Delhi District Court
State vs . Vicky & Anr. on 19 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. ROHIT GULIA, CMM, NORTH-
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. : 0970/2022
U/s : 392/394/411/34 IPC
P.S. : Subhash Place
State Vs. Vicky & Anr.
JUDGMENT
a) Unique ID no. : 13025/2022
b) Date of : 07.08.2022
Commission of
offence
c) Name of the : Sh. Mukeem, S/o Sh. Saheed,
complainant R/o. D-323, Shakurpur,
Delhi. (Presently R/o. A-394,
Third Floor, JJ Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi)
d) Name address : i) Vicky, S/o Sh. Ram
of the accused Niwas, R/o H.No. L-440, JJ
Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi.
ii) Suraj @ Rahul, S/o. Late
Hawa Singh, R/o. H.NO. L-
45, JJ Colony, Shakurpur,
Delhi.
e) Offence : 392/394/411/34 IPC
complained of
f) Plea of the : Not guilty
accused
g) Final order : 19.04.2023
h) Date of such : 19.04.2023
order
FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 1 of 19
Date of Institution : 28.11.2022
Final Arguments heard on : 01.04.2023
Judgment Pronounced on : 19.04.2023
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION :-
The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
1. The accused in the present case has been facing trial on the allegation that on 07.08.2022, at about 08:20 AM, on the road in between A & B Block, Shakurpur, Near the park, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS: Subhash Place, both the accused in furtherance of their common intention assaulted or used criminal force to the complainant Sh. Mukeem by pressing his neck in attempting to commit theft of his mobile phone, a sum of Rs. 700/-, Aadhar Card and Sharam Card belonging to the complainant and eventually they both committed robbery of the same. The accused Vicky is also facing trial on the allegations that on 11.08.2022, at unknown time, the abovesaid robbed mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused Vicky, which he received or retained the same, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. On the basis of the said allegations, the present e-FIR No. 0970/2022 was registered at Police Station Subhash Place and both the accused persons have been charged with the offences under Section 392/394/411/34 IPC.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused accused Vicky and accused Suraj for the offences punishable U/s. 392/394/411/34 IPC.
3. The copies of charge sheet was supplied to both the FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 2 of 19 accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C) and charge for the offence U/s. 392/394/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons and charge under Section 411 IPC was also framed against the accused Vicky to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its version, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses out of 8 cited witnesses.
5. PW-1 is the complainant Sh. Mukeem, has deposed that he is residing at the abovesaid address alongwith his family and on 07.08.2022, in the morning, he was going to his duty at Village Shakurpur, Delhi and when he reached at the park situated in between A & B Block, Shakurpur, Delhi, at about 08:20 AM, two boys came from behind and one of the boy choked his neck, the other took away his mobile phone make VIVO of blue colour and sum of Rs. 700/-, his Aadhar Card and his Shram (labour) Card. It is further deposed that due to the choking, he lost his consciousness. He further deposed that his mobile phone was having the SIM of Jio company bearing the number 9625777310. He further deposed that one passerby has given him some water upon which he regained his consciousness and thereafter, he lodged his complaint on which the present case FIR was registered. It is further deposed that the complaining statement given by him after registration of FIR is Ex. PW1/A. The photocopy of his Aadhar Card and the box of his abovesaid mobile phone were marked as Mark A1 and A2 respectively given by him to the police. This witness further deposed that he FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 3 of 19 could not identify the abovesaid two boys as he could not see their faces and they left him in an unconscious state after robbing him. He further deposed that he got released his mobile phone by the orders of Court vide superdarinama/security bond marked as Mark A3. He correctly identified the mobile phone through photographs Ex. P1. The photocopy of the application form for obtaining the SIM card of Jio company was marked as mark A4. He further deposed that he had shown the place of incident to the IO and proved the site plan of the place of incident as Mark A5. This witness was cross examined by Ld. counsels for the accused persons.
6. PW-2/Ct. Naveen Kumar has deposed that he was posted as constable in PS Subhash Place and on 11.08.2022, he had joined the investigation of the present case alongwith HC Sanjeev Kumar in case FIR No. 979/2022, PS Subhsh Place. He further deposed that they went to Community Center, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi and at the pointing out of the secret informer, they apprehended one person namely Vicky and at the time of pointing out, it was told to them that he is the same person who has robbed one person on 09.08.2022 alongwith his another associate. PW2 further deposed that upon taking his cursory search, one mobile phone and Aadhar Card in the name of one Kapil Kumar were recovered from the pocket of pant worn by him and the aadhar card was seized vide separate seizure memo in case FIR No. 979/2022. It is further deposed that the recovered mobile phone was taken into police possession under Section 103 DP Act in case FIR No. 979/2022 vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that the accused Vicky disclosed FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 4 of 19 about his involvement in the present case FIR in which he alongwith his other associate namely Suraj robbed one person by choking his neck. Further it is deposed that accused Vicky was arrested vide arrest memo i.e. Ex. PW2/B, he was personally searched and he made disclosure statement i.e. Ex. PW2/C. He further deposed that accused Vicky took them to the place of the incident and pointed towards the same. He further deposed that the clothes worn by accused Vicky at the time of incident i.e. one lower and one T-shirt were placed inside one transparent plastic container and sealed by HC Sanjeev in case e-FIR No. 979/2022. He further deposed that they searched for accused Suraj but could not found him. He further deposed that on 21.08.2022, he again joined the investigation of case e-FIR No. 979/2022 and went to L-Block, Kali Mata Mandir, Shakurpur, Delhi and in the meanwhile, one secret informer came there and told that the person who was involved in case e-FIR No. 979/2022 has come to his house at L-45, Shakurpur, Delhi and that if immediate raid could be done, he could be apprehended. He further deposed that the secret informer was discharged and they went to house of accused Suraj @ Rahul at L-45, Shakurpur, Delhi where they apprehended accused Suraj and after interrogation, he was arrested vide arrest memo i.e. Ex. PW2/D (OSR) and his personal search was also conducted by HC Sanjeev. This witness has correctly identified both the accused persons. He correctly identified the mobile phone through photographs Ex. P1. This witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the accused persons.
7. PW3/Ct. Rohit Ranjan deposed that on 31.08.2022 he FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 5 of 19 was posted as constable at PS Subhash Place and he had joined the investigation of the present case when he alongwith IO HC Babu Lal went to Tihar Jail where they arrested the accused Vicky and Suraj @ Rahul after taking necessary permission from Jail Superintendent. This witness further deposed that the accused Vicky was arrested vide arrest memo i.e. Ex. PW3/A who made disclosure statement i.e. Ex. PW3/B. Accused Suraj @ Rahul was arrested vide arrest memo i.e. Ex. PW3/C who made disclosure statement made i.e. Ex. PW3/D. PW3 further deposed that both the accused persons disclosed about their involvement in the present case e-FIR and that they had robbed one person of his mobile phone and cash amount of Rs. 700/- after choking the neck of one person at Shakurpur, Delhi. He further deposed that IO took the permission to produce both the accused persons before the concerned court. Both accused were correctly identified by the witness. This witness was cross examined by Ld. counsel for both the accused persons.
8. PW4/HC Babu Lal deposed that on 08.08.2022, he was posted as HC at PS Subhash Place and on that day, investigation of the present case was assigned to him and he met with the complainant. Witness further deposed that he alongwith the complainant went to the spot and prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant i.e. Ex. PW4/A. He further deposed that they checked for the CCTV footage of the nearby places but there was no CCTV cameras installed, covering the said incident. However, there was CCTV camera in one street at some distance from the spot and the footage in that camera was not clear nor it was sure if the accused persons and the complainant were visible FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 6 of 19 in the same or not. He further deposed that he made enquiries at the spot but could not found any clue about the accused persons nor any other eye witness met him and he recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant. Witness further deposed hat he recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, he searched for the accused persons but could not found. He further deposed that on 28.08.2022, he received one DD no. 66 A Ex.PW4/B which was regarding the recovery of the mobile phone of the present case FIR by the officials of PS Subhash Place itself in case E-FIR No. 000979/2022 in which accused persons namely Vicky and Suraj were arrested. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of Ct. Naveen under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who was a witness in case E-FIR No. 000979/2022 of PS Subhash Place and that he also recorded the statement of HC Sanjeev under Section 161 Cr.P.C who was the IO of case E-FIR No. 0000979/2022. He further deposed that on 29.08.2022, he came to court and obtained the permission of interrogation and arrest of accused persons. He further deposed that on 31.08.2022, he alongwith Ct. Rohit Ranjan went to Tihar Jail for the purpose of arrest of both the accused persons and after taking the permission from the jail Superintendent, accused Vicky was arrested by him and disclosure statement of accused Vicky was also recorded. He further deposed that the accused Vicky has disclosed his involvement in the present case and disclosed that he alongwith his co-accused Suraj had robbed one person by choking his neck. He further deposed that after taking the permission from the jail Superintendent, accused Suraj was arrested by him, disclosure statement of accused Suraj was also recorded. He further deposed that accused Suraj had disclosed his FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 7 of 19 involvement in the present case and disclosed that he alongwith his co-accused Vicky had robbed one person by choking his neck. PW4 further deposed that they returned back to the PS after handing over the request letter to Jail Superintendent to produce both the accused persons before the court for 01.09.2022. He further deposed that in the PS, he recorded the statement of Ct. Rohit Ranjan and the complainant Mohd. Mokim Rain was informed about the recovery of his mobile phone. He further deposed that alongwith DD no. 66 A, he had received the photocopies of the E-FIR No. 000979/2022, PS Subhash Place, arrest memos, seizure memo of the mobile phone and their disclosure statements. He further deposed that mobile phone of the complainant was released to him after taking necessary documents in the form of superdarinama, ownership proof of his mobile phone in the form of photocopy of the box containing all the details and his ID card. He further deposed that he had also obtained the photocopy of the ownership proof of the mobile phone and his ID Card on 08.08.2022 also and proved the self attested photocopies, ID Card and the ownership proof as mark A1 and A2. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court. He correctly identified both accused persons were correctly identified by the witness. Witness has correctly identified the mobile phone which i.e. Ex. P1. This witness was cross- examined by Ld. counsel for the accused persons.
9. PW5/HC Sanjeev Kumar deposed that on 11.08.2022, he was posted as HC at PS Subhash Place and on that day, he alongwith FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 8 of 19 Ct. Naveen were in the investigation of case E-FIR No. 0979/2022, PS Subhash Place, when one secret informer met him at Subhash Place and told that one of the person who committed robbery about two days ago at M-Block Park was standing near Community Center, Road No. 43, Shakurpur, Delhi and if immediate raid was conducted then he could be apprehended. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Naveen and the secret informer went Near Community Center, Shakurpur, Delhi and at the pointing out of the secret informer the said person was apprehended with the help of Ct. Naveen by him. Name of the said apprehended person was revealed as Vicky. Upon taking his search one mobile phone make Vivo, one Aadhar Card in the name of Kapil Kumar were recovered. It was disclosed by accused Vicky that he has robbed from one person after chocking his neck alongwith his another associate namely Suraj. He has disclosed that the recovered mobile phone was robbed by him alongwith his associate Suraj from B-Block Park, after choking his neck and one mobile phone, Aadhar Card and Rs. 2000/- were robbed by them after choking the neck of one person from Near M-Block Park. He further deposed that the said mobile phone and Aadhar Card were taken into police possession vide separate seizure memos. Accused Vicky was arrested. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. He further deposed that on 21.08.2022, on receipt of secret information that accused Suraj has come to his house and he is present there. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Naveen went to the house of accused Suraj i.e. at L-45, Shakurpur, JJ Colony, Delhi. He was interrogated and arrested. Disclosure statement made by accused Suraj is now Ex. PW5/A (OSR). He further deposed that he handed over the FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 9 of 19 copies of the documents in connection with the case E-FIR No. 00979/2022, PS Subhash Place to IO HC Babu Lal. He correctly identified both the accused persons in the court. He correctly identified the recovered mobile phone through photographs Ex. P1. He has correctly identified the said Aadhar Card which is in the name of Kapil Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash Ex. P2. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
10. Both accused have also admitted certain document i.e. FIR Ex. A1 and certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. A2 without its contents.
11. Subsequent to the recording of statement of aforesaid PWs, PE was closed and statement of both the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to the accused persons, in which both accused submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They further submitted that they do not want to lead evidence in their defence. Therefore, the matter was listed for final arguments.
12. Arguments heard on behalf of the State. Ld. APP for the State submits that there is sufficient material on record to show that on 07.08.2022, at about 08:20 AM, on road in between A & B Block, Near the park, Delhi, both accused in furtherance of their common intention criminally assaulted or used criminal force to the complainant Mukeem by pressing his neck in attempting to commit theft of his mobile phone, a sum of Rs. FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 10 of 19 700/-, Aadhar Card and Sharam Card. It is further argued by Ld. APP for the State that no dent could be put by the Ld. Counsel for the accused who have cross-examined the witnesses at length regarding recovery of case property from the accused as well as regarding the incident. It is further argued that there was no motive for false implication of the accused with the police officials. It is further argued that PW2, PW4 and PW5 have correctly identified the accused and the case property in the court. It is further argued that both accused persons are habitual offender and accused Vicky has previously been involved in more than 20 similar cases and accused Suraj has previously been involved in several other cases and also convicted in one case. It is argued that in the present case, the circumstances unerringly point towards both the accused persons that it were they only who were involved in committing the robbery and apart from direct evidence of recovery from the possession of the accused Vicky, the circumstances points towards the involvement of both the accused persons in the present case. It is further argued that prosecution has been able to successfully prove its case against both the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt. It is further argued that both the accused persons be convicted for the offene punishable under Section 392/394/411/34 IPC.
13. Arguments at length have been advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. It is argued by Ld. counsel for the accused persons that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to their previous involvement. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. It is further argued that there are several material FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 11 of 19 contradiction in the testimony of the complainant who is the star witness for the prosecution. It is further argued that complainant has failed to identify both the accused persons in the court and the ownership of the mobile phone could not be successfully established by the prosecution. It is further argued that no CCTV footage has been placed on file to show that the accused have committed the offence in question. It is further argued that the non joining of any public person despite availability casts doubt about the prosecution case and shows that both the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. Hence, it is prayed that both the accused persons may be acquitted of the alleged offences.
14. In the present case, charge under Section 392/394/411/34 IPC is framed against both the accused persons. Section 390 which defines robbery reads as under:-
"Robbery.--In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery.--Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 12 of 19 restraint. When extortion is robbery.-- Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted. Explanation.--The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint"
Section 392 IPC which provides punishment for the offence of robbery reads as under:-
"whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years."
Section 394 IPC reads as under :-
FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 13 of 19 "Voluntarily causing hurt in committing 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 be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 410 IPC defines stolen property as under:-
"Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as "stolen property", whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property."
FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 14 of 19 Section 411 IPC provides punishment for the offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property as under:-
"Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
15. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law.
16. In the present case, PW1 Sh. Mukeem is the prime witness of the prosecution being the victim/complainant and sole eye witness of the robbery in question. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of the abovesaid witness and thus minute scrutiny of his testimony is very essential. PW1 Sh. Mukeem has been examined and cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the accused. PW1 has in specific terms deposed that on the date of the incident i.e. 07.08.2022, in the morning, he was going to his duty at Village Shakurpur, Delhi and when he reached at the park situated in between A & B Block, Shakurpur, Delhi, at about 08:20 AM, two boys came from behind and one of the boy choked his neck, the other took away his mobile phone make FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 15 of 19 VIVO of blue colour and sum of Rs. 700/-, his Aadhar Card and his Shram (labour) Card. He further deposed that due to the choking, he lost his consciousness. He lodged his complaint Ex. PW1/A. He correctly identified the case property Ex. P1 in the court. It is further deposed by him that he lost his consciousness and could not see the face of the two boys who robbed him. There is no other eye witness to the incident of robbery and it was the PW1 only who could have deposed about the persons who have robbed him however, he has lost his consciousness and could not see their faces and has failed to identify the accused persons in the court despite his attention being drawn towards both the accused persons by Ld. APP for the State. There is no CCTV footage or any other direct or circumstantial evidence to show that it were the accused persons only who have robbed PW1 after causing injuries to him. The arguments of the Ld. APP for the State that the circumstances including the previous involvement of the accused persons point towards their involvement in the present case does not have any substance as there is no material on record to show that it were the accused persons only who have robbed the complainant/PW1 and simply saying that there are circumstances against both the accused persons cannot relieve the prosecution of its bounden duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, I am of the considered view that there is no material on record to show that accused persons namely Suraj @ Rahul and Vicky have robbed PW1.
However, the prosecution through PW1 and the other recovery witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW5 has been successful in establishing that the mobile phone of PW1 was robbed which fell FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 16 of 19 within the category of stolen property as defined under Section 410 IPC and the same has been recovered by PW2 and PW5 from the possession of accused Vicky, for which accused Vicky failed to give any plausible explanation through the cross- examination of the PWs and his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused Vicky was found in the possession of stolen mobile phone which was robbed from PW1 and which accused Vicky was found in possession knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. No material could be brought on record by the accused Vicky not even in the form of suggestions that there was any enmity or reason with PW1 to falsely implicate the accused Vicky or that the case property i.e. mobile phone was planted upon him when the complainant/PW1 has correctly identified his mobile phone Ex. P1 which was recovered from the possession of the accused Vicky.
17. PW2 Ct. Naveen Kumar and PW5 HC Sanjeev Kumar being the police officials are the recovery witnesses and the witnesses to arrest both the accused persons. Both the witnesses were cross-examined at length however, no material contradiction or inconsistency could be brought in their testimonies individually as well as qua each other specially with respect to the recovery of the robbed mobile phone from the possession of the accused Vicky.
18. The arguments of the Ld. counsel for the accused Vicky that no public witness has been joined in the recovery despite availability is without any merit as there is no mandate of law FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 17 of 19 that public persons must always be joined at the time of investigation, arrest and recovery. Further, it is also an admitted fact that no public person wants his name to be dragged in any criminal case by becoming a witness and nobody wants to get involved in court proceedings. Further, there is also no requirement of statute or any judicial precedent that police officials are not worthy of credit or that they cannot be relied upon unless some independent public persons joins in the recovery proceedings or during investigation. Thus, no dent could be made in story of the prosecution by Ld. counsel for the accused regarding the involvement of the accused persons in the present case including the recovery of the robbed article i.e. mobile phone belonging to the complainant from the possession of accused Vicky. Further, the incident of robbery in which mobile phone of the complainant/PW1 was robbed and recovery as discussed above, has already been proved.
19. Accused Vicky in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C could not make any plausible explanation regarding his involvement in the present case qua the recovery of the robbed mobile phone from his possession, the identification of the mobile phone by prosecution witnesses including PW1/complainant, the recovery of the robbed article i.e. mobile phone belonging to the complainant from the possession of the accused Vicky. Further, there is sufficient corroboration from the testimonies of PW2 Naveen Kumar and PW5 HC Sanjeev Kumar, who have specifically deposed about the recovery of the robbed mobile phone from the possession of the accused Vicky.
FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 18 of 19
20. In view of the aforesaid comprehensive discussion and the compelling testimony of PW-1 Sh. Mukeem which stands duly corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses, it is crystal clear that accused Vicky was found in possession of the recovered mobile phone. However, no direct or circumstantial evidence has come on record to show that both the accused persons namely Vicky and Suraj @ Rahul have committed robbery with the complainant/PW1. Accordingly, I have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt to show that accused Vicky was found in possession of robbed mobile phone belonging to complainant/PW1. There was no motive or reason with the complainant or the police officials to falsely implicate the accused Vicky in the present case nor such material could be brought on record by the accused except making bald allegations of false implication.
Therefore, accused Vicky is hereby convicted for the offences u/s 411 IPC and acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 392/394/34 IPC. Accused Suraj is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 392/394/34 IPC.
21. Let, accused Vicky be heard separately on the point of sentence on 17.05.2023.
22. Copy of the judgment be given dasti to the accused.
Announced in open court today 19.04.2023 (Rohit Gulia) CMM/NW/Rohini Courts Rohini/Delhi FIR No. 0970/2022 P.S. Subhash Place State Vs. Vicky & Anr. No. 19 of 19