Delhi District Court
State vs Ram on 15 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANI CHAUHAN :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT - 01) :
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
CNR NO. DLSE01-006030-2016
SC 2657/2016
STATE Vs. RAM
FIR No. 822/2015
PS Sun Light Colony
U/s 394/34 IPC & 397 IPC
State Versus Ram
Sh. Namdev
Address as per charge-sheet:-
H. No. E-25, Sidharth Basti, Sun Light
Colony, New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 13.07.2016
Date of reserving for Judgment : Not reserved
Date of Judgment : 15.04.2026
Final verdict : Acquittal
JUDGMENT
Introduction:
On 06.12.2015, at about 10:30 PM, one CCL 'S' and Rakesh (not arrested) held the hands of the victim Xavier Swami and accused Ram attacked him with knife due to which injuries were caused to the victim. Ram also snatched Rs. 235/- and voter ID card of the victim. The matter SC No. 2657/2016 FIR No. 822/2015 State v. Ram Page no. 1 of 12 was reported to police vide DD No. 23A dated 06.12.2015 and FIR was registered. Investigation commenced.
Brief facts:
1. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed naming Ram as accused for offence punishable U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC. The case against the CCL 'S' was filed in the concerned Court.
2. Cognizance in the present case was taken by Ld Predecessor. The copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC. Matter was then fixed for consideration on point of charge.
3. Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame Charges for offences U/s 394/34 IPC and 397 IPC against the accused Ram. Accused Ram pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
Prosecution evidence:
4. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case as follows:-
Serial Name of the witness Nature of the witness No. PW1 Sh. Xavier Swami Complainant/Injured PW2 Dr. Yatish Agarwal Doctor who conducted age estimation SC No. 2657/2016 FIR No. 822/2015 State v. Ram Page no. 2 of 12 test of JCL 'S' PW3 ASI Dhiraj Police officer who recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared rukka PW4 SI Om Prakash Initial IO PW5 ASI Lalit Mohan Duty Officer PW6 ASI Anand Pal Beat Officer who received the information regarding presence of the accused in Sidharth Basti and he conveyed the information to IO and who witnessed the arrest of the accused PW7 HC Amit Kumar Police officer who arrested JCL 'S' PW8 Sh. Alxender Brother of the complainant PW9 HC Vinod Kumar Police officer who accompanied with PW3 / HC Dhiraj and part of initial investigation PW10 SI Brham Prakash IO of the case
5. The prosecution has exhibited following documents/objects in support of its case:-
Number of Nature of exhibits
Exhibits
Ex.PW1/A Statement of PW1/ complainant Xavier Swami
Ex.PW1/B T-shirt and baniyan which PW1 was wearing at the
(colly) time of incident
Ex.P1 (colly) One brown man's purse and purse found containing SC No. 2657/2016 FIR No. 822/2015 State v. Ram Page no. 3 of 12 one voter and 4 other cards Ex.PW2/A X-ray requisition form Ex.PW2/B Age estimation report of JCL 'S' Ex.PW3/A Rukka Ex.PW3/B Seizure memo of one sealed pullanda the bloodstained clothes of the injured Ex.PW5/P1 FIR (OSR) Ex.PW5/P2 Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding (OSR) computerized FIR Ex.PW5/P3 DD No. 5A (OSR) Ex.PW6/P1 Arrest memo of accused Ex.PW6/P2 Seizure memo of purse and contents Ex.PW6/P3 Disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW6/P4 Personal search memo of the accused Ex.PW6/P5 Pointing out memo of the accused Ex.PW10/P1 Site plan Ex.PW10/P2 Certified copy of DD No. 23A dated 06.12.2015 Ex.PW10/P3 Certified copy of DD No. 26A dated 06.12.2015 Ex.AD1 MLC of the victim Zaveer Swami (admitted u/s 294 CrPC)
6. After this, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was listed for examination of accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C.SC No. 2657/2016
FIR No. 822/2015 State v. Ram Page no. 4 of 12
7. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the accused Ram denied all the allegation leveled by the prosecution. The accused admitted that he was apprehended from Sidharth Basti Park. However, nothing has been recovered from his possession. The accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
8. Despite opportunity, accused chose not to produce any independent witness in his defence. Thus, the matter was fixed for final Arguments.
9. Final arguments have been heard. Record has been carefully perused.
10. Sh. Aditya Trehan, Ld. Additional PP for the State has argued that the complainant has supported the case of prosecution on all material aspects of the case. He submits that the contradictions, if any, are trivial in nature and do not affect the merits of the case. He submits that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond the pales of reasonable doubts and the accused be convicted of all the offences with which he is charged.
11. On the other hand, accused argued that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he had not stabbed the victim. He claims innocence and prays for acquittal.
Relevant Provisions of law:
Section 394 IPC provides for punishment for robbery -
"if any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall SC No. 2657/2016 FIR No. 822/2015 State v. Ram Page no. 5 of 12 be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 34 IPC provides as under:-
"When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
Section 397 IPC provides as under:-
"Enhanced punishment in certain cases of robbery ie., - if, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender used any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years."
Evidence on record:
Prosecution witnesses deposed as follows:
12. PW - 1 Xavier Swami (complainant / injured) has deposed as follows:-
"On 06.12.2015 at about 8:30 p.m., I purchased one mobile phone make Samsung J7 from Ashram area and after purchasing the same, when I reached about 9:30 p.m. near Sonu Jewellers in front of Ambedkar park, main Chowk Sunlight Colony. where I saw that one girl and twe boys were quarreling with each other under the influence of liquor. Meanwhile, "S" (CCL) started SC No. 2657/2016 FIR No. 822/2015 State v. Ram Page no. 6 of 12 quarreling with me and then Ram also started quarrelling with me. Accused Ram and "S" (CCL) caught hold of my hands and Rakesh gave two knife blows to me on account of which, I suffered injuries on my back. I had tried to rescue myself after pushing them/Rakesh had given one knife blow due to which I received injuries on left hand. hand. Accused Ram had snatched my mobile phone from my pocket and accused "S" (CCL) had taken out my wallet from my pocket which was containing amount of Rs.1100/- approximately, my PAN card, Voter ID card, Aadhdar card and office I-card. After the incident, all three of them had fled away from the spot. I ran towards my house and my brother Alexander Swami had taken me to the hospital. Police had come in the hospital who made inquiry from me and I had stated the facts and my statement was recorded by my brother Alexander Swami, same is Ex PW1/A which bears my signature at point A. I had shown the spot of incident to the police officials. During the course of investigation, I had identified "S" (CCL) and she was apprehended and arrested in the present case. The photocopy of arrest memo is Mark-X which bears my signature at point A. My statement was recorded by IO.
At this stage, MHC(M) produced one parcel bearing the FIR No. 822/2015 duly sealed with seals of CMO AIIMS. After breaking the seals, the doctor tape is removed and black colour polythene found containing T-shirt and baniyan, same are shown to the witness, who has identified the same which he was wearing at the time of incident, same is Ex.PW1/B (colly).
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one case property in unsealed condition kept in a plastic polythene without bearing any particulars of case. Same is opened and shown to the witness with the permission of the Court. It is SC No. 2657/2016 FIR No. 822/2015 State v. Ram Page no. 7 of 12 found containing one brown man's purse and purse found containing one voter and 4 other cards. Witness has correctly identified the same as his belongings. Same is now Ex.P1 colly.
I can identify the accused, if shown to me.
At this stage, witness has correctly identified the accused Ram in the Court. XXXXXX by Sh. Rohit Kathuria, Ld. LAC for the accused Ram.
Accused Ram was stranger to me at the time of incident. It is correct that I have been married to sister of Ram. I got married in 2017. It is correct that my relationship with the sister of accused was not approved by him. It is wrong to suggest that accused Ram had told me to keep away from his sister. The shop of Sonu jeweller is near my house i.e. distance of about 60 meters only. There are other shops also nearby said shop. (Vol. There is shop of electrician Ashok.) At the time of incident besides myself and Ram, two other persons were present and one person came later on. Two other persons who were present were Rakesh and CCL S. The person who came later on was the sister of Ram namely Sheena. I have been married to Sheena. There was no conversation going on when the incident happened. (Vol. I was coming after getting my phone recharged and was going towards my house.) I remember my phone number. (Vol. I had purchased J7 Samsung phone.) I had mentioned in my complaint that Ram had snatched my phone. Confronted with Ex.PW1/A where said fact is not mentioned. I only remember police recording my statement once when I was in the hospital. My wallet was containing approximately Rs.110 and ATM and Voter I'd card. I had mentioned the contents of my wallet in my complaint. Confronted with Ex.PW1/A where ATM card is not mentioned. My brother Alexander came SC No. 2657/2016 FIR No. 822/2015 State v. Ram Page no. 8 of 12 when I was in the hospital. He did not come at the spot during the incident. The police visited the spot later on with me. I did not make any call to number 100 but my brother made call from the hospital. (Vol. I was injured.) I was taken to hospital by my sister and Jija. The local boys had informed my sister and jija about the incident and that I have been injured. The local boys came after the incident. My house was nearby and they informed at my house. I had not mentioned said facts in my statement. It is correct that the relations between my wife and accused Ram are not cordial. Police did not record statement of my wife. Police met me in the hospital when I regained senses. The shops of the market were closed when the incident happened. I was coming from mother dairy chowk where I got the phone recharge. It is wrong to suggest that I have falsely implicated the accused since he was opposed to the relationship between myself and his sister. It is wrong to suggest that I have not mentioned about snatching of the phone by accused Ram in my complaint since no such incident occurred. It is wrong to suggest that I have falsely deposed about the contents of my wallet. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. "
13. PW - 2 Dr. Yatish Agarwal, Professor and Consultant, Department of Radiology, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi has deposed on on 27.04.2016, a broad was constituted under the chairmanship of Dr. G. A. Sunil Kumar Sharma, himself and Dr. Kapur Ch. Chaudhary for determining of age of JCL 'S'. As per radiology, the bone age of her was found to be in between 17-18 years. The X-ray requisition form is Ex.PW2/A and age estimation report of 'S' is SC No. 2657/2016 FIR No. 822/2015 State v. Ram Page no. 9 of 12 Ex.PW2/B.
14. PW - 3 ASI Dhiraj was first police official who visited the spot on receiving the DD No. 23A regarding knife has been stabbed at near H. No. 938, Sun Light Colony near Har Nagar Ashram, New Delhi and done the initial proceedings and prepared the rukka on the statement of the complainant/ injured.
15. All the other witnesses are police officers and have proved the investigation done in the present case.
Discussion on Merits:
16. Having considered the relevant law and the settled principal with respect to the offences with which the accused has been charged with, I shall proceed with examining the evidence on record.
17. While the complainant had in his complaint, mentioning one CCL 'S' and accused Rakesh had held his hands, accused Ram stabbed him. However, during his deposition in the Court, he stated that accused Ram and CCL 'S' had held him and Rakesh had stabbed him. This is the major contradiction in the testimony of the victim with respect to role of accused persons. Entirely contradictory roles of accused have been mentioned by name in the complaint. These contradictions go to the very root of the case and has not been explained.
18. While in the complaint, PW1 had mentioned that accused Ram snatched Rs. 235/- and his voter ID card, during his deposition in the Court SC No. 2657/2016 FIR No. 822/2015 State v. Ram Page no. 10 of 12 he changed his version and went on to say that CCL 'S' Rs. 1100/-, Pan Card, Aadhar Card, Voter ID card and accused Ram snatched his mobile phone. This is yet another major contradiction with respect to the stolen articles which has remained unexplained. The snatching of mobile phone, wallet, pan card, aadhar card and Rs. 1100/- are not mentioned in the complaint. The MLC of the victim mentions his name as Zaveer Swami whereas in the present case the name of the victim is Xavier Swami.
19. PW - 8 Alxender is the brother of the victim. However, he is not the eyewitness of the case. He has no direct knowledge about the incident and has deposed on the basis of what he had heard from others. In these circumstances, his testimony is hearsay in nature and thus, inadmissible in nature.
20. There is nothing on record to establish the culpability of the accused persons in the commission of the offence charged against him. The testimony of victim suffers from material contradictions and inconsistencies which shake the very foundation of prosecution's case. There is no other evidence on record to establish the culpability of the accused in the commission of the offence charged against him. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and if any doubt has been created then benefit of it should be given to the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, SC No. 2657/2016 FIR No. 822/2015 State v. Ram Page no. 11 of 12 accused Ram S/o Namdev is acquitted for offences U/s 394/34 IPC & 397 IPC.
21. Personal Search items of accused, if not already released, be released to him as per rules. Digitally signed by Shivani (Announced in the Open Court Shivani chauhan on 15th April 2026) chauhan Date:
2026.04.15 15:53:24 +0530 (SHIVANI CHAUHAN) Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-01, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/15.04.2026 SC No. 2657/2016 FIR No. 822/2015 State v. Ram Page no. 12 of 12