Delhi District Court
State vs Rafeek@Lalla S/O Mohd. Jahangir on 25 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-05: SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR NO. DLSE01-000461-2024
SC NO. 32/2024
FIR NO. 681/2023
U/S. 392/397/34 IPC & SEC. 411 IPC
PS: KALINDI KUNJ
STATE VS. RAFEEK @ LALLA & ORS.
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 32/2024.
2. Date of Committal to Sessions : 15.01.2024
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Ashish Singh.
4. Date of Commission of Offence : 05.11.2023.
5. Name and Parentage of Accused : (i) Rafeek @ Lalla
S/o. Mohd. Jahangir
R/o.: H. No. A-2/867, J. J.
Colony, Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi.
: (ii) Praveen @ Prakash
S/o. Sh. Vijay
R/o.: H. No. A-2/740, J. J.
Colony, Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi.
: (iii) Manoj @ Lalu
S/o. Sh. Inderpal
R/o.: H. No. A-2/141, J. J.
Colony, Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi.
6. Offence Complained of : U/s. 397/411/34 IPC.
7. Offence Charged : All accused - U/s. 392/34 IPC.
SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023
State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 1 of 30
: Accused Praveen @ Prakash &
Manoj @ Lalu - U/s. 397/34
IPC.
: Accused Praveen @ Prakash
additionally charged - U/s. 411 IPC.
: Accused Rafeek @ Lalla additionally
charged - U/s. 397 IPC.
8. Plea of Guilt : Not guilty.
9. Final Order : All accused convicted - U/s.
392/34 IPC.
: Accused Rafeek @ Lalla
and Manoj @ Lalu
additionally convicted - U/s.
397 IPC.
: Accused Praveen @ Prakash
acquitted - U/s. 397 IPC.
10. Date on which Order Reserved : 14.05.2025.
11. Date on which Order Announced : 25.07.2025.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The prosecution case against accused Rafeek @ Lalla, Praveen @ Prakash and Manoj @ Lalu is that on 05/11/2023, at about 08:15PM, near Kalindi Kunj Metro Station, Kalindi Kunj Red Light, Yamuna River Bridge, all of them, in furtherance of their common intention, robbed complainant/victim Ashish Singh of his purse containing cash of Rs.250/-, his Aadhar Card, Voter ID Card, IDBI Credit Card, Paytm Card and also got Rs.1,900/-
SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 2 of 30
transferred through Paytm, at the point of knife. The offence was committed in a moving/running auto-rickshaw that was being driven by accused Rafeek @ Lalla, whereas, accused Praveen @ Prakash and Manoj @ Lalu used blade and knife to rob the complainant.
On 06/11/2023, all three accused persons were arrested from Kalindi Kunj Red Light, New Delhi, at the instance of complainant/victim Ashish Singh and the robbed purse of complainant, containing his Adhaar Card, Voter ID Card, IDBI Bank ATM/Visa Card, Patym Wallet & Transit Card, Rupay Card and cash of Rs.250/-, were recovered from possession of accused Praveen @ Prakash. The FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant Ashish Singh and, on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for offence U/s. 397/411/34 IPC.
2. Detailed arguments on charge were heard from Ld. Defence Counsel and Ld. Addl. PP for State. Vide order dated 23/02/2024, all three accused Rafeek @ Lalla, Praveen @ Prakash and Manoj @ Lalu were charged for offence U/s. 392/34 IPC. Accused Praveen @ Prakash and Manoj @ Lalu were additionally charged for offence U/s. 397 IPC. Accused Praveen @ Prakash was also charged for offence U/s. 411 IPC. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charged offences and preferred trial.
SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 3 of 30 In view of deposition of complainant in Court, accused Rafeek @ Lalla was additionally charged for offence U/s. 397 IPC.
3. The prosecution led evidence and examined 06 witnesses to bring home the charged offences against the accused persons.
4.(a) PW1/complainant/victim Ashish Singh deposed that at the time of incident he was working in Apollo Hospital as Nursing Staff. He deposed that on 05/11/2023, at about 08:20PM, he hired an auto from Kalindi Kunj Metro Station to go to Sector-37, Noida, from where he were to change the said auto for going to H. No. 55, Sector 50, Noida, U. P. where he had an appointment with his client Bhupender Singh Sihal. He identified accused Praveen @ Prakash as the offender who was driving the auto that he hired for going to Sector-37. He identified accused Manoj @ Lalu as the offender who was already sitting inside the auto. He deposed that, thereafter, one more person also sat in the said auto stating " me beech main baith gaya aur uske baad ek aur aadmi aaya aur auto main baith gaya". He identified accused Rafeek @ Lalla as the offender who sat after him in the auto.
4.(b) PW1 deposed that after travelling around 100-200 meters away from Kalindi Kunj, accused Rafeek @ Lalla put blade on right side of his neck and accused Manoj @ Lalu put knife on his stomach. He stated that in self defence he held the hand of accused Rafeek @ Lalla. Thereafter, accused Manoj @ Lalu took purse containing ID Card, ATM Card of IDFC Bank, Paytm Card & cash of Rs.250/- out from right side pocket of PW1. He SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 4 of 30 deposed that the accused persons took the money out from his purse, kept the purse with them and said to him " itne paiso se hamara kya hoga". He deposed that accused Rafeek @ Lalla, who was sitting on his left side, threatened him saying " gala kaat dun kya", on which he requested the accused persons saying "aapko jo bhi chahiye wo le lo, par mujhe chhod do ". He deposed that, thereafter, accused Manoj, who was sitting on his right side, took his One Plus 6T mobile phone, whereas, accused Rafeek @ Lalla was checking his bag. He deposed that accused Praveen @ Prakash, who was driving the auto asked him "hum tere saath cooperate kar rahe hain, tu bhi hamare saath cooperate kar". He deposed that the accused persons asked him to transfer money through Paytm, however, he told them that "mere paas tau yahi sab hai". He deposed that, thereafter, when accused persons forced him to transfer money through Paytm, he transferred Rs.1,900/- from his account through his Mobile No.8376072001 to the account of another mobile number provided by the accused persons. He deposed that he did not remember the mobile number on which he transferred money, however, it was with accused Manoj @ Lalu at that time and the message regarding receipt of payment was received on the said mobile; he stated "unhone mujhe tab tak nahin chhoda jab tak payment successful ka message nahin aaya". Thereafter, accused Rafeek @ Lalla threw mobile phone of PW1 outside the auto, in the bushes and all the accused persons threatened him saying " agar police ke paas gaya to hum isi road pe ghumte rahte hain, anjam achchha nahin hoga".
SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 5 of 30
4.(c) PW1 deposed that the accused persons dropped him at underpass, just near to Noida Welcome Board, from where he went to the place where they threw his mobile phone and bag, and after collecting them, he went to his home on foot. He deposed that since it was already 12:00AM (midnight), he did not go to police station for registration of FIR, however, he informed his client Bhupender Singh Sihal for cancellation of his appointment due to the said incident. He deposed that on next day i.e. 06/11/2023 he went to Police Station Kalindi Kunj and narrated the whole incident to police, and the police recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that, thereafter, he accompanied the police officials to Kalindi Kunj, where he, while narrating the incident to police, saw the accused persons at auto stand that was 100 meters away from Kalindi Kunj Metro Station. On seeing accused Manoj there, who was standing outside an auto, he told the police official about him and the police arrested accused Manoj. He stated that he did not know how the other co-accused persons were apprehended. Again said:
other two accused persons were also present inside the auto. He deposed that police brought all three accused persons to police station, whereas, he went to police station on his motorcycle. Thereafter, SI Sumit recorded his statement and his robbed wallet was recovered from possession of the accused persons. He deposed that he identified his ID Card and ATM Card kept inside the purse, however, his money was not in it. He deposed that police returned his PAN Card, Adhaar Card, ATM Card of IDFC Bank and Paytm. He also told police about denomination of SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 6 of 30 currency notes that were 100x2 and 50x1, robbed with his wallet. He deposed that the police officials also showed him the recovered knife and he identified it.
4.(d) PW1 identified the knife Ex. P-1 as the same that accused persons used to rob him. He identified his Adhaar Card, Voter ID Card, ATM Card of IDBI Bank and Patym Wallet & Transit Card Ex. P-2 (Colly.) as the same that were kept inside his purse at the time of robbery by accused persons. He stated that the ATM Card of IDBI Bank, belonged to her sister, was with him at the time of incident. He stated that he had two Paytm Cards and two Adhaar Cards at the time of incident, out of which the police handed him over one each at police station, after their recovery from the accused persons. He deposed that his purse was recovered from the accused persons by police officials and he was told that the accused persons threw his purse after the incident. He deposed that he did not remember the registration number of the auto that he hired on the day of incident. Since PW1 did not disclose true and complete facts of the incident, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP.
4.(e) In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW1 admitted that he stated to police about the mobile number on which he transferred Rs.1,900/- from his mobile phone, through Paytm. He replied that he did not remember the complete mobile number, however, its last two digits were XXXXXXXX40. He denied the suggestion that the auto was being driven by accused Rafeek @ Lalla at the time of incident and not by accused Praveen @ SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 7 of 30 Prakash. He voluntarily stated that "inhone baalon kee cutting karwa li hai tau main nahin kah sakta, inke chahre same hain ".
The site plan Ex. PW1/B was shown to PW1, to which he stated that it was prepared at his instance. He admitted that accused persons were arrested in his presence vide arrest memos Ex. PW1/C (accused Rafeek @ Lalla), Ex. PW1/D (accused Praveen @ Prakash) and Ex. PW1/E (accused Manoj @ Lalu). He admitted that after the incident, the accused persons dropped him 100-200 meters away from Mahamaya Flyover. Three photographs Ex. P-4 (Colly) of auto bearing registration No. DL-1RA-7196 were shown to PW1, however, he could not identify the auto as he did not see its registration number.
4.(e) In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 admitted that the place where the auto was stationed was a dark place but voluntarily stated that the said place was not so dark that one could not recognize the faces. He replied that he did not raise alarm during the incident as the accused persons had put knife on his neck. He replied that the length of knife might be 7cm. He replied that he did not notice handle of the knife, however, its blade was plane. He replied that he did not remember if he stated to police in his statement that for self defence he held hand of accused Rafeek @ Lalla. He replied that he stated to police in his statement that his purse was containing IDFC Bank ATM Card (he was confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A, wherein it was not so recorded). He replied that he stated to police in his statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC that I SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 8 of 30 requested the accused persons that "aapko jo bhi chahiye wo le lo per mujhe chhod do" and that driver of the auto asked him " hum tere saath cooperate kar rahe hain, tu bhi hamare saath cooperate kar" (he was confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A, wherein it was no recorded). He replied that he did not remember if he stated to police in his statement that accused Manoj @ Lalu took his mobile phone out from pocket of his wearing pant. He admitted that nothing was recovered from accused persons in his presence and he was told by police that his black-gray purse was recovered from them. He replied that he did not know if IO joined any public person at the time of arrest of the accused persons.
4.(f) PW1 admitted that he did not call police at 100 number to complain the incident. He replied that accused Manoj was apprehended first at his instance as he was standing in front of the auto, however, other two accused persons were not apprehended in his presence and he saw them at police station. He replied that he did not know from which of the accused persons, his purse was recovered. He admitted that when police officials showed him his purse, he found no money in it. He replied that at the time of incident he had two Paytm accounts, out of which he had Rs.1,900/- approx in one account, whereas, Rs.24,000/- in other account. He stated that he could tell the time of transferring amount after seeing Paytm Application from his mobile. He stated that he transferred the money at about 08:40PM, from his account to the accused of accused.
SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 9 of 30
4.(g) PW1 denied the suggestion that no incident happened with him and the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. He denied the suggestion that he hired the auto of accused Manoj @ Lalu on the day of incident, who dropped him at Sector-37, Noida, for which he made payment through Paytm. He denied the suggestion that he mistakenly made wrong payment at Paytm account of accused Manoj. He denied the suggestion that on issue of returning extra amount, some dispute arose between him and accused Manoj on next day, when he visited him near Kalindi Kunj. He denied the suggestion that accused Praveen @ Prakash and Rafeek @ Lalla only pacified the matter between him and accused Manoj, however, he lodged false complaint all the accused persons.
5.(a) PW2 Rajeev Kumar Singh deposed that he was an auto driver by profession and had two auto bearing registration nos. DL-1N-CR-1750 and DL-1R-AA-7196, out of which he had given auto No. DL-1R-AA-7196 to one Mohd. Jaibeer on rent basis. He deposed that on 05/11/2023, the said auto was given to Mohd. Jaibeer, who used to reside in Kalindi Kunj. He replied that neither did he know complete address of Mohd. Jaibeer, nor any member of his family. He deposed that he got auto no. DL-1R-AA-7196 released from the Court. He identified his signature on panchnama Ex. PW2/A of auto no. DL-1R- AA-7196. He also identified three photographs Mark P-4 (Colly.) of auto no. DL-1R-AA 7196 that he got released from the Court. He replied that he did not know any person by the name of SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 10 of 30 Rafeek @ Lalla. Since PW2 resiled from his statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP.
5.(b) In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW2 replied that he did not know why the police officials seized his auto bearing registration no. DL-1R-AA-7196. He voluntarily stated that on inquiry by police officials, he told name of Mohd. Jahangeer to whom he gave his auto on rent basis of Rs.400/- per day. He replied that he did not know if accused Rafeeq @ Lalla was son of Mohd. Jahangeer. He denied the suggestion that he stated to police in his statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC that he gave his auto no. DL-1R-AA-9716 to father of accused Rafeek @ Lalla (he was confronted with his statement Mark 'B', from point A to A-1, wherein it was recorded. Ld. Addl. PP pointed out towards accused Rafeek @ Lalla and asked PW2 if he was the son of Mohd. Jahangeer, however, PW2 did not identify him and stated that he did not see him. He voluntarily stated that " maine isse ek do din pahle dekha, ye jail se chhut kar aaya hai aur mujhe pata challa hai ki iske pita Mohd. Jahangeer hain".
5.(c) In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, PW2 replied that police never recorded his statement in present case. He replied that he never received any complaint regarding misuse of his auto.
6.(a) PW3 Mohd. Jahangir, father of accused Rafeek @ Lala, deposed that he used to drive auto No. DL-1R-AA-7196, which he took on rent on daily basis, from one Rajeev Kumar Singh. He deposed that in November 2023 Manoj i.e. accused, who used to SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 11 of 30 reside in the same locality of A-2 Block, came to house and he, being unwell, gave his auto to Manoj. He deposed that he knew father of Manoj. He deposed that on 06/11/2023 his wife told him that the police had seized the auto that he gave to accused Manoj. He deposed that when he went to police station for inquiring about his auto, he came to know that Manoj had committed robbery in that auto. He stated that his son i.e. accused Rafeek @ Lalla was at home at that time. He deposed that sometimes his son Rafeek @ Lalla used to drive auto and sometimes helped him in agriculture. Since PW3 resiled from his statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP.
6.(b) In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW3 denied the suggestion that on 05/11/2023 his son i.e. accused Rafeek @ Lala took auto No. DL-1R-AA-7196 for driving. He voluntarily stated that he gave the said auto to accused Manoj. He denied the suggestion that he stated to police in his statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC that on 05/11/2023 his son Rafeek @ Lalla took the said auto to ply (he was confronted with his statement Mark 'C' from point 'A' to 'A-1', wherein it was so recorded. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely in favour of his son i.e. accused Rafeek @ Lalla in order to save him from punishment. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely being father of accused Rafeek @ Lalla. He denied the suggestion that accused Rafeek @ Lalla was not present at his home in the night of 05/11/2023.
SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 12 of 30
6.(c) In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW3 replied that in the night of 05/11/2023 his son i.e. accused Rafeek @ Lalla was present at his house. He replied that the police officials took the auto from his house, however, he did not remember the exact time. He replied that he did not know accused Praveen @ Prakash. He voluntarily stated that he only knew accused Manoj.
7. PW4 ASI Veer Pal, deposed that on 06/11/2023 he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Kalindi Kunj and, on that day, at about 06:25PM, on receipt of tehrir from SI Sumit, he made endorsement Ex. PW4/A on it vide DD No.82A dated 06/11/2023. Thereafter, he registered FIR Ex. PW4/B with the help of computerized CCTNS/Operator and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir, alongwith Certificate U/s. 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW4/C in this regard, to SI Sumit. He deposed that he did not tamper the contents of FIR.
In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW4 denied the suggestion that the date and time mentioned in FIR were ante-timed and ante-dated.
8.(a) PW5 HC Kulshrestha deposed that on 06/11/2023, while searching the accused persons, when he alongwith IO SI Sumit, Constable Nawal and complainant Ashish reached at Yamuna Bridge, near Kalindi Kunj Red Light, they saw that one auto bearing registration No. DL-1R-AA-7196 was stationed there and two persons were standing near it. He deposed that SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 13 of 30 complainant Ashish pointed out towards the said two persons and stated that they were the offenders who had robbed him, on which they apprehended the said two offenders. He deposed that they also found one more person inside the said auto, who was identified by the complainant as the third offender who was already sitting inside the auto before commission of offence. He deposed that on interrogation, they disclosed their names as Rafeek @ Lalla, Manoj @ Lalu and Praveen @ Prakash and admitted their guilt in commission of offence. He deposed that at the instance of accused Manoj @ Lalu, one knife was recovered from rear seat of the aforesaid auto. He deposed that IO prepared sketch Ex. PW5/A of the recovered knife and seized it vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. He deposed that accused Praveen @ Prakash took out one purse from his pocket and produced it to the IO. On checking, the recovered purse was found containing one Aadhar Card, Voter I Card, IDBI Debit Card, Paytm Card, all in the name of complainant Ashish and cash of Rs.250/- (in denomination of Rs.100x2 & 50x1). IO seized the recovered articles vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/C. He deposed that one purse containing Adhaar Card of one Akbar Ali was also recovered from accused Rafeek @ Lalla, however, the accused disclosed that a separate FIR for commission of robbery was already registered in that regard. IO seized the said purse with Adhaar Card vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/D. Thereafter, IO arrested all three accused persons vide memos Ex. PW1/C to Ex. PW1/E, conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW5/E to Ex. PW5/G, respectively and seized auto No. DL-1R-AA-7196 SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 14 of 30 vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/H. He identified the accused persons in Court.
8.(b) PW5 identified the knife Ex. P-1 as the same that was recovered at the instance of accused Manoj @ Lalu. He identified the purse containing Adhaar Card & Voter ID Card, both in the name of complainant Ashish, one ATM Card of IDBI Bank in the name of Kajal and one Paytm Wallet & Transit Card, Ex. P-2 (Colly.) as the same that were recovered from accused Praveen @ Prakash. He identified the purse containing Adhaar Card of Akbar Ex. P-3 (Colly.) as the same that was recovered from accused Rafeek @ Lalla. He also identified three photographs Ex. P-4 (Colly.) of the auto bearing registration no. DL-1R- AA-7196 stating that it was seized by IO.
8.(c) In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW5 replied that the complainant pointed out towards the accused persons from a distance of 30-50 meters. He replied that the IO did not click photograph of the auto from which the knife was recovered in his presence. He replied that no other auto, except auto No. DL-1R-AA-7196 of accused persons, was stationed at Yamuna Bridge, near Red Light of Kalindi Kunj. He replied that the IO asked public persons to join investigation but none agreed. He admitted that no mobile phone was recovered from possession of accused Rafeek @ Lalla. He replied that they brought the case property to police station, however, he did not know who deposited the same to Malkhana. He replied that he did not remember which two accused persons were standing with SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 15 of 30 the auto and were pointed out by the complainant. He voluntarily stated that "in teen accused mein se hi koi do the".
8.(d) PW5 replied that they reached Yamuna Bridge at about 06:15PM and left from there at about 08:30PM. He replied that the distance between the place from where the accused persons were apprehended and the place from where complainant hired the auto was 50 meters approx. He again stated that the distance might be around 100 meters. He replied that there was proper light at Yamuna Bridge and the place from where the accused persons were arrested was visible from there. He replied that he did not remember if IO prepared the site plans of the place from where the complainant hired the auto or the place from where the accused persons were arrested. He replied that the CCTV cameras installed at Kalindi Kunj Metro Station did not cover the place of apprehension of the accused persons as well as the place from where the complainant hired the auto. He replied that accused Praveen @ Prakash produced the purse from right side pocket of his trouser. He denied the suggestion that the purse of complainant produced before the Court was of brown colour and not of black colour. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were apprehended from their respective house and were later shown to be arrested from Yamuna Bridge. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused persons and the same was planted upon them to falsely implicate them. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit Yamuna Bridge, neither arrested the accused persons from there. He denied the SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 16 of 30 suggestion that all the documents were prepared by IO while sitting at police station and he signed them at the instance of IO.
9.(a) PW6 IO SI Sumit deposed that on 06/11/2023 he was posted at PS Kalindi Kunj and, on that day, complainant visited the police station and he recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A regarding robbery of his purse and Rs.1,900/- through Paytm transfer by three offenders at the point of blade and knife in a moving auto, on 05/11/2023, at around 08:00PM, at Kalindi Kunj Red Light, near Metro Station. He deposed that on the basis of complaint, he prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. He deposed that, thereafter, he alongwith complainant, HC Kulshrestha and Constable Nawal went to the spot, where he prepared site plan at the instance of complainant, and, thereafter, complainant pointed out towards an auto bearing registration no. DL-1R-AA-7196 that was parked near the spot and stated that it was the same auto in which he boarded. The complainant also pointed out towards two boys who were standing outside the said auto and told him that those were the same offenders who had robbed him at the point of blade and knife on the day of incident. He deposed that when they went near to the said auto, its driver was found sitting inside and the complainant identified him as offender who was driving the auto at the time of incident. He deposed that he apprehended all three accused persons at the instance of complainant and interrogated them, during which they confessed their involvement in the present case.
9.(b) PW6 corroborated the testimony of PW5 HC Kulshrestha SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 17 of 30 regarding recovery of knife at the instance of accused Manoj @ Lalu from rear seat of the auto, recovery as well as seizure of purse containing Voter ID Card, Adhaar Card, Paytm Card, IDBI Bank Card of complainant alongwith cash of Rs.250, that was recovered from accused Praveen @ Prakash, preparation of sketch as well as seizure of recovered knife, seizure of auto, recovery of purse containing Adhaar Card of one Akbar from accused Rafeek @ Lalla as well as its seizure U/s. 102 CrPC, arrest as well as personal search and recording of disclosure statements Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/C respectively of the accused persons, and recording of statement of witnesses. He deposed that he got owner of the auto joined in investigation, who told that he had given his auto to one Jahangir on rent. He deposed that on interrogation, Jahangir told him that his son i.e. accused Rafeek @ Lalla used to drive the auto. He deposed that, thereafter, he collected ownership document of Paytm No. 7683047740 in which the amount was transferred, and the same was found registered in the name of one Priya W/o. accused Manoj. She deposed that, on interrogation, Priya told him that the said number was being used by her husband. He recorded statement of Priya. He collected documents Ex. PW6/D (Colly.) regarding transactions and ownership of aforesaid Paytm number. He deposed that the seized auto was released on superdari through Panchnama Ex. PW2/A. He identified thee photographs Ex. PW6/E (Colly.) of the auto. He identified all the accused persons in Court. On completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet in Court.
SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 18 of 30
9.(c) In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, PW6 replied that the complainant met him at PS Kalindi Kunj, on 06/11/2023 after 02:00PM. He replied that the complainant gave no written complaint and he recorded his statement. He replied that he did not check any CCTV camera installed at Metro Station to verify presence of the complainant. He voluntarily stated that the camera was not covering the route of the complainant through which he reached the spot. He replied that when they reached the spot, only one auto was parked there. He denied the suggestion that being an auto stand, several auto were parked at the spot. He denied the suggestion that several fruit vendors were present at the spot. He admitted that the spot of incident was a running road. He replied that he asked several public persons to join investigation at the time of apprehension of accused persons as well as at the time of recovery but none agreed. He replied that the complainant remained with him at the spot till 08:00PM - 08:15PM. He admitted that on 05/11/2023 the complainant neither called at 100 number, nor visited the police station. He replied that he inquired from several persons about the incident but none had witnessed the incident. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were not apprehended in presence of the complainant and were falsely implicated in present case. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from possession of the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that the complainant did not identify the accused persons and he insisted the complainant to identify them as the offenders. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 19 of 30 were apprehended from their respective house and were falsely implicated in this case.
9.(d) PW6 denied the suggestion that the complainant inadvertently transferred the excess amount as fare to Paytm account of wife of accused Manoj @ Lalu. He denied the suggestion that accused Manoj assured the complainant to return the amount after checking his wife's mobile phone, however, the complainant got annoyed and falsely implicated accused Manoj in present case. He denied the suggestion that he falsely implicated the accused persons without any proof or proper investigation.
10. All the incriminating evidence that came on record in the deposition of prosecution witnesses was put in detail to all three accused persons and their statement U/s. 313 CrPC was recorded separately. They denied all incriminating evidence and asserted that they were wrongly identified by the witnesses. Accused Manoj @ Lalu asserted that he was not present at the spot alongwith accused Rafeek @ Lalla and Praveen @ Prakash, at the time of incident. He asserted that IO brought him to police station from his house, obtained his signature on some blank papers and falsely implicated him in this case. He stated that the complainant wrongly transferred Rs.1,900/- in his wife's account, through Paytm. He stated that he requested the IO to return Rs.1,900/- to the complainant, however, IO falsely implicated him in this case.
SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 20 of 30 Accused Rafeek @ Lalla and Manoj @ Lalu asserted that they were innocent and were falsely implicated in this case. Accused Rafeek @ Lalla asserted that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident. He stated that IO called him at police station for some inquiry, obtained his signature on some blank papers and falsely implicated him in this case. The accused persons did not avail of the opportunity to lead evidence in defence.
11. I have heard detailed final arguments from both sides. The findings are as under:-
The Incident :
12.(a) PW1/complainant Ashish Singh deposed that on 05/11/2023, at about 08:20PM, he hired an auto-rickshaw from Kalindi Kunj Metro Station to go to Sector-37, Noida, U. P. He stated that the driver of auto-rickshaw was accused Praveen @ Prakash. One person i.e. accused Manoj @ Lalu was already sitting in the auto-rickshaw. After going a short distance, one more person i.e. accused Rafeek @ Lalla boarded the auto- rickshaw. Accused Rafeek @ Lalla and Manoj @ Lalu sat on either side of the complainant. During the journey, accused Rafeek @ Lalla put a sharp blade on neck of complainant from right side, whereas, accused Manoj @ Lalu put knife on his abdomen and forcibly took out purse from right side pocket of complainant's pant. On discovering that complainant's purse contained cash of only Rs.250/- apart from ID Card, ATM Card SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 21 of 30 and Paytm Card, accused Rafeek @ Lalla and Manoj @ Lalu became dissatisfied and stated - "itne paiso se hamara kya hoga"
(what will we do with this paltry amount?). Accused Rafeek @ Lalla threatened to slit the throat of complainant saying " gala kaat dun kya ?". The complainant was terrified and pleaded them to leave him saying "aapko jo bhi chahiye wo le lo par mujhe chor do".
b) Accused Manoj @ Lalu took away mobile phone (One Plus 6T) of complainant, whereas, accused Rafeek @ Lalla checked his bag. Accused Praveen @ Prakash i.e. auto-rickshaw driver asked the complainant to 'cooperate', saying " hum tere sath cooperate kar rahe hain, tu bhi hamare sath cooperate kar ". On being forced by the accused persons, the complainant transferred Rs.1,900/- through Paytm from his mobile number 8376072001 to account of mobile number given by accused persons. The amount through Paytm was received by accused Manoj @ Lalu in his mobile phone. The complainant deposed that the accused persons did not release him till they received the money through Paytm.
c) PW1 stated that accused Rafeek @ Lalla threw away his mobile phone outside the auto-rickshaw, in the bushes. While leaving, accused persons threatened him to refrain from reporting the incident to police. The accused persons dropped the complainant at underpass near Noida-Welcome Road. The complainant went back to the place where accused persons had thrown his mobile phone and bag. After collecting his mobile SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 22 of 30 phone and bag complainant went back to his home on foot. He stated that since it was 12:00AM (midnight), he did not go to police station to report the incident. Next day, he went to PS Kalindi Kunj and reported the incident to police through statement Ex. PW1/A. Arrest of accused persons :
13.(a) PW1 deposed that after recording of his statement at PS Kalindi Kunj, the police officials took him to auto-rickshaw stand, where he saw accused Manoj @ Lalu standing beside the auto-rickshaw. At his pointing out, police officials apprehended accused Manoj and other two accused persons, and brought them to police station. PW1 stated that his purse/wallet was also recovered from the accused persons. He stated that he found his ID Cards, ATM Card and Paytm Card in the purse but cash was missing. The police officials showed a recovered knife to complainant that he identified as the same used by accused persons in commission of robbery. He identified the knife Ex. P-1 in the Court. He identified purse containing his Aadhar Card, Voter ID Card, Paytm Card, Transit Card as well as ATM Card, Ex. P-2 (Colly.) in the Court and stated that the said documents were in his purse at the time of robbery. He stated that the ATM card belonged to his sister Kajal.
Defence of accused persons:
14.(a) Ld. Defence Counsel argued that testimony of PW1/complainant Ashish Singh was not reliable as he was SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 23 of 30 confused about the role of accused persons. He argued that PW1 identified accused Praveen @ Prakash as driver of the auto- rickshaw, whereas, prosecution case was that accused Rafeek @ Lalla was driving the auto-rickshaw at the time of incident. In this manner, PW1 wrongly identified accused Rafeek @ Lalla, instead of accused Praveen @ Prakash as the offender who used blade while committing robbery.
b) In this regard, it is observed that the charge-sheet did not explain specific role of respective accused persons through post- arrest statement of the complainant. The FIR was registered prior to arrest of the accused persons, who were not personally known to the complainant, on account of which FIR was not registered by name against the accused persons, although, complainant gave vivid account of role of the offenders while committing the robbery. Instead of recording supplementary statement of complainant, the IO ascribed role to accused Manoj @ Lalu and Rafeek @ Lalla on the basis of their respective disclosure statement, which was not proper procedure. To this limited extent, there was lapse on the part of investigating officer. Nevertheless, PW1/complainant specifically identified each accused in the Court and disclosed their respective role in the incident. There was no contradiction between complainant's testimony and prosecution case as IO did not adopt the required course of getting the roles of respective accused clarified from the complainant after their arrest, especially when the accused persons were arrested on being identified by the complainant. As SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 24 of 30 such, at the time of investigation, there was no confusion that three offenders together robbed the complainant at point of knife and blade in running auto-rickshaw.
c) In cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the place where the auto was parked (at the time of boarding), was a dark place. However, he voluntarily explained that it was not so dark that one could not recognize the faces. He replied that he could not raise alarm at the time of incident because of knife used by accused Manoj. He replied that no public person was present at the place where he deboarded or at the place from where he collected his mobile phone and bag. He replied that after the incident he became hopeless and did not immediately go to report the incident to police.
15.(a) Ld. Defence Counsel argued that PW1 contradicted himself by deposing in examination-in-chief that all three accused persons were arrested at his instance, whereas, in cross- examination, he stated that only accused Manoj @ Lalu was arrested at his instance and police arrested other two accused persons in his absence, when he went to take lunch.
15.(b) In cross-examination, PW1 stated that accused Manoj @ Lalu was apprehended at his instance but remaining two accused persons were not apprehended in his presence. He voluntarily stated that when accused Manoj @ Lalu was apprehended at about 03:00PM, he went to take lunch. When he came back to police station, he saw other two accused persons present there apart from accused Manoj @ Lalu.
SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 25 of 30
15.(c) Indeed, there was slight change in version of PW1 in cross-examination but the fact remains that accused persons were arrested on being identified by him. The arrest memos Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E of accused persons bear signature of PW1.
16. The accused persons raised the defence of false implication by the complainant and cross-examined him in this regard. PW1 denied the suggestion that on the day of incident he hired auto-rickshaw of accused Manoj, who dropped him at Sector-37, Noida, and he made payment of auto fare through Paytm. PW1 denied the suggestion that he mistakenly made wrong payment to Paytm account provided by accused Manoj. PW1 denied the suggestion that on the issue of return of extra amount, some dispute arose between him and accused Manoj when he visited him on the next day near Kalindi Kunj. PW1 denied the suggestion that accused Praveen @ Prakash and Rafeek @ Lalla only pacified the matter between him and accused Manoj @ Lallu but he lodged false complaint against all the accused persons.
It is observed that there was no prior acquaintance or enmity between complainant and the accused persons and their false implication by complainant is ruled out.
Contradictions in testimonies of witnesses :
17. Ld. Defence Counsel pointed out the contradictions in testimony of PW1/complainant Ashish Singh on one side and SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 26 of 30 testimony of PW5 HC Kulshreshta and PW6 IO SI Sumit on other side in respect of arrest of accused persons. Whereas, PW1 deposed in cross-examination that only accused Manoj @ Lalu was arrested at his instance and in his presence, PW5 and PW6 deposed that all the three accused persons were arrested at the instance and in presence of the complainant. Indeed, to this extent, there is apparent incongruity in testimonies of PW1, PW5 and PW6 and resulted due to faulty course of investigation adopted by the IO. However, the lapse on part of IO does not take away from truthfulness of deposition of complainant, neither does it weaken the foundation of prosecution case in respect of occurrence of incident [Ref.: State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishore (1996) 8 SCC 217; Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 195; Amar Singh Vs. Balvinder Singh & Anr. (2003) 2 SCC 518; Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (1998) 4 SCC 517].
18. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that PW1/complainant Ashish Singh was sole eye-witness to the incident and his deposition was different from prosecution case. Thus, his sole testimony could not be reliable upon to convict the accused persons.
In reference to probative value of testimony of sole eye- witness, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 observed that the following propositions are firmly established -
SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 27 of 30 (a) As a general rule, a Court can and may act on the
testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character;
(b) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, Courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character;
(c) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes.
(d) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, namely :
i) Wholly reliable;
ii) Wholly unreliable;
iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
It was held that in the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 28 of 30 incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.
19. It is observed that PW1 gave lucid and detailed account of the incident. He specifically deposed the role of each accused in commission of robbery and withstood the test of cross- examination. He came across as an honest and straight forward witness, and his unwavering testimony is worthy of reliance, although, he was sole witness to the incident. The conviction of accused persons can be based upon testimony of PW1/ complainant Ashish Singh.
Conclusion :
20.(i) From evidence, it is firmly established beyond reasonable doubt that 05/11/2023, at about 08:15PM, near Kalindi Kunj Metro Station, Kalindi Kunj Red Light, Yamuna River Bridge, accused Rafeek @ Lalla, Manoj @ Lalu and Praveen @ Prakash, in furtherance of their common intention, robbed complainant/ victim Ashish Singh of his purse containing cash of Rs.250/-, his Aadhar Card, Voter ID Card, IDBI Credit Card, Paytm Card and Rs.1,900/- by transfer through Paytm, at the point of knife and blade, and thereby all of them committed the offence of robbery and are hereby convicted for offence U/s. 392/34 IPC.
SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023 State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 29 of 30
20.(ii) Accused Praveen @ Prakash was additionally charged for offence U/s. 411 IPC in reference to recovery of robbed purse containing documents and cash of complainant Ashish Singh from his possession. In view of his conviction for offence U/s. 392 IPC, accused Praveen @ Praksh need not be convicted for the charged offence U/s. 411 IPC as it stands subsumed in the offence U/s. 392 IPC.
In the absence of evidence, accused Praveen @ Prakash is acquitted for charged offence U/s. 397 IPC.
20.(iii) Accused Rafeek @ Lalla and Manoj @ Lalu are convicted for offence U/s. 397 IPC for using deadly weapons i.e. blade and knife while robbing the complainant.
21. The order on sentence shall be passed after hearing submissions from Ld. Defence Counsels as well as from Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Digitally
signed by
VISHAL
VISHAL SINGH
Announced in the open court SINGH Date:
2025.07.25
dated: 25.07.2025 16:03:26
+0530
(VISHAL SINGH)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
SC No. 32/2024 FIR No. 681/2023
State Vs. Rafeek @ Lalla & Ors. PS : Kalindi Kunj Page No. 30 of 30