Delhi District Court
State vs Ashok Kumar Alias Viraj on 30 April, 2026
I N THE COURT OF MR. HARGURVARINDER SINGH JAGGI,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC- 01), SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
C No.:
S 7 362/2016
CNR No.: DLST01-000349-2012
FIR No.: 45/2012
Police Station: South Campus
u/Section: 120B, 392, 394, 397, 411,
419, 420, 34 of IPC 1860
1. STATE )
Complainant
...
Through- Mr. Santosh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. v. 1. SHOK KUMAR ALIAS VIRAJ A ) S/o Ramji Lal ) R/o House No. A - 265 ) Gautam Puri, Gymkhana Club ) Badarpur, New Delhi - 110044 ) Accused No. 1 ...
Through- Mr. Sandeep Sehgal, Advocate. 2. OSY [Deceased]1 R ) D/o Parveen Kumar alias Rajesh ) R/o Sunil's House, Jatav Basti ) Chilla Gaon, Mayur Vihar - I ) New Delhi ) ... Accused No. 2 1 Proceedings against accused, Rosy abatedvideorderdated 08.08.2019 SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.1/4 9 Date of offence: 17.04.2012 Date of FIR: 17.04.2012 Date of chargesheet: 27.06.2012 Date of framing of charge(s): 05.09.2012, 05.12.2012 Date of commencement of evidence: 15.10.2012 Date of judgment reserved: 08.04.2016 Date of pronouncement of judgment: 30.04.2016 Date of the sentencing order, if any: TBA2 Table of Contents acts......................................................................................................................................3 F InvestigationbyPolice&ChargeSheet...............................................................................4 Charge&PointsofDetermination.......................................................................................6 Prosecution'sEvidence.........................................................................................................7 StatementofAccusedunderSection313CrPC...................................................................9 DefenceEvidence.................................................................................................................9 SubmissionbytheCounsels.................................................................................................9 LegalProvision&LegalPrinciples...................................................................................13 Analysis&Findings...........................................................................................................22 Decision..............................................................................................................................31 Form-B...............................................................................................................................33 Form-C...............................................................................................................................34 ListofProsecution/Defence/CourtWitnesses................................................................34 A. Prosecution.............................................................................................................34 B. DefenceWitnesses,ifany.....................................................................................38 C. CourtWitnesses,ifany..........................................................................................38 ListofProsecution/Defence/CourtExhibits...................................................................39 A. ProsecutionExhibits..............................................................................................39 B. DefenceExhibits...................................................................................................47 C. CourtExhibits........................................................................................................47 D. MaterialObjects.....................................................................................................48 2 TBA - To Be Announced SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.2/4 9 J U D G M E N T 30.04.2026 1. The accused, Ashok Kumar alias Viraj and Rosy, faced trial before this Court arising out of FIR No. 45/2012 registeredatpolice station South Campus for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 392, 394, 397, 419, and 420 readwithSection 120B and Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2. The co-accused, Rosy, expired duringthependencyofthetrial on 07.12.2018, and the proceedings against her stand abated.3 acts F 3. AspertheFIRNo.45/2012,thegenesisoftheprosecutioncase lies in a daring daylight robbery thattookplaceon17.04.2012atthe residenceofthevictims,Ms.OrenponiLothaandherFrenchhusband, Gilles Cannaud Ribes, at D-117, GroundFloor,AnandNiketan,New Delhi. The prosecution alleges that the accused Ashok Kumar and Rosy hatched a criminal conspiracy to commitrobbery.Inpursuance of this conspiracy, Ashok Kumar entered the houseunderthepretext ofseekingajob,overpoweredthemaidLilyThomasbybrandishinga big knife, and tied her hands and gagged her mouth with luggage tape. 4. When the homeowner, Ms. Orenponi Lotha, returned from a hospital visit, the accused pulled her inside, tied her hands, gagged her, and robbed her of substantial valuables. The robbed items included gold and precious stone jewellery, foreign passports, cash, 3 ibid. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.3/4 9 and several credit/debit cards belonging to her husband. During the scuffle, the accused caused hurt to Ms. Lotha with the knife and by physically assaulting her. 5. Subsequently, the accused, impersonating the cardholders, fraudulently used the stolen debit and credit cards at multiple commercial establishments in Defence Colony and Mayur Vihar to purchase household items, including anoventoastergriller(OTG)of Morphy Richards, medicines, and clothing. I nvestigation by Police & Charge Sheet 6. The wheels of the criminal justice system were set in motion when the driver, Mahesh Prasad, discovered the victims tied up and informed the police, leading to the registration of FIR No. 45/2012. 7. The final report (charge sheet) regarding FIR No. 45/2012 concludedthattheaccusedpersonsshouldbetriedunderIPCSections 392 (robbery), 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), 397 (robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 411 (dishonestlyreceivingstolenproperty),419(cheatingbypersonation), 420 (cheating), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention). 8. The investigating officer (IO), Inspector Balram prepared and filedadetailedfinalreportalongwithanextensivelistofprosecution witnesses, documents and material objects as gathered during the investigation. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.4/4 9 9. Thefinalreportstatedthatthecomplainantwasamaidservant, Lily Thomas. The alleged incident occurred on 17.04.2012 between 10:30 AM and 11:30 AM. at D-117, Ground Floor, Anand Niketan, New Delhi. The victims were Orenponi Lotha and Lily Thomas. 10. Amanforcedentryintothehouse,threatenedthevictimswitha knife, tied their hands and mouths with luggage tape, and stole cash and jewellery. On investigationitsurfacedthattherobberwasAshok Kumar alias Viraj aged around 27 years, resident of Tigri and currentlylivinginJatavBasti,ChillaGaon.Theco-accusedwasRosy aged around 33 years, a domestic help and former employee of the victim, Orenponi Lotha living in Jatav Basti, Chilla Gaon. 11. Based on secret information and technical surveillance, the main IO, Inspector Balram, apprehended Ashok Kumar and Rosyon 21.04.2012 from a rented room at Chilla Village, Mayur Vihar. 12. The key evidence and recoveries made by the police during investigation were as below: 12.1. Recovered stolen items: Police recovered jewelry items, gold chains, rings, bracelets, cash ₹2,298, a French passport, and multiplebank/creditcardsbelongingtothe victims from the rented room of the accused. 12.2. Purchased property: Items purchased by the accused using the victim's stolen debit card including an oven, clothes, and medicine were also seized from their residence. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.5/4 9 12.3. Weapon and vehicle: A kitchen knife used in the crime and a Bajaj Platina motorcycle bearing registration number DL-9S-P-7716 were recovered. 12.4. Technical evidence: The call detail records (CDRs) showed communication between the accused persons around the time of the incident. Fingerprint experts developed chance prints from the crime scene, though they did not match the accused. 13. The victims identified the recovered jewelry during a test identification parade (TIP). However, the accused persons refused to jointheirownTIPproceedings,claimingtheywerealreadyknownto the victims. 14. Pursuant to the disclosurestatementsoftheaccused,thepolice recovered the stolen French passports,assortedjewellery,debit/credit cards, the weapon of offence (knife), and the goods purchased using the stolen cards (OTG, jeans, medicines) from their rented premises. harge & Points of Determination C 15. Following the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet wasfiled,andchargeswereframedagainsttheaccusedon05.09.2012 (Section411IPC)and05.12.2012(Sections120B,392,394,397,419, 420 IPC), to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 16. The questions posed to the Court for determination are as under: SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.6/4 9 (i) hether the accused Ashok Kumar hatched a criminal W conspiracytocommitrobberyatD-117,AnandNiketan? (Section 120B IPC) (ii) hether the accused committed robberyandvoluntarily W caused hurt in the process? (Sections 392, 394 IPC) (iii) W hether the accused used a deadly weapon while committing the robbery? (Section 397 IPC) (iv) W hether the accusedretainedstolenpropertyknowingit to be stolen? (Section 411 IPC) (v) hethertheaccusedcheatedbyimpersonationusingthe W stolen bank cards? (Sections 419, 420 IPC) rosecution's Evidence P 17. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined thirty-eight witnesses in total.4 For the sake of clarity and convenience, the prosecution witnesses as per the nature of their evidence have been summed up in a tabular format, Appendix, Form-Cenclosed with this judgment. 18. Theevidencecanbebroadlyclassifiedintodirecteyewitnesses, circumstantial witnesses, medical evidence, and investigative evidence. 19. Direct Evidence (Robbery and Cruelty): PW-1, Lily Thomas (maid), testified thaton17.04.2012,accusedAshokKumararrivedat thedoorseekingajob,andlaterpushedhiswayinside.Hebrandished a large knife, tied her hands, andgaggedherwithtape.PW-1further deposedthatwhenheremployerarrived,Ashokpulledherinside,tied her up, and looted jewellery, money, and cards into a black bag. 4 Note: Some witness numbers are repeated or non-sequentialin the original Court records. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.7/4 9 20. PW-12,Ms.OrenponiLotha,corroboratedPW-1'stestimonyin its entirety. She testified that she was forced into the bedroom at knifepoint. When she attempted to grab the knife to escape, the accusedroughlypulledherback,causinginjuriestoherleftpalm.The accused then tied her up, kicked herviolently,andstoleherrubyset, emerald set, cash, passports, and credit cards. She also testified that accusedAshokKumarwasknowntoherashehadpreviouslyvisited her house for a week accompanying his wife, Rosy, who was their former maid. 21. Evidence of Impersonation and Cheating: The prosecution traced the immediate fraudulent use of the stolen cards through the testimonies of independent shopkeepers. PW-2, Manoj Gupta, owner of Defence Store, testified that Ashok Kumar, identifying himself as "Viraj", used a foreigner's debit card to purchase an OTG and other items, signing the receipt in his presence. PW-6 (Shivani) and PW-7 (Braham Prakash), pharmacists at Religare Wellness, identified the accused as having purchased medicines and supplements worth ₹4,715 using the stolen card. PW-11, Anil Aggarwal, owner ofKids Fashion, testified that Ashok Kumar, calling himself "Viraj", purchased garments using the stolen card. 22. Medical&ForensicEvidence:Dr.RakeshSingh(PW-35)from Max Hospital proved the MLC of Ms. Orenponi Lotha, observing bruisesonherfaceandneckandasuperficialcutonherlefthand.He opined that the sharpinjurycouldhavebeencausedbytherecovered weaponofoffence(knife),andthebluntinjurieswereconsistentwith SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.8/4 9 a physical assault. Dr. Avdhesh Kumar (PW-33), FSL Expert, confirmed that the handwriting on the forged credit card transaction slips matched the specimen handwriting of accused Ashok Kumar. 23. Investigative Evidence & Recoveries: Retd. ACP Balram (PW-38) and ASI Shyam Prakash (PW-34) deposed regarding the arrestoftheaccusedfromChillaVillage.PW-4,PrithiSingh(apublic witness and father of the accused's landlord), testifiedthatthepolice recovered the stolen French passports, jewellery, foreign cards, the OTG, newly purchased clothes, and the knife from the accused's rented room in his presence. tatement of Accused under Section 313 CrPC S 24. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused Ashok KumaraliasVirajdeniedallincriminatingevidence.Heclaimedfalse implication, stating that the police planted the evidence and framed him because they were under pressure to solve a crime involving French nationals. He refused to participate in the test identification parade (TIP), claiming his photographs were shown to the witnesses by the police beforehand. efence Evidence D 25. The accused chose not to lead any defence evidence, and the same was closed on 01.11.2025. ubmission by the Counsels S 26. ThelearnedAddl.PublicProsecutor(APP)fortheStateargued thattheprosecutionhasestablishedanunbrokenchainofevents,from the direct eyewitness accounts ofthebrutalrobberytotheimmediate SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.9/4 9 fraudulent use of the stolen cards, culminating in therecoveryofthe stolen goods from the accused. He argued that brandishing a deadly weapon attracts Section 397 IPC and prayed for maximum conviction. 27. Per contra, Mr. Sehgal learned defence counsel vehemently argued thattheaccusedwasfalselyimplicated.Hecontendedthatthe TIP was refused because the accused was shown to the witnesses in the police station. The defence further argued that the weapon recovered was an ordinarykitchenknife,whichshouldnotattractthe stringent provisions of Section 397 IPC. 28. TheargumentsadvancedbyMr.Sehgal,learnedcounselforthe accused, Ashok Kumar alias Viraj, also centered around fatal infirmities in the identification of the accused. The learned counsel submitted that the test identificationparade(TIP)wasconductedfive days afterthearrest,suggestingwitnessesmayhaveseentheaccused in police custody beforehand. 29. The learned counsel further submittedthatPW-1,LilyThomas saw the male offender for only seconds while he was wearing a hat. PW-12 Orenponi Lotha was blindfolded and had tape over her eyes during the incident. Mr. Sehgal further submitted that whereas, the FIR provided only a generic description of the suspect, and no distinctive marks were noted. 30. Mr.Sehgal,learnedcounselfortheaccused,AshokKumaralias Viraj, attacked the prosecution'scaseonanotherfront,arguingthatit is marred by serious scientific and investigativefailures.Thelearned SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.10/4 9 counsel strenuously contended that there were serious investigative failures because of which conviction of the accused for the alleged offences isuntenable.ThelearnedcounselurgedthattheFingerPrint Bureau report conclusively showed that fingerprints lifted from the scene did not match those of the accused. 31. Mr.Sehgallearnedcounselsubmittedthatthearreststoryistoo well-crafted to be real, noting a lack of independent witnesses, surveillance evidence, or DD entries regarding informer information. The learned counsel submitted that all the alleged recoveries were made only in the presence of police witnesses, and the precise dimensions of the recovered knife suspiciously matched the FIR description. 32. Mr. Sehgal learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecutionhasmiserablyfailedtoestablishandproveitscaseagainst theaccused,AshokKumaraliasViraj.Thelearnedcounselsubmitted that no medico-legal case (MLC) report was obtained for the complainant, PW-1, the maid. The learned counsel with great emphasis stated that without medical proof of "hurt," this charge cannot be sustained. 33. Regardingtheallegedchargeofuseofadeadlyweaponduring the commission of robbery punishable under Section 397 IPC, Mr. Sandeep Sehgal, the learned counsel, urged that the prosecution has failedtoresolvetheinconsistenciesregardingtheallegedknifeusedin the robbery. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.11/4 9 34. Mr. Sehgal learned counsel for defence contended that a vegetable knife may not qualify as a "deadly weapon". Furthermore, medicalevidenceshowedonlyasuperficialcutonPW-12,whichdoes not corroborate a violent attack. 35. The learned counsel further submitted that the conspiracy chargecollapsedfollowingthedeathofco-accusedRosy.Legally,one personcannotconspirealone,andthereisnoevidenceofameetingof minds with any other party. 36. Mr.Sehgal,learnedcounselfortheaccused,AshokKumaralias Viraj, criticized the medicalevidence(PW-35)andsubmittedthatthe wholecaseoftheprosecutionfallslikeapackofcards,asthemedical evidence does not corroborate the alleged offences. The learned counsel submitted that as per Dr. Rakesh Singh's opinion the injury can be caused by the knife, which the defence arguesisapossibility rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. 37. The learned counsel also emphasized the two-month chain-of-custody gapbetweentheseizureoftheknifeanditsmedical examination. The learned counsel also urged that there has been no independent verification that the seal remained intact. The learned counselfurthersubmittedthatthedoctor'sattributionofbluntinjuries to the alleged accused persons is a factual conclusion that exceeds medical expertise and is solely for the Court to decide, and thus the same must be ruled out by the Court. To buttress hisarguments,Mr. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.12/4 9 Sehgal, learned counsel for the accused, placed reliance upon the judgment ofWahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi.5 egal Provision & Legal Principles L 38. The relevant legal provisionsfortheproperadjudicationofthe case are Sections 120B, 392, 394, 397, 411, 419, 420, 34, IPC. 39. Section120-AofIPCdefinescriminalconspiracy.Itsays,when two or more personsagreetodoorcausetobedone(i)anillegalact or (ii) anactwhichisnotillegalbyillegalmeans,suchanagreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. Section 120-B prescribes the punishment to be imposed on a party to a criminal conspiracy. As pointed out by Subba Rao, J. in Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay:6 " ... ... the gist of theoffenceisanagreementtobreakthe Jaw. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not aningredientof the offence that all the parties should agree todoasingle illegalact.Itmaycomprisethecommissionofanumberof acts". 40. Under Section 43 of the IPC, anactwouldbeillegalifitisan offence or if it is prohibited by law. Section 120-A and 120-B were broughtonthestatutebookbywayofanamendmenttoIPCin1913. The Statement of Objects and Reasons to the amending Act reveals that the underlying purpose was to make a mere agreement to do an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means punishable under law. This definition is almost similar to the definition of 5 2 025 INSC 145 6 AIR 1961 SC 1762 SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.13/4 9 conspiracy, which we find in Halsbury's Laws of England. The definition given therein is: " Conspiracy consists in the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful· act, or to do a lawful act by unlawfulmeans.Itisanindictableoffenceatcommonlaw. The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the fact of combinationbyagreement;Theagreementmaybeexpress orimpliedorinpartexpressandinpartimplied.....andthe offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion ofitsperformance or by abandonment or frustration or however it may be". 41. Section 120A, IPC definescriminalconspiracyaswhentwoor more persons agree to do,orcausetobedoneanillegalactoranact which is not illegal by means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. The punishment for criminal conspiracy is provided under Section 120B, IPC. 42. The key ingredients of IPC Section 120B are that the accused was a partytoacriminalconspiracy(asdefinedunderSection120A) and the conspiracy falls into one of the two punishment categories under Section 120B(1) or Section 120B(2). 43. To attract Section 120B, there must be an agreement between twoormorepersonstodo(orcausetobedone)anillegalact,ordoa legal act by illegal means. If the agreement is not an agreement "to commit an offence", then it becomes a criminal conspiracy only if some act (besides the agreement) is done by one or more parties in pursuance of it. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.14/4 9 44. Theaccusedmustbeapartytotheconspiracy.Thepersonmust beshowntobeapartytothecriminalconspiracy.Itisthecategoryof conspiracy, which decides the punishment under Section 120B: 44.1. Conspiracy to commit more serious offences [Section 120B(1)] - Conspiracy to commit anoffencepunishable with death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonmentfor2yearsormore.WherenoexpressIPC provision separately punishes that conspiracy, punishment is as if the person had abetted the offence. 44.2. Other conspiracies [Section 120B(2)] - Any other criminal conspiracy i.e., not covered by 120B(1), the punishment shall be imprisonment up to 6 months, or fine, or both. 45. The Apex Court in the landmark judgment of State NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afshan Guru7 held that criminal conspiracy is primarily proved by circumstantial evidence, requires proof of an agreement to commit an illegal act (not necessarily an overtact),andtheCourtsmustassessthecumulativeeffectofproven circumstances whileensuringtheyareclear,consciousindicatorsofa commondesign.Italsoruledthatnon-participantconspiratorsarenot automatically liable for substantive offences committed by other conspirators unless the penal statute specifically provides for such constructive liability. 7 2005 INSC 333 SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.15/4 9 46. Section390,IPCdefinesrobberyasanaggravatedformoftheft or extortion involving immediate violence or the threatofimmediate violence. 47. Under Section 390 IPC, "in all robbery there is either theft or extortion."Theft becomes robbery if, in order to commit the theft, or whilecommittingit,orwhilecarryingaway/attemptingtocarryaway the stolen property, the offender does any of the following for that end: 47.1. voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint, or 47.2. causes fear of instant death, instant hurt, or instant wrongful restraint. 48. Extortion that becomes robbery if: 48.1. theoffender,atthetimeofcommittingextortion,isinthe presence of the person put in fear, and 48.2. commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instantdeath,instanthurt,orinstantwrongfulrestraint(to that person or some other person), and 48.3. by so putting in fear, induces the person to deliver the thing extorted then and there. 49. TheexplanationtoSection390statesthatanoffenderissaidto be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person infearof instant death/hurt/wrongful restraint. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.16/4 9 50. ToestablishanoffenceunderSection392,theprosecutionmust prove that the accused committed robbery as defined inSection390, IPC. The commission of robbery is punished with rigorous imprisonmentforatermwhichmayextendtotenyears,andshallalso 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. 51. Section 394, IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt while committingorattemptingtocommitrobbery,anditmakesallpersons jointly concerned in that robbery/attempt liable for enhanced punishment. 52. Section 394, IPC applies when, in thecourseofcommittingor attempting to commit robbery, the offender voluntarily causes hurt. Thesectionalsoextendsthesameliabilitytoanyotherpersonjointly concernedincommittingorattemptingthatrobbery,evenifthatother person did not personally cause the hurt. The punishment under Section394,IPCisimprisonmentforlifeorrigorousimprisonmentup to 10 years, and fine. The key ingredientsofSection394,IPCareas follows: 52.1. Robbery or attempt to commit robbery must be involved. 52.2. During such commission/attempt, the accused(oroneof them) must voluntarily cause hurt. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.17/4 9 52.3. Theaccusedmustbethepersoncausinghurtorbejointly concerned in committing/attempting the robbery (constructive liability). 53. Now marching ahead to Section 397, IPC provides enhanced punishment where, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity,the offenderusesadeadlyweapon,orcausesgrievoushurt,orattemptsto causedeathorgrievoushurt;insuchcases,theimprisonmentshallnot be less than seven years. Section 397 is an aggravated form of robbery/dacoity, focusing on the manner of commission(weaponuse or serious violence/attempt) and mandates a minimum sentence. The core consequences i.e., the punishment under Section 397, IPC is an imprisonment notlessthansevenyears.Theessentialkeyingredients of Section 397, IPC are as follows: 53.1. Robbery or dacoity is committed. 53.2. The aggravatingactoccursatthetimeofcommittingthe robbery/dacoity. 53.3. The offender, atthattime,doesanyoneofthefollowing i.e., uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to anyperson,orattemptstocausedeathorgrievoushurtto any person. 54. Sections392and394oftheIPCpenalizetheactofrobberyand causinghurtwhilecommittingrobbery.Section397IPCstatesthatif, at the time of committing robbery, the offender uses any deadly weapon, the imprisonment shall not be less than seven years. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.18/4 9 55. The term "uses" under Section 397 IPC has been extensively interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration.8 It was held that - " Whentheoffenceofrobberyiscommittedbyanoffender being armed with a deadly weapon which was within the visionofthevictimsoastobecapableofcreatingaterror inhismind,theoffendermustbedeemedtohaveusedthat deadly weapon in the commission of the robbery." 56. Thus, the settled position in law is that actual cutting or stabbing is not the sole criterion, brandishing it to induce fear is sufficient. 57. Section411,IPCpunishesapersonwhodishonestlyreceivesor retains stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe that the property is stolen property. Section 411, IPC provides for imprisonment of either description up to three years or fine or both. The key ingredients for the prosecution to prove commission of an offence punishable under Section 411, IPC are as follows: 57.1. The property in question is a stolen property. 57.2. The accused received or retained that property. 57.3. Such receiving, retention was dishonest. 57.4. Atthetimeofreceivingorretaining,theaccusedknewor had reason to believe the property was stolen. 8 1975 INSC 68 SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.19/4 9 58. Section419,IPCpunishescheatingbypersonationi.e.,wherea person cheats by pretending to be someone else (or by substituting/representinganotherpersonassomeonetheyarenot).The offence is complete even if the personation relates to a real or an imaginary person. 59. Section 419, IPC provides punishment for the offence of cheating by personation, as defined in Section 416, IPC. It targets deception where the accused gains an advantage or causes wrongful lossbyfalselyassuminganother'sidentity.Section419,IPCprovides punishmentasimprisonmentofeitherdescriptionuptothreeyears,or fine,orboth.ThekeyessentialingredientsofSection419,IPCareas follows: 59.1. There must be deception resulting in inducement, likely harm as required for cheating. 59.2. The accused must cheat by pretending to be some other person,orknowinglysubstitutingonepersonforanother, or representing that he or another person is someone else. 59.3. The personation may be of a real or imaginary person. 60. Now coming to the last charged offence, Section 420, IPC. Section420IPCdealswithcheatinganddishonestlyinducingdelivery ofpropertyi.e.,wheredeceptionisusedtocauseapersontopartwith propertyortodealwithavaluablesecurity,resultinginwrongfulgain or loss. The punishment under Section 420, IPC is imprisonment of SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.20/4 9 either description up to 7 years, and fine. The key ingredients of Section 420, IPC are as follows: 60.1. Cheating of a person as understood under Section 415 IPC i.e., deception leading to fraudulent, dishonest inducement or intentional inducement causing, likely causing harm. 60.2. The accused dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or make, alter, or destroythewholeoranypartofavaluablesecurity,ordo the same in respect of anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into a valuable security. 60.3. The presence of dishonest intention at the time of inducement to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. 61. Section 34, IPC reads as under: "34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of c ommon intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance ofthecommonintentionof all, each of such persons is liable for that act inthesame manner as if it were done by him alone." 62. The ingredients of Section 34 are thattheaccusedpersonshad acted in furtherance of their common intention is required to be proved specifically or by inference- SeeHamletaliasSasi&Ors.v. State of Kerala.9 9 (2003) 10 SCC 108 SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.21/4 9 63. Section34IPCcarvesoutanexceptionfromgenerallawthata person is responsible for hisownact,asitprovidesthatapersoncan also be held vicariously responsiblefortheactofothersifhehasthe "common intention" to commit the offence. The phrase "common intention" implies a pre-arranged plan and acting inconcertpursuant to the plan. Thus, the common intention must be there prior to the commission oftheoffenceinpointoftime.Thecommonintentionto bring about a particular result may also well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of thecase and circumstances existing thereto. The common intention under Section34IPCistobeunderstoodinadifferentsensefromthe"same intention" or "similar intention" or "common object". The persons having similar intention which is not the result of the pre-arranged plan cannot be held guilty of the criminal actwiththeaidofSection 34 IPC -See Mohan Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab.1 0 nalysis & Findings A 64. The case at hand revolves around a robberythattookplaceon 17.04.2012, at the residence ofMs.OrenponiLotha(PW-12)andher French husband, Gilles Cannaud Ribes (PW-13), at D-117, Anand Niketan, New Delhi. 65. The key details of the case are that Ashok Kumar allegedly entered the house on the pretext of seeking a job or conducting AC repairs. Once inside, he threatened the maid, Lily Thomas(PW-1), 10 AIR 1963 SC 174 SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.22/4 9 with a knife, tied her hands behind her back, and gagged her mouth with tape. 66. When the homeowner, Ms.Lotha(PW-12),returned,heforced her into the bedroom, tied her up as well, and robbed the house of jewellery, cash, foreign passports, and several debit/credit cards. Duringtheincident,Ms.Lotha(PW-12)sustainedasuperficialcutand bruises when she tried to grab the knife and escape. 67. Following the robbery, Ashok Kumar and co-accused Rosy, who had previously worked as a maid inthevictims'houseusedthe stolencardsatmultiplelocations.Theyvisitedadepartmentalstorein Defence Colony, a Religare Wellness pharmacy, and a garment shop named 'Kids Fashion' to illegally purchase clothes, medicines, and household appliances like an oven toaster griller (OTG). 68. The police eventually traced the accused to a rented room in ChillaVillage,MayurVihar,andarrestedthem.Attheinstanceofthe accused, the police recovered the stolen passports, jewellery, foreign cards, the items purchased with the stolen cards, the cash, and the knife used as the weapon of offence. 69. The co-accused Rosy passed away during the pendency of the trial in December 2018. In his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, the main accused, Ashok Kumar denied all the charges, claiming that the police had planted the evidence and falsely framed him because they were under pressure to solve a crime involving French nationals. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.23/4 9 70. On having carefully gleaned through the testimony of prosecution witnesses, documents exhibited in evidence and considering the weighty argumentsadvancedbythelearnedAPPand the learned defence counsel, the Court is of the considered opinion thattheprosecutionhasbuiltastrongandcomprehensivecaseagainst the accused, Ashok Kumar, successfully proving the majority of the charges through a chain of corroborated eyewitness testimonies, forensic/medical evidence, and substantial recoveries. 71. Ananalysisofhowtheprosecutionprovedthespecificcharges against the accused of robbery and causing hurt11, use of deadly weapon12, impersonation and cheating13 and retention of stolen property14 will follow in the ensuing paragraphs ofthis judgment. 72. Robbery and Causing Hurt (Sections 392, 394 read with120B IPC): The prosecution successfully proved the core robbery and conspiracy charges through the direct eyewitness testimonies of the victims, Lily Thomas (PW-1) and Ms. Orenponi Lotha (PW-12). 73. Both witnesses gave consistent accounts of Ashok Kumar entering thehouse,tyingtheirhands,gaggingtheirmouthswithtape, androbbingthehouseofjewellery,foreignpassports,andbankcards. The charge of causing hurt (Section 394) is corroborated by the medicalevidence.Dr.RakeshSingh(PW-35)examinedMs.Lothaon the day of the incident and confirmed she sustained bruises and a 11 ection 392, 394 read with Section 120B, IPC S 12 Section 397, IPC 13 Section 419, 420, IPC 14 Section 411, IPC SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.24/4 9 superficial cut on her left hand from the scuffle, injuries consistent with a sharp weapon and physical assault. 74. Use of a Deadly Weapon (Section 397 IPC): The defence argued that the weapon recovered was an ordinary kitchen knife, implying it should not attract the severe penalties of Section 397. However, PW-1 testified that theaccusedbrandisheda"bigknife"to terrorizeherintosilence,andPW-12confirmedhethreatenedherwith it and used it to force her into the bedroom. 75. Under established legal precedent of Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration,15 mere exhibition or brandishing of a deadlyweapon to create terror in the mind of the victim is sufficient to constitute "use" under Section 397 IPC. Actual stabbing or cutting is not required. The argument urged by the learned defence counsel about thekniferecovered, kitchenknifev.bigknife losesitssheen,because knife is a knife. Further, the defence has failed to lead any defence contrary to the fact that the accusedAshokKumaraliasVirajhadno knife in his possession or had some disability to use and possess a knife. Therefore, this Court holds that prosecution has firmly established this charge against the accused. 76. Impersonation and Cheating (Sections 419 and 420 IPC): The prosecution provided airtight evidence that Ashok Kumar and Rosy used the stolen debit and credit cards belonging to the victim's husband,GillesCannaudRibes,anAir-Busexecutive,shortlyafterthe robbery. The Court cannot wish away that multiple independent 15 1975 INSC 68 SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.25/4 9 shopkeepers testified against the accused. Manoj Gupta (PW-2) identifiedAshokandRosypurchasingMorphyRichards,oventoaster griller (OTG) and other items at his Defence Colonystore.Henoted that Ashok used a foreigner's debit card and forged the signature as Viraj.Further,therecoveryofthewarrantycardoftheOTGfromthe accused's place corroborates the same and is a key nail in strengthening the guilt of the accused. 77. Braham Prakash (PW-7) and Anil Aggarwal (PW-11), both identified Ashok Kumar using the stolen cards to buymedicinesand clothing, with transaction slips showing declined and successful swipes. This trail of electronic transactions and matching forged signatures heavily corroborates the cheating and impersonation charges against the accused by the prosecution. 78. Retention of Stolen Property (Section 411 IPC): The recovery of the stolen goods heavily incriminates the accused, Ashok Kumar aliasViraj.Police,alongsideapublicwitness,PrithiSingh(PW-4),the father of the accused's landlord, recovered the exact stolen items, including the French passports, stolen jewellery, foreign bank cards, the weapon of offence, and the newly purchased OTG and clothing from the rented room in Chilla Village where Ashok and Rosy lived together. 79. The primary defence raised by the accused in his Section 313 CrPCstatementwasthathewasfalselyframedunderpressuretosolve a crime involving French nationals, that evidence was planted, and SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.26/4 9 that the test identification parade (TIP) was meaningless because he was shown to the witnesses beforehand at the police station. 80. While it is true that PW-1 and PW-12 admitted to seeing the accused at the police station prior to the formal TIP,whichnormally weakens thevalueofcourtidentification,thereisacrucialmitigating factor in this specific case. Ms. Lotha (PW-12) testified that Ashok Kumar was not a complete stranger, as he had previouslyvisitedher house for around a week to accompany his wife, Rosy, who was the former maid. Because the accusedwasalreadyknowntothevictims, therefusaloftheTIPandthepre-trialsightingatthepolicestationdo not fatally damage the prosecution's case. 81. On evaluating the defence claims and valiant attempt to poke holes in the prosecution's case, the Court finds that despite minor investigative lapses, such as the failure to join more independent public witnesses during the recovery at Chilla Village, the prosecution's case is highly compelling. 82. The unbroken chain of events, from the direct eyewitness accounts of the robbery to theimmediatefraudulentuseofthestolen cards at multiple locations, culminating in the recovery of the stolen passports and purchased goods from the accused, Ashok Kumar's residence, proves the charges against him beyond a reasonable doubt. 83. Withallduedeferenceandhumilityatmycommand,theCourt is in full concurrence with the legal principles as culled out by the SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.27/4 9 Apex Court in the case of Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi.1 6 However,thesamedoesnotcometotherescueoftheaccused,Ashok Kumar alias Viraj. 84. In Wahid'scase,theHon'bleSupremeCourtheldthat,although a robbery occurred, the prosecution failed to reliably prove that the appellants were the robbers, so they were entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. The Apex Court observed that the evidence established thatfourpersonsrobbedpassengersofaGraminSewaon the night of 03.12.2011 using weapons to threaten them. However, mereproofofrobberywasheldinsufficientbecauseitwasnotproved that the appellants were the perpetrators. 85. The Apex Court held that where FIR is against unknown persons and witnesses did not know the accused, the Courts must closely scrutinize how police got clues, how arrests happened, how identification wasmade,andwhetherrecoveriescorroboratethecase. The Apex Court alsoobservedthatthearreststoryoftheprosecution was improbable. The version that PW-1 spotted all four unrelated accused together near a bus depot close to a police station two days later, at a latewinterhour,andwithsimilarweapons,wasfound"too well-crafted" and improbable. 86. TheApexCourtalsoheldthattheabsenceofrecoveryoflooted articles from and/or at the instance of the appellants weakened the prosecution,especiallyastheTrialCourthadacquittedontheSection 411 IPC charge. The Apex Court also ruled that there were material 16 2025 INSC 145 SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.28/4 9 inconsistencies on arrest, discrepancies between police witnesses about where, when the prosecution witness (PW-1) gave information about the accused and lack of diary entry for such information undermined credibility of the alleged arrest procedure. 87. TheApexCourtruledinfavouroftheaccusedbyextendingthe benefit of doubt, given the doubtful arrest, unreliable identification, and lack of corroborative recovery of looted property, the appellants shouldhavebeengivenbenefitofdoubt.Accordingly,theApexCourt setasidetheHighCourtjudgmentandtheappealswereallowed.The ratio of Wahid's case as thrustbythelearneddefencecounselcannot be applied as Euclid's theorem to the case athandasthefactsofthe case are clearly distinguishable. 88. Having carefully perused the evidence, this Court finds the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-12 to be wholly reliable, natural, and corroborative. Both witnesses consistently deposed about the intrusion, the tying of their hands, the gagging with tape, and the looting of valuables. PW-12 specifically deposed that the accused pulled her roughly and kicked herwhenshetriedtosnatchtheknife, anaccountfullycorroboratedbythemedicalevidence(MLC)proved by PW-35, Dr. Rakesh Singh. 89. AddressingthedefenceargumentregardingtheTIPrefusal,the Courtfindsandholdsthesametobesansmerit.PW-12unequivocally stated that shealreadyknewtheaccused,ashehadpreviouslystayed at her house for a week to assist his wife, Rosy, the former maid. When the accused is previously known to the victim, formal TIP SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.29/4 9 proceedings lose their primary significance, and identification in the Court is sufficient. 90. Regarding the applicability of Section 397 IPC, the defence argued that the recovered weapon was an ordinary kitchen knife. However,PW-1categoricallystatedthattheaccusedbrandisheda"big knife,"whichwaslargerthananormalvegetableknife.Followingthe dictum in Phool Kumar's case,1 7 the exhibition of this large knife to terrorizethevictimsandforcethemintosubmissionperfectlysatisfies the legal definition of "using a deadly weapon". 91. ThechargesofcheatingandimpersonationunderSections419, 420 IPC are conclusively proven. Theaccused,immediatelyafterthe robbery,wentonashoppingspreeusingthestolencards.Independent witnesses PW-2, PW-7, and PW-11 identified Ashok Kumar as the person who purchased goods and signed the transaction slips as "Viraj". This is further cemented by the FSL report (PW-33) confirming the forged signatures matched the accused's handwriting. 92. The recovery of the stolen passports, jewellery, and newly purchasedgoodsfromtheaccused'srentedroom,provedbythepublic witnessPW-4,squarelyestablishestheoffenceunderSection411IPC. Theaccusedfailedtofurnishanyplausibleexplanationforpossessing the stolen items and the forged cards. 93. The entire chain of circumstances i.e., from the forceful entry, the violent robbery with a deadly weapon, the fraudulent use of the 17 1975 INSC 68 SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.30/4 9 victim's cards, to the recovery of the stolen and purchased items stands proved by theprosecutionbeyondanyshadowofareasonable doubt. ecision D 94. In view of the above observations and findings, the final decision of the Court is as below: 94.1. The proceedings against co-accused Rosy stand abated due to her death.18 94.2. Theaccused,AshokKumar@Viraj,isconvictedforthe offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B IPC. 94.3. Theaccused,AshokKumar@Viraj,isconvictedforthe offences of robbery and causing hurt in committing robbery,punishableunderSections392and394readwith Section 120B IPC. 94.4. The accused, Ashok Kumar @ Viraj, is convicted for using a deadly weaponduringrobbery,punishableunder Section 397 IPC. 94.5. The accused, Ashok Kumar @ Viraj, is convicted for cheating by impersonation, punishable under Sections 419 and 420 read with Section 120B IPC. 18 Proceedings against accused, Rosy abatedvideorderdated 08.08.2019 SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.31/4 9 94.6. The accused, Ashok Kumar @ Viraj, is convicted for retaining stolen property, punishable under Section 411 IPC. 95. Let a copy of the judgment be provided to accused Ashok Kumar alias Viraj free of cost. 96. Now, to come up on 04.05.2026 at 2:00P.M. for hearing the accused,AshokKumaraliasVirajonthequantumofsentence.Letthe nominal roll of accused be called from the Office of concerned Jail Superintendent for 04.05.2026, without fail. Digitally signed by Hargurvarinder Hargurvarinder Singh jaggi Singh jaggi Date:
2026.04.30 16:32:53 +0530 ronounced in the open Court P ( Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi) on April 30, 2026 Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC-01) South District Saket Courts, New Delhi ote: This judgment comprises of 49 pages in total. Theelectronicsignaturecertificate(digital N signature)ofthePresidingOfficerhasbeenappendedonpageNo.30oftheelectronicordigital copy (PDF) of this document. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.32/4 9 Appendix Form-B S.No. Rank of the Name of the ate of D Date of ffences O Whether entence S Period of Accused Accused Arrest elease R Charged Acquitted Imposed etention d on Bail or undergone Convicted during Trial for purpose of Section 428 CrPC :: 468 BNSS A1 shok A 1 20B, Convicted Kumar 2 1.04 392, i. alias Viraj .2012 394, 397, 411, 419, 420r/w 34 IPC A2 Rosy [D]19 1 20B, Abated20 2 1.04 392, ii. .2012 394, 397, 411, 419, 420r/w 34 IPC 19 roceedings abatedvideorder dated 08.08.2019 P 20 ibid. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.33/4 9 Form-C ist of Prosecution / Defence / Court Witnesses L A.Prosecution ank R Witness Name Nature of Evidence PW-1 Smt. Lilly Thomas aid at the site of the incident. M Witnesstotherobbery;identified accused Ashok Kumar. PW-2 Manoj Gupta hopkeeper at "Defence Store". S Testimony regarding accused purchasing items using a foreigner's debit card. PW-3 Mahesh Prasad river for the employer (Ms. O. D Lotha). Discovered the victims tied up and alerted the police. PW-4 Sh. Prithvi Singh ather of the accused's landlord. F Witness to the recoveryofstolen jewelry, articles, a knife, and a motorcycle from the accused's rented room. PW-5 HC Dharam Singh uty Officer at PS South D Campus. Lodged the FIR (No. 45/12). PW-6 Ms. Shivani harmacist at Religare Wellness. P Testimony regarding a lady (accompanied by a boy) purchasing medicines with a credit card. PW-7 Sh. Braham Prakash harmacist at Religare Wellness. P Identified both accused (Ashok and Rosy) as the persons who purchased items with a stolen credit card. PW-8 Sh. Sidharth Malhotra dvance A Wealth Manager, HSBC. Provided bank records and debit card statements for the victim's account. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.34/4 9 ank R itness Name W ature of Evidence N PW-9 Sh. Rajender Kumar RelativeofaccusedAshok'swife. Chauhan Testified regarding a motorcycle gifted to his niece Aarti. PW-921 Neha Jain eputy Branch Manager, HSBC. D Provided account statements and verification of debit card transactions. PW-10 Arti Devi ife of accused Ashok Kumar. W Identified the motorcycle usedin the offense as a gift from her uncle. PW-11 Anil Aggarwal roprietor of "Kids Fashion". P Testimony regarding accused purchasinggarmentsusingadebit card. PW-12 Mrs. Orenponi Lotha ictim and employer. Detailed V testimony of therobbery,injuries sustained, and identification of stolen property. PW-13 Sh. Gilles Cannaud Ribes ictim's husband. Handed over V the list of stolen articles and identified stolen property in TIP. PW-14 Sh. Som Dutt Sharma onductor, State Transport C Authority. Produced registration records for the motorcycle (DL-9S-P-7716). PW-15 W/Ct. Renu Bala onstableatCPCR.Receivedthe C initial PCR call regarding a "quarrel" at the incident location. PW-16 Suresh Khadiem ales Manager at "G-8teen". S Testimony regarding accused purchasing garments using a credit card. 21 Note: Some witness numbers are repeated or non-sequentialin the original Court records. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.35/4 9 ank R itness Name W ature of Evidence N PW-17 Ct. Vikas Constable at PS South Campus. Deposited and collected exhibits (knife, passport report) from hospitals and the passport office. PW-18 HC Surender Prakash HCM at PS South Campus. M Maintained the register of deposited and collected case properties. PW-19 SI Pratima J oined investigation with IO. Witness tothearrestofRosyand recovery of stolen articles and weapon from the accused's residence. PW-20 Sh. Pawan Singh odal Officer, Idea Cellular. N Provided CDR and subscriber records for mobile number 9911160214. PW-21 Sh. Mohan Kumar alesman at "Kid Fashion". S Identified accused Ashok as the person who purchased garments with a debit card. PW-22 HC Kapil Photographer, Crime Team.Took hotographs of the crime scene. p PW-23 W/Ct. Poonam perator, CPCR. Recorded the O PCR message regarding the incident. PW-24 ASI Raj Singh inger Print Proficient, Mobile F Crime Team. Lifted three finger prints from a wooden almirah at the scene. PW-25 SI Pradeep Kumar irst IO at the scene. Recorded F the initial statementofPW-1and prepared the rukka. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.36/4 9 ank R itness Name W ature of Evidence N PW-26 Sh. Rai Singh Record Assistant, Transport Department. Provided original registration record for the motorcycle. PW-27 Ct. Satbir Obtained sealed exhibits for elivery to FSL Rohini. d PW-28 ASI Ramesh Kumar ccompanied SI Pradeep to the A scene. Took the rukka to the PS for FIR registration. PW-29 Dinesh Singh lternate A Nodal Officer, Vodafone. Provided CAF and CDR records for the victim's mobile phone. PW-30 Insp. NK Sharma inger Print Expert. Examined F the scene and developed chance printsfromawardrobeandwater bottles. PW-31 Insp. Inderjeet ubsequent Investigating Officer. S Conductedinterrogation,arrestof Ashok, and coordinated recoveries at Chilla Village. PW-32 Sh. Yogesh Tripathi lternateNodalOfficer,Reliance A Communications. Provided CAF records for mobile number 8010281159. PW-33 Dr. Avdhesh Kumar r. Scientific Officer, FSL S Rohini. Conducted forensic examination of questioned documents/signatures. PW-34 Sh. Hukam Singh I nspector ADG (System). Produced PAN card allotment records for the victim. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.37/4 9 ank R itness Name W Nature of Evidence PW-3422 ASI Shyam Prakash Joined investigation with Insp. Balram. Witness to the arrest of both accused and subsequent recoveries. PW-35 Dr. Rakesh Singh onsultant C Surgeon, Max Hospital. Examined the victim's injuries and provided an opinion on the weapon of offense (knife). PW-36 Amit Singh I nspector, Income Tax Department. Provided certified true copy of the victim's PAN application. PW-37 Sh. Ajay Kumar odal Officer, Bharti Airtel. N Provided CAF and CDR records for several mobile numbers involved in the case. PW-38 Retd. ACP Balram I nspector Investigation/IO. Supervised the investigation, arrests, and recovery of stolen property and evidence. PW-39 Ms. Monita Samom wner of shop "G-8teen". O Testified that police brought a person (Ashok) to her shop regardingapurchasemadewitha credit card. B. Defence Witnesses, if any Nil C.Court Witnesses, if any Nil 22 Note: Some witness numbers are repeated or non-sequentialin the original Court records. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.38/4 9 List of Prosecution / Defence / Court Exhibits A.Prosecution Exhibits S.No. Exhibit No. Description of Document 1 Ex. PW-1/A tatement of the complainant/maid, Smt. S Lilly Thomas. 2 Ex. PW-2/A Seizure memo of the transaction slip and ill from "Defence Store". b 3 Ex. PW-2/B opy of the credit card transaction slip C from "Defence Store". 4 Ex. PW-2/C Bill from "Defence Store" for purchased a rticles. 5 Ex. PW-4/A eizure memo of recovered jewelry, S articles, and cards from the accused's residence. 6 Ex. PW-4/B eizure memo of jean pants and other S clothes recovered from the accused. 7 Ex. PW-4/C Seizure memo of clothes prepared on 1.04.2012. 2 8 Ex. PW-4/D eizure memo for the Morphy Richards S Oven Toaster Griller (OTG). 9 Ex. PW-4/E Sketch of the knife recovered from the a ccused's kitchen. 10 Ex. PW-4/F Seizure memo of the knife. 11 Ex. PW-4/G Seizure memo of the motorcycle, egistration No. DL-9S-P-7716. R 12 Ex. PW-4/H eizure memo of the guarantee card for S the OTG. 13 Ex. PW-4/H1 Original guarantee/warranty card of the orphy Richards OTG. M SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.39/4 9 S.No. Exhibit No. Description of Document 14 Ex. PW-4/J Handing over memo of the seal ('BR'). 15 Ex. PW-4/K Arrest memo of accused Rosy. 16 Ex. PW-4/L Personal search memo of accused Rosy. 17 Ex. PW-4/M Disclosure statement of accused Rosy. 18 Ex. PW-5/A Copy of the FIR (No. 45/12). 19 Ex. PW-5/B Endorsement on the rukka by the Duty fficer. O 20 Ex. PW-6/A eizure memo for the debit card, S transaction bill, and medicine bill from Religare Wellness. 21 Ex. PW-6/B Credit card transaction slip fromReligare ellness. W 22 Ex. PW-6/C uplicate bill (No. SBD-3102033) from D Religare Wellness for Rs. 4715/-. 23 Ex. PW-8/A HSBCBankrecords(accountopeningand s tatements) running into 36 pages. 24 Ex. PW-8/B overingletterforbankrecordsissuedby C Branch Manager Neha Jain. 25 Ex. PW-8/DA Authority letter to produce bank ocuments. d 26 Ex. PW-8/DB SBC Bank reply regarding account H status. 27 Ex. PW-8/DC SBC Bank report and letter on H transaction executing through the debit card. 28 Ex. PW-9/A HSBC account statement of Gilles Pierre ibes (15.03.12 to 11.05.12). R SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.40/4 9 S.No. Exhibit No. Description of Document 29 Ex. PW-11/A Retail cash memo/bill of garments urchased from "Kids Fashion". p 30 Ex. PW-11/B DFC Bank transaction slip from "Kids H Fashion". 31 Ex. PW-11/C Seizure memo for the receipts and bills f rom "Kids Fashion". 32 Ex. PW-12/A ictim's complaint and medicaltreatment V documents from Max Hospital. 33 Ex. PW-12/B Seizure memo of the tape/used luggage tape from the crime scene. 34 Ex. PW-12/C IP proceedings of stolen articlesandthe T statement of Mrs. Orenponi Lotha. 35 Ex. PW-12/D Supardaginama (indemnity bond) for r eleased articles. 36 Ex. PW-12/E eizure memo for 25 photographs of the S case property. 37 Ex. PW-12/F-X Variousphotographsofrecoveredjewelry, a rticles, cards, and documents. 38 Ex. PW-12/A1 Photocopy of the used HDFC debit card. 39 Ex. PW-13/A ist of stolen articles handed over to the L police by Sh. Gilles Ribes. 40 Ex. PW-13/B Seizure memo for the photocopy of the oter I.D. card of accused Rosy. v 41 Ex. PW-13/C Photocopy of the voter I.D. card of a ccused Rosy. 42 Ex. PW-13/D upplemental list and photographs of S stolen articles. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.41/4 9 S.No. Exhibit No. Description of Document 43 Ex. PW-13/E-O Photographs of jewelry, headphones, allets, and passport cover. w 44 Ex. PW-13/P tatement of Sh. Gilles Ribes recorded S during the TIP. 45 Ex. PW-14/A Registration particulars of motorcycle L-9S-P-7716. D 46 Ex. PW-15/A CR Form recording the initial call P regarding a quarrel. 47 Ex. PW-16/A Seizure memo for the receipts and cash emo from shop "G-8teen". m 48 Ex. PW-16/B ashmemodated17.04.12forRs.4,300/- C from "G-8teen". 49 Ex. PW-16/C-1-3 Three credit card bills of Corporation ank. B 50 Ex. PW-16/D hotocopy of the credit card transaction P slip from "G-8teen". 51 Ex. PW-18/A Photocopy of relevant entries (13 pages) f rom Register No. 19 (Malkhana). 52 Ex. PW-19/A Body inspection memo of accused Rosy. 53 Ex. PW-20/A all detail records (CDR) of mobile C number 9911160214. 54 Ex. PW-20/B Customer application form (CAF) for obile number 9911160214. m 55 Ex. PW-20/C Election Commission I-card ( Thomas abrian). G 56 Ex. PW-20/D ertificateu/s65BoftheEvidenceActfor C mobile records. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.42/4 9 S.No. Exhibit No. Description of Document 57 Ex. PW-22/1-7 Photographsofthecrimescene(bedroom) taken by HC Kapil. 58 Ex. PW-22/8 Negatives of the crime scene photographs. 59 Ex. PW-23/A opy ofthePCRformrecordedbyW/Ct. C Poonam. 60 Ex. PW-23/B Certificateu/s65BoftheEvidenceActfor CR form correctness. P 61 Ex. PW-24/A cene of Crime (SOC) report and details S of lifted chance prints. 62 Ex. PW-25/A DD No. 36B regarding the report of a " quarrel". 63 Ex. PW-25/B ukka prepared by SI Pradeep for FIR R registration. 64 Ex. PW-26/A Certified copy of the motorcycle r egistration record. 65 Ex. PW-29/A rintout of the CAF for mobile number P 9899197791. 66 Ex. PW-29/B CopyofthepassportprovidedasIDproof f or mobile subscription. 67 Ex. PW-29/C opy of the rent agreement as address C proof for mobile subscription. 68 Ex. PW-29/D CDR for mobile number 9899197791 ( 01.04.12 to 18.04.12). 69 Ex. PW-29/E Certificateu/s65BoftheEvidenceActfor obile records. m 70 Ex. PW-29/F ell ID Chart for the relevant mobile C number. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.43/4 9 S.No. Exhibit No. Description of Document 71 Ex. PW-30/A Detailed reportoftheFingerPrintExpert, K Sharma. N 72 Ex. PW-31/A isclosure statement of accused Ashok D Kumar. 73 Ex. PW-31/B Arrest memo of accused Ashok Kumar. 74 Ex. PW-31/C Personal search memo of accused Ashok umar. K 75 Ex. PW-31/D eizure memo of the bag (pithu bag) and S articles found with Ashok. 76 Ex. PW-31/X Body inspection report of accused Ashok umar. K 77 Ex. PW-31/X1 I nterrogation/disclosure statement of accused Ashok Kumar. 78 Ex. PW-31/X2 Copy of a bill/garment purchase ocument. d 79 Ex. PW-32/A opy of the Customer Application Form C (CAF) from Reliance. 80 Ex. PW-32/B Supporting identification document ( driving licence) from Reliance. 81 Ex. PW-33/A SL F Report regarding signature/handwriting comparison. 82 Ex. PW-34/A Copy of PAN application form for Mrs. renponi Lotha. O 83 Ex. PW-34/P1 Blue bag and contents recovered from a ccused Ashok (passport, pens, etc.). 84 Ex. PW-35/A LC of victim Orenponi Lotha prepared M at Max Hospital. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.44/4 9 S.No. Exhibit No. Description of Document 85 Ex. PW-35/B Sketch of the knife prepared for medical pinion. o 86 Ex. PW-35/C ubsequent opiniononinjuryandweapon S of offense (knife). 87 Ex. PW-36/A Authority letter from Income Tax epartment to depose. D 88 Ex. PW-36/B ertified true copy of PAN application C form (Orenponi Lotha). 89 Ex. PW-36/C E-mail correspondence from Income Tax fficials. o 90 Ex. PW-37/A CAF for mobile No. 8826283139 (Kiran). 91 Ex. PW-37/B CDR for mobile No. 8826283139. 92 Ex. PW-37/C AF for mobile No. 8826289691 (Mohd. C Yakub Saifi). 93 Ex. PW-37/D CDR for mobile No. 8826289691. 94 Ex. PW-37/E AF for mobile No. 9871079163 (Ashok C Kumar). 95 Ex. PW-37/F CDR (4 pages) for mobile No. 871079163. 9 96 Ex. PW-37/G CAF for mobile No. 9560039712 (Rosy). 97 Ex. PW-37/H DR (4 pages) for C mobile No. 9560039712. 98 Ex. PW-37/I Cell ID/Location chart for mobile umbers. n 99 Ex. PW-37/J ertificateu/s65BoftheEvidenceActfor C mobile records. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.45/4 9 S.No. Exhibit No. Description of Document 100 Ex. PW-38/H-3 Site plan of recovery place ( jewelry, c lothes, weapon). 101 Ex. PW-38/H-4 IP proceedings of accused persons T conducted at Dwarka Court. 102 Ex. PW-38/H-5 Applicationforspecimensignature/writing f accused Ashok. o 103 Ex. PW-38/H-6 pecimen signature/writing of accused S Ashok (5 pages). 104 Ex. PW-38/H-7 Site plan of the place of incident. 105 Ex. PW-38/H-8 Application to DCP PCR for PCR form. 106 Ex. PW-38/H-9 PCR Form (8 pages). 107 Ex. PW-38/H-10 Application from Gilles Ribes regarding issing invoices. m 108 Ex. PW-38/H-11 Intimation regarding correction in stolen a rticles list. 109 Ex. PW-38/H-12 pplication for TIP of recovered stolen A articles. 110 Ex. PW-38/H-14 Photograph of accused persons seized f rom the house. 111 Ex. PW-38/H-15 pplication to Max Hospital A for subsequent medical opinion. 112 Ex. PW-38/H-16 Applicationu/s91CrPCforCDR/CAFof a ccused and victim. 113 Ex. PW-38/H-17 pplicationforCDR/CAFofLilyThomas A (Idea Cellular). 114 Ex. PW-38/H-18 Certificate from Transport Authority r egarding the motorcycle. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.46/4 9 S.No. Exhibit No. Description of Document 115 Ex. PW-38/H-19 Interrogation report of accused Ashok umar. K 116 Ex. PW-38/H-20 Interrogation report of accused Rosy. 117 Ex. PW-38/H-21 eizure memo of the passport of accused S Ashok Kumar. 118 Ex. PW-38/H-22 Road certificate (RC) used for sending e xhibits to FSL. 119 Ex. PW-38/H-23 cknowledgment from FSL for received A exhibits. 120 Ex. PW-38/H-24 Forwarding letter sent with exhibits to SL. F 121 Ex. PW-38/H-25 Photocopy of RBC card. 122 Ex. PW-38/H-26 assportverificationreportandpassportof P Orenpoli Lotha. B. Defence Exhibits Nil C.Court Exhibits Nil SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.47/4 9 D.Material Objects S.No. Material Object No. Description of Object 1 Ex.P-1 neknifewithaflathandleandsteel O blade, identified as the weapon of offence. 2 Ex.P-2 One Morphy Richards Oven Toaster riller (OTG). G 3 Ex.P-3 (Colly) tolen articles recovered on S 23.04.2012, including jewelry and precious stones. 4 Ex.P-4 (Colly) Clothes recovered fromtheaccused's r ented residence on 21.04.2012. 5 Ex.PX1 lastic luggage tape used to gag and P tie the victims. 6 Ex.PX2 hree jeans pants (label: NONIE T OUTFITS) and four round-neck T-shirts purchased using the stolen card. 7 Ex.PX3 ne pair of Spykar jeans, four FLU O jeans,andonedenimjeanspurchased using the stolen card. 8 Ex.PX4 (Colly) itchenware and miscellaneous K items:IronTawa(Nirlep),Crystalgas lighter, Green Heal clippers, Borosil baking dishes,child'strousers,ladies' trousers,medicinepackets,OneTouch Horizon sugar testing machine, and Musli Power capsules. 9 Ex.PW34/P1 (Colly) ontents of the accused's pithu bag: C Passport, cheque books (Oriental Bank of Commerce), wrist watch chain, brass neck chain, 365 tape, video game, pens, and keys. SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.48/4 9 S.No. Material Object No. Description of Object 10 Ex.P1 (Motorcycle) ajaj Platina motorcycle (No. B DL-9S-P-7716) used during the offense (later reported destroyed by fire). ***** ***** ***** SC No. 7362/2016 Page No.49/4 9