Delhi District Court
Vicky vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 20 March, 2025
Vicky Vs. State Judgement dt. 20.3.2025
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CA/50/2022
CNR No.: DLWT01-002071-2022
Vicky
S/o sh. Ram Swaroop
W/o H. No. O-393, J. J. Colony, Sawda,
Delhi. .....Appellant
Versus
State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) .....Respondent
Date of institution : 04.03.2022
Date of arguments : 20.03.2025
Date of judgement : 20.03.2025
JUDGEMENT
1. This is an appeal under Section 374 CrPC directed against a judgement of conviction dated 8.2.2021 and order on sentence dated 2.2.2022 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-06, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case Criminal Case No. 1196/2018 instituted upon FIR No. 213/2017, PS Mundka.
2. Notice of appeal was issued to respondent/State. Trial court record was summoned and arguments were heard.
CA/50/2022, CNR No.: DLWT01-002071-2022 Page 1 of 5Vicky Vs. State Judgement dt. 20.3.2025
3. Ld. Counsel appellant has assailed the impugned judgement on the ground that the eye witness has not identified the appellant/accused as the robber and that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the accused solely on the ground that the accused was handed over to police by public persons. Ld. Counsel for appellant submits that no public persons was joined in investigation, who had arrested the accused. It is further submitted that no recovery of stolen article was effected from the accused.
4. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has strongly supported the judgement of conviction.
5. I have perused the evidence on trial court record. It is true that the complainant PW2 Ram Heth was unable to identify the accused as the robber. However, his testimony is to be seen in totality. PW2 Ram Heth has testified that he was driving his truck from Bahadurgarh to Delhi and when he reached Gheora mor, his truck stopped due to some fault. He got down from the truck. One boy came to him and asked for his mobile phone for making a call. On refusal, that boy started quarreling with him. In the meantime, three more boys came there and started beating him. They snatched cash of Rs.1000/- from his pocket. Some public persons came at the spot and they were able to apprehend one of them but others managed to escape. Police CA/50/2022, CNR No.: DLWT01-002071-2022 Page 2 of 5 Vicky Vs. State Judgement dt. 20.3.2025 reached at the spot and the person, who was apprehended by public, was handed over to the police. Police recorded the statement of PW2 Ram Heth. Same is exhibit Ex.PW2/A. Thus testimony of PW2 Ram Heth makes it clear that one of the persons, who robbed him, was apprehended by the public and the public handed over him to police.
6. PW4 Ct. Dinesh and PW7 HC Ajeet Singh have testified that when they reached at the spot, appellant/accused was handed over to the police by complainant. The chain of facts makes it clear that one of the offenders was the accused facing trial in the present case. Even if complainant (PW2 Ram Heth) was unable to identify the appellant/accused in the court, the evidence is enough to prove that appellant/accused was one of the robbers, who committed the offence. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgement dated 8.2.2021 vide which the appellant/accused was convicted under Section 392 IPC. Accordingly, the impugned judgement dated 8.2.2021 is upheld and the appeal challenging the said judgement of conviction is dismissed.
7. Ld. Counsel for appellant has prayed that the appellant is not involved in any other criminal case and is leading a life of peaceful and responsible citizen. The report of previous convictions/involvements is on record, which shows that appellant is CA/50/2022, CNR No.: DLWT01-002071-2022 Page 3 of 5 Vicky Vs. State Judgement dt. 20.3.2025 not involved in any other criminal case. Vide order on sentenced dated 2.2.2022, the convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. As per record, the convict has remained in judicial custody from 14.8.2017 till 25.9.2017 i.e. for 41 days. Whereas I uphold the order of fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, I would like to modify the part of order in which three years sentence has been awarded.
8. Keeping in view his extreme poverty and his young age at the time of incident and that there is no specific allegations against the appellant, he himself had snatched Rs.1000/- from the complainant, I reduce his punishment and sentence him to simple imprisonment for 40 days, which he had already undergone during trial. As per record, the appellant had already deposited the fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/- vide receipt no. 0688885 dated 5.3.2022 before the court of Ms Udita Jain Garg, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-06, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
9. As the appellant has already undergone the sentence and has already deposited the fine, there is no need to take him in custody. The bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. The original documents/FDR deposited by the surety before the trial court may be released to her unconditionally after keeping a copy of the said FDR CA/50/2022, CNR No.: DLWT01-002071-2022 Page 4 of 5 Vicky Vs. State Judgement dt. 20.3.2025 on record.
10. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
11. Copy of judgement be supplied to appellant free of cost.
12. The trial court record along with copy of this judgement be returned to the trial court for its consignment to record room.
13. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open
VINOD Digitally signed by VINOD
court on 20.3.2025. KUMAR
KUMAR
Date: 2025.03.20 15:10:59 +0530
(Vinod Kumar)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CA/50/2022, CNR No.: DLWT01-002071-2022 Page 5 of 5