14 of 28
SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi
25. The PW2 was also cross-examined at length by the defence. For the sake of convenience, it is produced hereunder:
"I am running a tea-stall at Shadipur. I used to open the said tea-stall at about 04.00 AM and used to close the same at around 10.00 PM. I cannot tell the day of the incident. I used to open my tea-stall on all seven days of the week. The distance between DMS road of Baljit Nagar and my tea-stall was approximately 50 meter. The distance between the shop of my uncle and my tea-stall is approximately 2-3 meter. I am working alone on my tea-stall. I know the accused prior to the incident as he used to visit the shop of my uncle Sanjay. The accused also used to visit my shop prior to the incident. Accused used to visit my tea-stall as well as shop of my uncle for the last one year and half month prior to the incident.
I was coming from the side of Baljit Nagar after purchasing some goods like bidi and cigarette. The distance between my tea-stall and Baljit Nagar is approximately 01 km. I left my tea-stall for Baljit Nagar at about 07.00 PM. When I went to Baljit Nagar for purchasing of Bidi and cigarette, at that time my wife was present on the tea-stall. The accused was apprehended 50 meter away from our tea-stall. The accused was firstly apprehended by me and thereafter, 10-12 public persons also apprehended him. I do not know any of the said 10-12 public persons. When I apprehended the accused, he was under the influence of alcohol. Accused had worn white t-shirt and black pant when he was apprehended.
The knife and cash of Rs. 1200/- were recovered from the right pocket of wearing pant of the accused. The denomination of currency notes recovered from the accused are 500 X 1, 100 X, 50 X 1, 20 X 4 and 10 X7. I produced the recovered currency notes before the Investigating Officer in the police station. I had told to the Investigating Officer about denomination of the aforesaid currency notes. Vol. One mobile Judgment 15 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi phone make Nokia was also recovered from the accused. The said fact regarding mobile Nokia was also told to the Investigating Officer.
I know the beat constable Hira Lal prior to the incident. It is wrong to suggest that constable Hira Lal used to visit at my tea-stall for taking monthly.
It is correct that I had not seen the incident of robbery when accused robbed to my uncle Sanjay. When, I apprehended the accused, Ct. Hira Lal reached at the spot after 10-15 minutes. Some public person made a call at 100 number. After reaching Ct. Hira Lal at the spot, we remained at the spot for about 15 minutes. During said 15 minutes, no site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer. No writing work was also done at the spot at that time.
It is correct that I know ASI Prahlad Meena prior to the incident and he reached at the spot after Ct. Hira Lal at about 15-20 minutes. ASI Prahlad Meena remained at the spot for about 15-20 minutes, but no writing work was done by him at the spot. I did not give beating to the accused when he was apprehended by us. It is wrong to suggest that I did not apprehend the accused at the spot.
I kept my goods i.e. bidi and cigarette on a shop near DMS Road, Baljit Nagar, but I do not know the name of said shopkeeper.
After apprehending the accused, he was taken by the police and I went to my tea-stall after collecting my goods from the shop (situated near DMS Road, Baljit Nagar), thereafter, I went to the police station. After reaching the tea-stall, my wife informed me about quarrel and robbery. Investigating Officer did not inquire from my wife in my presence till now about the present case. The distance between my tea-stall and my room is approximately 500 meters. One another tea-stall is situated near the shop of my uncle Judgment 16 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi Sanjay and no other residential houses are situated beside the tea-stall. Vol. One Delhi Jal Board office is also situated near the spot. No CCTV Camera was installed near/on Delhi Jal Board Office.
The mother of the accused started a tea-stall from the distance of my tea-stall approximately 60-65 meters away, after the present FIR. I know the parents of accuse for the last two years. I do not know whether the brother of accused was murdered. Even I do not know whether my Uncle Sanjay had knowledge of murder of brother of accused. It is wrong to suggest that I along with my family members and uncle had knowledge about the murder of accused's brother. I do not know whether in the murder case of brother of accused, inquiry had been initiated at Ct. Hira Lal. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing at the instance of my uncle Sanjay. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing at the instance of Ct. Hira Lal. It is wrong to suggest that today ASI Prahlad Meena tutored me today before my examination.
In my presence, Investigating Officer did not inquire from Sanjay as well as not recorded his statement. No sketch of the recovered knife was prepared in my presence. It is correct that Investigating Officer did not obtain the chance prints of the accused in my presence.
It is wrong to suggest that no such incident had happened with the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused."
PW-2 was recalled for his cross-examination and his cross examination recorded on 20.03.2025 reads as under:
"Prior to the incident, accused Rahim used to come to the shop of Sanjay Yadav. Accused was on speaking terms with the complainant who is my Chacha. On the date of incident, a quarrel took place between Judgment 17 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi accused and the complainant due to some money dispute between them. However, I am not sure what was the exact dispute between the complainant and the accused. It is incorrect to suggest that a case FIR No. 559/2021, PS Patel Nagar was registered against Sanjay Yadav and his brother Sunil Yadav on the complaint of accused."
26. PW-2 has been consistent in his testimony and nothing has been brought out in his detailed cross-examination by the defence which raises any doubt on the truthfulness and credibility of his evidence.
Presence of PW-2
27. The presence of PW-2 just after incident near the spot is well explained by the Prosecution. The PW-2 has clearly stated in his evidence that he was running a tea stall just 2-3 meters away from the tea stall/shop of the complainant/his uncle. He used to open the said tea stall at about 04.00 am and used to the close the same at around 10.00.pm. It establishes that at the time of incident i.e 9.00 pm on 9.08.2022, the tea stall of PW2 was open. PW2 also deposed that he was coming back from Baljit Nagar after purchasing some goods, to his tea stall when he heard the alarm raised by PW-1 and thereafter, caught the accused. He also testified that the distance between DMS road of Baljit Nagar and his tea stall was approximately 50 meters. The PW1 also deposed during his cross- examination that his nephew (PW 2) heard his cries and rushed towards the spot from the side of DMS when the accused was running away from the spot. So, the PW1 and PW2 deposed in sync that PW2 was coming from the side of DMS when he heard the alarm of the PW1 and apprehended the Judgment 18 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi accused. The presence of the PW2 near the spot is also natural as his tea- stall was only 2-3 meters away from the place of incident i.e tea stall of the complainant.
Interested Witness
28. The testimony of PW2 is sought to be doubted by the defence on the ground that he is the relative of the complainant. In this regard, it would be worthwhile to take note of the law relating to Interested Witnesses. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145: AIR 1953 SC 364: 1953 Cri LJ 1465], Vivian Bose, J. (AIR p. 366, para 26) for the Bench observed the law as under:
26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule.
Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts."
In Masalti v. State of U.P., (1964) 8 SCR 133 : AIR Judgment 19 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi 1965 SC 202 (1965) 1 Cri LJ 226] (AIR pp. 209-210, para 14), a five-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed as under:
"... There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence.Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not the evidence strikes the court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, criminal courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard- and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."
In Darya Singh v. State of Punjab [(1964) 3 SCR 397 : AIR 1965 SC 328 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 350] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that evidence of an eyewitness who is a near relative of the victim, should be closely scrutinized but no corroboration is necessary for acceptance of his evidence.
Judgment 20 of 28
SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi
In Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana [(2005) 9 SCC 195 :2005 SCC (Cri) 1213 : 2005 Cri LJ 2199] (SCC p. 227, para 6), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"6. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused."
29. So, the testimony of a witness cannot be termed as partisan only on account of the fact that that he is related to the complainant. There must be clear circumstances/proof to show that he was not speaking the truth or his impartiality is affected by reason of close relations with the complainant. There is nothing on record to show that deposition of PW-2 actuated by any ill will or malice towards the accused or he is not speaking the truth. The testimony of PW-2 inspires confidence and is trustworthy.
30. Thus, there is nothing on record to doubt the credibility and truthfulness of testimony of PW-2. The Prosecution has succeeded in proving involvement of the accused and his guilt in the present matter beyond reasonable doubt.
31. Moreover, the accused was caught red handed by the PW-2 just after the incident on hearing alarm raised by PW-1. During the search of the accused after his apprehension, the robbed cash amount of Rs.1200/-, mobile phone and knife was recovered from the wearing pant of the accused. PW-1 & PW-2 as well as Judgment 21 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi PW-3, PW-6 & PW-7 had proved the recovery of robbed cash amount of Rs.1200/-, mobile phone and knife from the accused after he was caught red handed just after the incident. False implication
32. The defence has argued that this case is a counter-blast to the FIR No. 559/2021 dated 06.11.2021 PS Patel Nagar registered against the complainant and his brother Sunil Yadav at the instance of the accused herein in prior point of time. To prove his defence, two witnesses DW-1 Mohd. Mumtaz and DW-2 Rahim @ Puchi (u/s. 315 Cr.P.C.) have been produced by the defence.
It is apt to reproduce the cross-examination of DW-1:-
"I have studied upto 5th Standard. I am 34 years old. It is correct that I was employed by Sanjay Yadav and Sunil Yadav. I was engaged as a helper by them and I used to help them by handing over tools, checking lights of Auto's etc in their shop for Auto repair. The said shop is situated near Shadipur Depot, DMS Road, Delhi. There is no specific name of their shop. (Vol. They do not have proper shop and only have one counter there). I started working with them from February-March 2020 and worked at their counter for around 1 year. I was employed by them on daily wages. Sometimes, they used to withhold my daily wages. When I used to ask for the same, they used to postpone it for no reasons. (Vol. For this reason I left their work and even they used to use very rough language with me).
I was having smart phone when I was employed with them. On the day of incident, I was not employed with Sanjay Yadav and Sunil Yadav. (Vol. I went to their shop to demand my outstanding wages on 09.10.2021). I do not have any proof that I was employed with them or they made any payment of wages to me.
I have not made a call to police when the alleged incident of 09.10.2021 happened. (Vol. However, I Judgment 22 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi made a video of incident dated 09.10.2021). I have never approached police for giving my statement that I have witnessed alleged incident dated 09.10.2021 or I have video recording of the same. It is correct that before giving evidence/deposition in this court, I have not told the incident to anyone. I have come to court for deposition after the counsel for accused Rahim@Puchi told me about the present matter. It is wrong to suggest that as no such incident involving Sanjay Yadav/Complainant happened on any occasion, I have not told the alleged incident to anyone and coined a false story to protect the accused. After this incident, I took Rahim@Puchi to the hospital. Rahim@Puchi is my very close friend and I know him from my childhood. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely in favour of Rahim@Puchi as he is my very close friend. It is incorrect to suggest that I have deposed falsely in order to protect my friend Rahim@Puchi from the legal consequences of the present case pending against him."
DW-2 in his cross-examination deposed as under :-
"I am illiterate. I know Hindi language but I cannot read and write Hindi Language. I do not have any document which proves that Sunil Yadav @ Jai Hind Yadav is brother of complainant in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that FIR No. 559/2021 PS Patel Nagar under Section 323/341/34 IPC has no connection with present case. It is wrong to suggest that I am making concocted story just to save myself in the present criminal case. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely and I am interested witness."
33. The DW1 claimed that he was the eye-witness to the incident dated 09.10.2021 between the accused herein and complainant & his brother (Sunil Yadav) leading to the Judgment 23 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi registration of FIR No. 559/2021 dated 06.11.2021 PS Patel Nagar, as he was employee of Sanjay Yadav and Sunil Yadav at that time. However, DW1 admitted in his cross -examination that he is a close friend of the accused and not made any call to police or ever approached the police regarding the alleged incident dated 09.10.2021. In view of his conduct, his testimony is highly doubtful and cannot be believed. Moreover, in the aforesaid FIR No. 559/2021 dated 06.11.2021 PS Patel Nagar, the accused is Jay Hind Yadav S/o Kapil Dev Yadav. It nowhere establishes that the aforesaid FIR has been registered against the complainant herein ie Sanjay Yadav S/o Prayag Yadav or his brother Sunil Yadav at the instance of the accused. PW-1 also specifically denied that the FIR No. 559/2021, PS Patel Nagar was registered against the complainant and his brother Sunil Yadav on the complaint of accused. He also denied the suggestion that due to previous enmity, he got the present case registered against him. So, the accused has miserably failed to prove that any FIR was registered before this incident against the Complainant herein at the instance of the accused person.
34. Further, the entire evidence of PW-2 is to be appreciated in entirety. A stray statement made by PW-2 in his cross- examination after his re-calling on 20.03.2025 that on the day of incident, there was a quarrel on money dispute between the complainant and the accused, has to be seen in the light of entire testimony. The complainant/PW-1 clearly stated that accused asked money from PW-1 for taking intoxicating substance and when he refused, the quarrel also took place between the Judgment 24 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi complainant/PW-1 and the accused. So, even as per PW1, on money, a quarrel took place between the accused and PW1. The argument raised by the defence that the accused was falsely implicated due to the money dispute has no legs to stand. In the entire evidence and even in the SA of the accused recorded under section 313 of Cr. P.C, no such defense has been raised. So, this defense is to be discarded as an afterthought as a last ditched attempt by the accused to save himself.
Non-examination of Public Witness
35. It is well settled in catena of cases that non-examination of the public witness is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case. In the case of Appabhai Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696, it has been held as under:-
"It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the murder that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The courts, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the spectrum or the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused."
36. PW-1 during his cross-examination admitted that around 25-30 public persons were present when the accused was apprehended. The IO also admitted in his cross-examination that Judgment 25 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi few public persons were found present along the complainant Sanjay and PW-2 Siya Ram and Beat Constable Ct. Heera Lal (PW-6) at the spot when they reached the spot. However, as noted in the above judgment that public witnesses generally refrain from involving themselves in police proceedings and hardly come forward to give the statement to the police. So, non- involvement of public persons in the investigation is not sufficient to discard coherent and consistent testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. Moreover, the said public witnesses are not stated to be the eyewitness to the incident of robbery and reached the spot after the incident. PW-2 has already been examined by the Prosecution to prove that PW-1 raised alarm after accused robbed him and PW-2 apprehended the accused near the place of incident. It is settled law that it is quality and not the quantity of evidence which is material for proving any particular fact. In view of the clear and consistent testimony of PW-2, the examination of other public witnesses looses significance. Res-gestae
37. It is also argued that PW-2 is the hearsay witness as it is admitted by PW-2 in his cross-examination that he has not seen the incident of robbery when accused robbed his uncle Sanjay.
Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act contains the principle of res-gestae which reads as under :-
Section 6. Relevant of facts forming part of same transaction.-- Facts which though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Judgment 26 of 28
SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi
The illustration (a) attached with Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act is worth noting :-
(a) A is accused of murder of B by beating him.
Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-
standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
In the case of Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana - AIR 2011 SC 2877, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-
"For bringing hearsay evidence in the ambit of Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there could not be an interval which would allow fabrication. In other words, the statements said to be admitted as forming part of rest-gestae must have been made contemporaneously with the act or immediately thereafter."
38. In the present matter, PW-2 instantly came near the place of incident without any time gap on hearing of cries of his uncle/complainant when the accused was running after committing robbery and nabbed the accused with the help of public persons. So, the presence of PW2 near the place of incident and an his act of apprehending the accused was contemporaneous with the incident in question and his testimony is relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Judgment 27 of 28 SC No: 741/2022 State Vs. Rahim @ Puchi Conclusion
39. Thus, in the light of these facts, it is concluded that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused robbed cash of Rs.1200/- and mobile phone from the complainant Sanjay Yadav on the point of knife on 19.08.2022. Accordingly, accused is convicted for the charge of offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC. The charge of Section 411 IPC is framed in an alternative against the accused. As the accused is convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC, he cannot be separately convicted u/s. 411 IPC.
Let be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on 15th day of December, 2025.
(Priya Mahendra) Addl. Sessions Judge-09/West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Judgment 28 of 28