Delhi District Court
State vs Gurvinder Singh@ Guddu on 24 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu
FIR No : 25/2010
U/s : 394/34 IPC
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 9828/2019
2. Date of commission of offence : 04.02.2010
3. Date of institution of the case : 23.04.2011
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused : Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu
s/o Late Jagmohan Singh.
6. Offences complained or proved : 392/323/394/34 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved: 03.11.2025
9. Final order : Convicted
10. Date of final order : 24.11.2025
1. The accused namely, Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu is facing trial for offences u/s 392, 323, 394 r/w section 34 IPC. The gene- RISHABH State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri KAPOOR 1 Digitally signed Digitally signed by RISHABH KAPOOR RISHABH by RISHABH KAPOOR Date:
KAPOOR Date:
2025.11.24 2025.11.24
14:35:25 +0530 14:30:09
+0530
sis of prosecution story is that on 04.02.2010 at about 8:30 PKM, when the complainant Naveen Sharma was going towards his house, then at Pastry Palace Red Light, Vikas Puri, one Sikh per- son who was later identified as accused Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu gave a punch blow on the driver's side windscreen of the complainant's car and when the complainant lowered down the window shed of the car to inquire from the accused about reason of such act, he unlocked the car from inside and opened its door. Thereafter, the accused allegedly dragged the complainant out of the car and gave a punch blow on his face. The accused kept on beating the complainant and the complainant was also caught hold of by some other associates of accused from his back. The accused thereafter, snatched the car key from complainant and ran away along with the car. The accused also asked three of his associates to sit in the car but they were unable to get inside the car and thus, they started running behind the car driven by the ac- cused. The complainant tried to chase the accused and his asso- ciates and at near PVR complex, the complainant with the help of two police officials caught hold of one the associate of accused who was identified as Satwant Singh @ Aman (since CCL). The matter was reported to police through a PCR Call and thereafter, police arrived at the spot.
2. The criminal law was set into motion on the basis of state- ment given by the complainant and the FIR was registered. During the investigation, search efforts were made to find the car of the complainant as well as the other offenders. The complainant also disclosed that the car contained his wallet containing driving li- cense, credit Cards, ATM Cards, mobile phone and cash of Rs.
State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 2 Digitally signed RISHABH by RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR RISHABH Date:
KAPOOR 2025.11.24 Digitally signed by RISHABH KAPOOR 14:30:15 Date: 2025.11.24 +0530 14:32:40 +0530
36,200/-. On 05.02.2010, the car belonging to complainant was found in an abundant state near the gate of Blind School, Vikas Puri and the same was seized by police. The two other associates of accused i.e. Kamalpreet Singh @ Prince and Bhavjyot Singh @ Jyoti (since both CCLs) also surrendered before the police and were accordingly apprehended. The accused however, evaded the process of law and failed to join the investigation of the case, due to which the coercive processes including proceedings u/s 82 Cr. PC were also issued against him. On 13.07.2010, accused surrendered before the Court pursuant to an application moved by him and made a disclosure statement regarding his complicity in the present case. The wallet along with the documents of com- plainant were found in the car which was seized by the police but the recovery of the robbed cash of Rs. 36,200/- could not be made as same was stated to be spent by the accused and his asso- ciates. The accused was also arrested in the present case and during the course of his judicial TIP, the complainant identified him as one of the offender. After completion of investigation, the present charge sheet for conducting trial of accused for alleged of- fences was submitted in the Court.
3. As per mandate of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the copy of charge sheet and documents were supplied to accused. The accused thereafter, again evaded the process of law due to which the coer- cive processes including proceedings u/s 82 Cr. PC were issued against him, during the course of which he was declared as an ab- sconder vide order dated 14.02.2012. Thereafter, the accused was apprehended and was sent to judicial custody. The accused was admitted to bail in due course and the matter proceeded fur-
State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 3 Digitally signed RISHABH by RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2025.11.24 14:30:21 +0530 ther. The charge was framed against the accused for offences un- der Section 392,323,394 r/w 34 IPC vide order dated 29.04.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. After the framing of charges, the matter proceeded for pros- ecution evidence and in order to prove its' case, prosecution has examined eight witnesses in all. The testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses are discussed in brief hereinafter;
PW-1 Naveen Sharma was the complainant in the present case. He deposed that he does not remember the date of incident as five years have passed and at the time of incident he was driv- ing Swift Dezire car bearing no. DL-4CAM-2703 as a private taxi and while going towards his house, when reached near the Red Light of Pastry Palace, Vikas Puri, accused Gurvinder Singh struck against the window of his car on the driver's side, to which he lowered down the glass to make inquiry from accused regard- ing his act. He further deposed that the accused did not give any reply and opened the gate of his car and started beating him after dragging him out of the car. He further deposed that in the mean- while someone caught hold of him from back side as the accused was accompanied by 3-4 other persons and all of them also started beating him brutally. He further deposed that to save him- self, he pushed the person who was holding him but he fell down on the ground and in the meantime, accused snatched the car key from his hand. He further deposed that he had kept Rs. 32,000/- in cash along with wallet containing debit cards, PAN Card and driving license in his car. He further deposed that the accused asked his associates to enter inside the car but they could not do so and accused left the spot along with his car. He further de-
State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 4 Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.11.24 14:30:28 +0530 posed that the associates of accused started showing sympathy to him and told him that they will search for his car, to which he got apprehensive and followed them. He further deposed that near the Vikas Puri PVR, the associates of accused saw him following them, to which they started running away. He further deposed that one of the associate of accused was apprehended with the help of police officials and he made a call at 100 number. He further de- posed that police recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/A and also tried to search for accused, but in vain. He further deposed that on next day, he received a call from the Police Station that his car was recovered to which he went to PS and found his car. He fur- ther deposed that the money in the car as well as the wallet were found missing and the wallet along with the cards, driving license, PAN Card were found in the car. He further deposed that all the recovered articles were seized by the police vide memo Ex. PW 1/B. He identified accused Gurvinder Singh as the person who struck on the window pane of his car. He stated that accused was also identified by him during TIP proceedings at Tihar Jail. He also identified the case property i.e. Car no. DL-4CAM-2703, three debit cards i.e. one each of HDFC Bank, SBI and Central Bank of India, PAN card and driving license along with the credit card of Standard Chartered Bank along with the photographs which are Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-5 respectively. Thereafter, he was encountered with the questions in the nature of cross examination by Ld. APP for the State and he admitted that Rs. 36,200/- were wrapped in a newspaper and lying on the seat of his car at the time of incident and the denomination of such currency notes was 30 notes of Rs. 1000/-, 12 notes of Rs. 500/- and two notes of Rs.
State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 5 Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.11.24 14:30:34 +0530 100/-. He further stated that the description of other articles was driving license, Credit Card, ATM Card of HDFC, ATM Card of SBI, ATM card of Central Bank of India, card of Standard Chartered Bank and one mobile phone make- LG no. 9312272237. He ad- mitted that earlier he had forgotten some facts due to lapse of time. He admitted that the incident was of February, 2010 and day was Thursday. He could not state that the date of incident was 04.02.2010 due to lapse of time.
During his cross-examination he stated that there were many cars standing at the red light at the time of incident. He could not state which hand was used by accused to knock the window of his car. He stated that no traffic police officials were present at red light. He could not state about the hand which was put inside by accused to open the lock of window of the car. He denied that the case pertained to road rage incident which was falsely converted by him into a case of robbery. He denied that he came out of his car in anger when accused knocked his window screen or that the accused was slapped by him at that time. He could not state who other persons were apprehended by him in the present case. He stated that the incident had not occurred in front of Pastry Shop. He volunteered that there is a famous pastry shop near the place of incident and the red light is known as Pas- try Palace Red Light. He stated that he had made PCR call from his mobile phone. He could not state about the number of the mo- bile phone. He could not state about the place of recovery of his car. He denied that there was no money, mobile phone and ATM cards in the car or that he has falsely implicated the accused in the present case.
State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 6 Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.11.24 14:30:39 +0530 PW-2 HC Naresh Kumar deposed that on 04.02.2010 he along with Ct. Aas Mohd. was present at police post PVR and at about 8:45 AM, he heard noise of ''Chor Chor Pakdo Pakdo'' to which he along with Ct. Aas Mohd. went to the other side of road and saw one person running and other one was shouting and chasing him. He further deposed that the person who was chasing that person was complainant and there were 3-4 other persons who were accompanied by the person who was chased. He fur- ther deposed that the said person was apprehended by him and Ct. Aas Mohd. and his name was disclosed as Satwant @ Aman. He further deposed that complainant narrated that person along with his associates has robbed his car on the Outer Ring Road op- posite Pastry Palace shop. He further deposed that said person disclosed his age as 17 years and in the meanwhile, ASI Rajender Singh came to the spot and thereafter, called father of said per- son. He further deposed that ASI Rajender and PSI Dinesh Chan- der left for the spot of incident and came back after one hour and father of JCL Satwant @ Aman also came there along with the CBSE Certificate of CCL, as per which his date of birth was 14.02.1992 and JWO was accordingly was informed about the same. He further deposed that IO ASI Rajender prepared rukka and got the FIR registered.
PW -3 Retired SI Dablu Oran is a formal witness who de- posed that on the basis of rukka sent by ASI Rajender Singh, he registered FIR Ex. PW 3/A vide endorsement on rukka Ex. PW 3/B. State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 7 Digitally signed by RISHABH KAPOOR RISHABH Date:
KAPOOR 2025.11.24
14:30:45
+0530
PW-4 Ct Aas Mohd is the other police official who was present along with PW-2 at the place of apprehension of CCL Satwant @ Aman. He also deposed on the same lines as that of PW-2 HC Naresh Kumar and thus, his entire testimony is not be- ing reproduced to avoid repetition.
PW-5 Inspector Yogesh Tyagi deposed that on 09.02.2010 , he was working as Juvenile Welfare Officer and on that day, upon request of IO/ASI Rajender Singh he prepared in- quiry report of CCL Kanwalpreet @ Prince and on 19.02.2010, he also prepared inquiry report of CCL Bhavjyot @ Jyoti and handed over the same to the IO.
PW-6 ACP Ghanshyam deposed that in year 2010, he was working as Juvenile Welfare Officer and during investigation CCL Satwant @ Aman was apprehended under his supervision and the further investigation of the case was entrusted to ASI Rajen- der.
PW-7 Inspector Dinesh Chandra deposed that on 04.02.2010, pursuant to receipt of DD no. 37, he along with ASI Rajender went to PVR Vikas Puri where HC Naresh and Ct. Aas Mohd met them who had already apprehended one person namely, Satwant Singh. He further deposed that the said person disclosed his age as 17 years to which his father was intimated and asked to produce the age-related documents of that person. He further deposed that in the meantime, complainant also reached at the spot and his statement was recorded by ASI Ra-
State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 8 Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.11.24 14:30:50 +0530 jender Singh. He further deposed that ASI Rajender Singh pre- pared the tehrir and got the FIR registered. He further deposed that he handed over letter sent by ASI Rajender to Inspector Ghanshyam Meena JWO regarding CCL Satwant and on the next day, he along with ASI Rajender went for searching the robbed car which was found near the blind school and same was seized vide memo Ex. PW 7/A. During his cross-examination, he stated that no information regarding unclaimed vehicle was received at PS Vikas Puri and that no public persons were present when he and IO arrived at the place of recovery. He stated that the vehicle was taken to police station by crane but he could not state about the number of the crane.
PW-8 Retired SI Rajender Singh was the IO in the present case. He deposed about the investigation conducted by him in the present case and his testimony is similar to that of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-7 and same is not being reproduced to avoid repetition. Through him, rukka was exhibited as Ex. PW 8/A1 and site plan as Ex. PW 8/A. During his cross-examination, he stated that com- plainant was alone at the spot and no one had accompanied him. He stated that the distance between the spot and place of recov- ery of car was around one kilometer. He stated that the statement of complainant was recorded at PVR Vikas Puri. He denied that the complainant was present in the Court when the accused sur- rendered. He denied that the accused was not in the muffled face at the time when he surrendered. He denied that he along with complainant had concocted a story to falsely implicate accused in the present case.
State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 9 Digitally signed RISHABH by RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2025.11.24 14:30:56 +0530 This is the entire evidence on record.
5. The accused also admitted certain formal documents in the nature of the factum of deposition of case property in Malkhana and its release on superdari vide the corresponding entries in the relevant Malkhana Registers, record of TIP Proceedings dated 21.07.2010 and MLC no. 1881 of complainant which are Ex. A1 to A3 respectively, and in view of admissions of such formal docu- ments by accused, the examination of witnesses with respect to such documents was dispensed with. After the completion of prosecution evidence, PE was closed and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded wherein he alleged false implication and claimed innocence. Accused opted not to lead evidence in his defense.
6. During the course of arguments, Ld. Addl. PP has argued that the prosecution witness has supported the prosecution case and their testimonies have remained unrebutted. It has further been argued that on combined reading of testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses, offences u/s 392,323, 394 r/w 34 IPC have been proved beyond doubt.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police officials at the behest of complainant. Arguing further, Ld. Counsel for ac- cused has inter-alia submitted that the complainant has also made certain considerable improvements in his version before the State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 10 Digitally signed by RISHABH KAPOOR RISHABH Date:
KAPOOR 2025.11.24
14:31:00
+0530
Court. It has further been argued on behalf of accused that the in- cident of scuffle arising out of road rage has been given the color of offence of robbery by the complainant and the complainant has falsely implicated the accused in the same. It has also been ar- gued on behalf of accused that at the time of surrender of ac- cused before the Court, the complainant was present and had identified him there only due to which the subsequent identifica- tion of accused by the complainant during the judicial TIP pro- ceedings is of no relevance to establish the identity of accused as an offender. It has also been argued that the spot of incident was a busy public place and the mere fact that the police has not joined any public persons in the investigation of the case is suffi- cient to show that the story concocted by complainant is false. It has also been argued that due to lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused be given benefit of doubt and IS therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
8. I have heard submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Defense counsel and perused the record carefully.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
9. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. Accused has been indicted for the offences u/s 392,323, 394 r/w 34 IPC.
10. For the sake of repetition, it is again reiterated that the sum State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 11 Digitally signed by RISHABH KAPOOR RISHABH Date:
KAPOOR 2025.11.24
14:31:05
+0530
and substance of the allegations as levelled against accused is that on 04.02.2010 at about 8:30 PM at near Pastry Palace Traffic Light, Vikas Puri, accused along with his associates Satwant Singh, Kamalpreet Singh @ Prince and Bhavjyot Singh @ Jyoti (Since all CCLs) in furtherance of common intention of each other gave beatings to complainant with the hands and fists due to which the complainant suffered simple injuries and thereafter, robbed the car bearing no DL-4CAM-2703 containing a wallet, ATM Cards, credit Cards, mobile phone and cash of Rs. 36,200/- belonging to complainant and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 392,323,394 r/w 34 IPC.
11. In order to establish its case, the prosecution is primarily relying upon the testimony of complainant/PW-1 Naveen Sharma. The careful perusal of the testimony of PW-1 Naveen Sharma would suggest that the afore-named witness has not only given a detailed account of the incident but he has also remained consistent in his version throughout the course of his cross- examination. PW-1 has clearly narrated about details of the alleged incident. More specifically, PW-1 has coherently deposed that accused Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu has first knocked on the window of his car and when he lowered down the glasses to inquire about such act of accused, the accused unlocked the car by putting his hand inside and thereafter dragged the PW-1 outside the car and started beating the complainant by giving punch blows so as to give effect to the act of robbing the car from him. The testimony of PW-1 appears to be convincing and same does not suffer from any material defects or contradictions. The State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 12 Digitally signed by RISHABH KAPOOR RISHABH Date:
KAPOOR 2025.11.24
14:31:12
+0530
testimony of PW-1 also finds support from the record of the judicial TIP proceedings of accused (Ex. A-2), during which the accused was identified by the complainant as an offender.
12. It has been asserted on behalf of accused that the identification of the accused as an offender which was done by the complainant during the TIP proceedings dated 21.07.2010, is of no relevance and same shall not be given any weightage as the complainant was present at the time when the accused surrendered before the court. More specifically, it has been argued that at the time when accused surrendered before the Court on 13.07.2010, the complainant was present inside the Court and had already identified him at the instance of IO, therefore, the fact that the complainant later on identified the accused on 21.07.2010 during the judicial TIP proceedings is inconsequential. In this regard one must advert to the law regarding the evidentiary value of judicial TIP. The law regarding evidentiary law of TIP is well settled and very recently Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Vinod @ Nasmulla Vs. State of Chattisgarh 2025 SCC Online SC 220 held that "a TIP is not a substantive evidence but corroborative in nature; it lends assurance to in Court identification". Further, in Umesh Chandra vs. State of Uttrakhand (2021) 4SCC 690, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that TIP corroborates in court identification and if held properly, same provides strong support to prosecution version. Whereas, in Kanta Prashad Vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1985 SC 350, it was held that identification in TIP is admissible as corroborative evidence u/s 9 of Indian Evidence Act. Further, in State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 13 Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.11.24 14:31:17 +0530 Malkhan Singh Vs. State of MP (2003) 5 SCC 746, it was held that once the accused is identified in the court and the identification is supported by fair TIP, it can form reliable basis for conviction.
13. In the backdrop of the position of law with respect to the evidentiary value of the TIP, now let us appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of accused. The contention of the Ld. Counsel of accused is that the judicial TIP of accused dated 21.07.2010 was not fair in the sense that at the time of surrendered of the accused before the Court on 13.07.2010, the complainant was present in the Court and had already identified the accused at that time. The careful perusal of the testimony of PW-1 would suggest that Ld. Defense Counsel for accused has not even put a single question to PW-1 regarding his presence on 13.07.2010 in the Court i.e. the date when the accused surrendered before the Court. Likewise, no single question was put to PW-1 by the defense stating that he had identified the accused on 13.07.2010 in the Court at the instance of the IO. Even no single suggestion in that regard was put to PW- 1 by the Ld. Defense Counsel during the course of the cross-
examination of said witness. Not only this, during the course of deposition of IO Retired SI Rajender Singh (PW-8), two suggestions which were offered by the defense i.e. about the presence of complainant in the Court on the date of surrender of the accused and the accused coming to the Court in unmuffled face at that time, were denied by the said witness.
14. The accused has also not led any defense evidence to State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 14 Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.11.24 14:31:22 +0530 establish the fact that on 13.07.2010 i.e. the date when he surrendered before the Court, he was identified by the complainant at the instance of the IO. The record of the proceedings dated 13.07.2010 also does not suggest about the presence of complainant in the Court at the time of surrender, interrogation and arrest of accused by the IO. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of accused for not giving any weightage to the TIP proceedings dated 21.07.2010 appears to be completely misplaced and same are accordingly rejected. This Court does not find any reason to entertain any doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the TIP proceedings dated 21.07.2010 during which the accused was identified as the offender by the complainant, therefore, in the considered view of this Court the identification of the accused which was made by the complainant/PW-1 during the course of his deposition in the Court has been duly corroborated with the record of TIP proceedings dated 21.07.2010 and thus the identity of the accused as the offender who was involved in the alleged incident has been duly established by the prosecution.
15. Moving ahead, since it has now surfaced from the unimpeached testimony of the PW-1 which was also corroborated in all its material particulars by the record of TIP proceedings dated 21.07.2010, that the accused Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu has not only knocked on the glass of the complainant's car but he also cleverly unlocked the car door when the glasses were lower down by the complainant to make the inquiry regarding the act of accused and thereafter, dragged the complainant from his car and gave him beatings so as to give effect to the act of robbing the car State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 15 Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.11.24 14:31:27 +0530 of the complainant, what remains to be delved upon is that whether such acts of the accused were voluntarily in nature or same were actuated by some provocation given by the complainant himself ? It has been argued by Ld. Defense Counsel that the complainant has given a color to the offence of robbery to an incident of road rage in which the complainant was the aggressor in the sense that he had slapped the accused. In this context, one must revert to the testimony of PW-1, in which he has not only coherently narrated about the entire incident along with its minute details. Not only this, PW-1 during the course of his cross- examination has remained consistent in his stand that he was assaulted and robbed by the accused and his associates and has coherently denied that the road rage incident was given the color of offence of robbery by him. The fact that the act of assault committed by the accused upon the complainant was voluntarily in nature was necessary to be established by the prosecution to hold the accused liable for offence u/s 323 IPC as well as the other offences for which he has been charged. The voluntariness of the accused in attacking the complainant at the time of incident is a question of subjective discussion and same can only be answered by appreciating the evidences on record.
16. The complainant /PW-1 has explained the facts leading to the incident in a coherent and consistent manner. PW-1 has clearly described about the details of the acts done by the accused i.e. the act of accused in knocking the window of complainant's car, unlocking the door by placing hand inside the car when the complainant lowered down the window glass to make query State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 16 Digitally signed by RISHABH KAPOOR RISHABH Date:
KAPOOR 2025.11.24
14:31:32
+0530
regarding his act of knocking, dragging the complainant out of the car, giving him punch blows and thereafter, snatching the car keys and fleeing away along with the car from the spot. There is nothing on record to show that the matter pertained to an incident of road rage in which the complainant slapped the accused or that the acts of provocation were made by PW-1 due to which the accused lost control over his senses and attacked the PW-1. The overall material on record would rather suggest that the accused along with his associates in furtherance of their prior concert attacked the complainant/PW-1 so as to give effect to his ultimate object of committing the robbery of his car, thereby imputing upon him the necessary culpable intention for committing the alleged offences. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the accused that the alleged incident was given the color of offense of robbery or that same was a road rage incident in which the complainant slapped accused are also misplaced and same are rejected.
17. Moving further, it has also been argued on behalf of the accused persons that the prosecution has failed to examine any public persons in the present case to establish the allegations leveled against the accused. In so far as this argument is concerned, it should be noted that such an argument does not hold any ground as it is settled proposition of law that an accused can be convicted based on the testimony of solitary witness if same is unblemished and gains confidence of the Court. Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act clearly provides that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish a case. It is the quality of State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 17 Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.11.24 14:31:37 +0530 evidence and not the quantity which is to be seen. At this stage, the reference can be drawn from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 Cri.lj.1023 wherein it was held that on the basis of solitary evidence, conviction can be maintained. The conviction can be based on the testimony of single witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone, conviction can be maintained. The above discussed principle was reiterated (albeit with certain qualifications) by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amar Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delh ) Crl. Appeal no. 335/15 decided on 12.10.2020, wherein it was held that conviction can be based on sole eye witness' testimony only if he is wholly reliable but if there are doubts about testimony then court will insists upon corroborations. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below;
"16. 10, the finding of the guilt of two accused appellants recorded by two courts below is based on sole testimony of eye witness PW-1. As a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time honored State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 18 Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.11.24 14:31:41 +0530 principal is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principal stands edifice of section 134 of Indian Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise''.
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State through Inspector of Police Vs Laly @ Manikandan and Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1424 has again reiterated the ratio that there can be a conviction on the basis of deposition of sloe eye witness if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and /or reliable.
18. In view of the above discussed rulings, it becomes amply clear that there is no necessity of insisting upon the corroboration of the testimony of an eye witness with the testimony of the public witnesses and accused can be convicted even on the basis of sole testimony of complainant/ witness provided the said testimony must be unblemished and wins the confidence of the Court, if there is any contradictions or doubt over the reliability of the witness, the Courts can insist on corroboration. In the instant case, the complainant/PW-1 has completely supported the case of prosecution and has made a detailed and categorical narration about the incident including the acts of assault and robbery committed by the accused and his associates. He has also coherently deposed about the fact that accused and his associates first assaulted him by giving beatings with punch and fist blows and thereafter snatched the car key and ran away from the spot along with the car of complainant. The aforesaid evidence led by State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 19 Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.11.24 14:31:45 +0530 prosecution sufficiently establishes the guilt of accused in the alleged offences and hence, the contentions raised by defense that the testimony of the complainant and other material witnesses cannot be relied upon without corroboration with some independent evidences are also rejected.
19. It has also been argued that there exist some contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses due to which the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. Undeniably, there are some contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 but such contradictions would not automatically make such testimonies unreliable. It should be noted that there is no material improvement in the version of the material prosecution witness on the basic premise of case qua the culpability of the accused. The crux of the statement given by the complainant before the police and the Court has remained same. It should be noted that there is nothing improbable or unreliable in the testimony of PW-1 thereby making his testimony wholly unreliable. It is to be appreciated that the minor contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses which does not go to the root of the case deserves to be ignored but conversely, the material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of witnesses which goes to and attacks the very roots of the case cannot be ignored. Herein, it becomes important to cite the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sate of U. P. Vs. M. K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505 wherein it was held that "while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of witness read as whole appears to State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 20 Digitally signed by RISHABH KAPOOR RISHABH Date:
KAPOOR 2025.11.24
14:31:50
+0530
have a ring of truth. Minor discrepancies, inconsistencies, embellishment do not make the witness unreliable. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752, it was held that the normal discrepancies due to loss of memory or shock are bound to occur and such minor contradictions do not discredit the testimony if the witnesses core version is consistent. In Appa Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat 1988 SC 696, it was cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that stereotype or perfectly consistent statement may be un natural minor discrepancies lend credibility to truthful witnesses. In the present case, no such material contradictions have surfaced which makes the story of prosecution unreliable and therefore, the contentions of defense to this extent are also rejected.
20. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved that on given date, time and place accused along with his associates in furtherance of common intention of each other had given beatings to complainant with the hands and fist blows so as to commit the offence of robbery and after such act, the accused along with his associates committed the robbery of the car bearing no. DL- 4CAM-2703 which contained the wallet along with the driving license, credit card, ATM cards, Mobile phone and cash of Rs. 36,200/- belonging to complainant. Accordingly, I hereby return the finding of conviction of the accused for offences u/s 392, 323,394 r/w 34 IPC. The accused Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu is hereby convicted for the offences punishable u/s 392, 323,394 r/w 34 IPC.
State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 21 Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.11.24 14:31:54 +0530
21. Let the convict be heard separately on the point of sentencing.
Digitally signed by RISHABH Announced in open Court on 24.11.2025. RISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2025.11.24 14:32:03 +0530 (Rishabh Kapoor) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05 (South-West)/Dwarka/24.11.2025
State Vs.Gurvinder Singh @ Guddu FIR No: 25/2010 U/s : 394/34 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 22