Delhi District Court
State vs Monu@Chineese on 11 November, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PUNEET PAHWA
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/
NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 409/2022
CNR No. DLNE01-004020-2022
STATE Versus (1). Monu @ Chinees
S/o Tara Chand
R/o Manoj Ka Makan,
Pooja Colony, Loni,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
(2). Vishal @ Chunnu
S/o Giddhari Singh Negi
R/o Galla Gurjar Ka Makan,
D-Block, Gali No.9,
Khajuri Khas, Delhi
(3). Nikhil Shrivastav
S/o. Ramdas Srivastav
R/o. 5th Pusta, Main Market,
Bhajanpura, Delhi.
FIR No. : 688/2022
PS. : New Usmanpur
U/s. : 392/394/397/411/34 IPC &
27 Arms Act
Chargesheet Reveived On: 29.11.2022
Judgment Reserved On : 15.10.2025
Judgment Announced On: 11.11.2025
Decision : Conviction
JUDGMENT:
1. Case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.2022 at about 8:00 PM, when the complainant Tushar was present in the parking of 5th Pusta, Yamuna Khadar alongwith his known person namely Shashank, 3-4 persons Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:21 +0530 2 came there alongwith knives/churris and pistol like object and threatened the complainant to give everything to them, otherwise, he would face the consequences. On raising objection by the complainant, one of the assailants attacked him with knife and the assailants snatched away the mobile phone of the complainant on the point of knife and pistol like object. They also threatened them while showing the knife and pistol and told, 'HUMARA PEECHA MAT KARO, NAHI TO THIK NAHI HOGA'.
2. On the statement of the complainant, the present FIR was got registered u/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC & Sec. 27 of Arms Act. During investigation, site plan (without scale) was prepared at the instance of the complainant, statement of witnesses were recorded and, after interrogation, the accused persons namely Monu @ Chinees, Vishal @ Chunnu and Nikhil Shrivastav were arrested in the present case. During investigation, on 24.07.2022, the robbed mobile phone was seized and section 411 IPC was added in the present case. On 07.09.2022, TIP of these three accused persons were conducted in the jail, where, the accused persons were correctly identified by the complainant and after completing the investigation, chargesheet u/s. 392/394/ 397/411/34 IPC & Sec. 27 of Arms Act was filed against accused Monu @ Chinees, Vishal @ Chunnu and Nikhil Shrivastav.
CHARGE
3. On dated 20.03.2023, charges under sections Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:23 +0530 3 392/34; 394/34 of IPC were framed against all these accused persons namely Monu @ Chinees, Vishal @ Chunnu and Nikhil Shrivastav. Charge u/s. 397 of IPC was also framed against accused Vishal @ Chunnu. Charge u/s. 411 of IPC was also framed against accused Nikhil Shrivastav, to which, all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. To prove the abovesaid charges against the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses. The complainant was examined as PW-1 and another eyewitness testified as PW-2, in addition to the following witnesses: -
Serial Name of the witness Crux of deposition Number PW-3 SI Kishan Singh He was working as Duty Officer at the PS. He got registered the case FIR No. 688/2022 U/s. 392/ 394/397/34 of IPC and Sec. 27 of Arms Act. He proved the computerized copy of the FIR, as, Ex.PW3/A and the certificate u/s. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, as, Ex.PW3/B. PW-4 Ct. Robin He joined investigation of this case with IO/SI Sudhanshu Singh on 16.07.2022 and proved arrest memos of accused Monu @ Chinees, Vishal @ Rahul @ Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.Digitally signed by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:14 +0530 4 Chunnu and Nikhil Srivastava, vide Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B & Ex.PW4/C respectively, as well as their disclosure statements vide Ex.PW4/E, Ex.PW4/D & Ex.PW4/F respectively.
PW-5 Ct. Deepak He also joined investigation with
IO/SI Sudhanshu Singh on
03.08.2022 and proved the arrest memos of accused Monu @ Chinees, vide Ex.PW5/A, Vishal @ Chunnu, vide Ex.PW5/B and Nikhil Srivastava, vide Ex.PW5/C respectively, as well as the disclosure statements of accused Monu @ Chinees, vide Ex.PW5/E; that of accused Vishal @ Chunnu, vide Ex.PW5/D and that of accused Nikhil Shrivastava, vide Ex.PW5/F respectively. He also correctly identified accused Monu @ Chinees, Vishal @ Chunnu and Nikhil Srivastava in the court.
PW-6 HC Azad He also joined investigation with IO/SI Sudhanshu Singh on the intervening night of 08/ 09.07.2022. He took the rukka prepared by the IO to the PS and Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:19 +0530 5 got the FIR registered. He proved the site plan Ex.PW1/B, prepared by the IO in his presence.
PW-7 SI Sudhanshu Singh He was the IO of the case. On 09.07.2022, he had received information regarding GD no.
135A in respect of robbery. He alongwith Ct. Azad (PW-6) reached at the spot, where he made inquiries from caller Shashank. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Azad and caller Shashank reached at JPC hospital, where injured Tushar was found under treatment. He had collected the MLC of injured Tushar and made enquiry from Tushar about the incident and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. He also prepared RUKKA (Ex.PW7/A), as well as, the site plan of the spot of the incident (Ex.PW1/B). On 15.07.2022, he formally arrested accused Monu @ Chinees, Vishal @ Chunnu and Nikhil Srivastava vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/C. He also recorded the disclosure statements of accused Monu @ Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:17 +0530 6 Chinees, vide Ex.PW1/E; that of accused Vishal @ Chunnu, vide Ex.PW1/D and that of accused Nikhil Srivastava, vide Ex.PW1/F. On 03.08.2022, after interrogation, he formally arrested accused Monu @ Chinees, vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A; that of accused Vishal @ Chunnu, vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/B and that of accused Nikhil Srivastava, vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/C. He also proved the disclosure statements of accused Monu @ Chinees, vide Ex.PW5/E; that of accused Vishal @ Chunnu, vide Ex.PW5/D and that of accused Nikhil Srivastava, vide Ex.PW5/F. He also proved the TIP proceedings of accused Monu @ Chinees, Vishal @ Chunnu and Nikhil Srivastava, conducted by Sh. Nishant Bangarh, Ld. MM (Reliever), vide Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/H. He had correctly identified accused Monu @ Chinees, Vishal @ Chunnu and Nikhil Srivastava in Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.Digitally signed by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:16 +0530 7 the court, as well as, the mobile phone in the photographs Ex.PW1/D1 and Ex.PW1/D2.
PW-8 Insp. Praveen He was the IO of another case Kumar Vats FIR No. 689/22 PS New Usmanpur. He had conducted the investigation in case FIR No. 689/22 PS New Usmanpur in which, the present accused persons were got arrested. He had prepared the sketch of countrymade pistol and cartridges, vide Ex.PW8/A; that of buttondar knife, vide Ex.PW8/B and took the same into possession, vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/C & Ex.PW8/D. He also took the mobile phone of accused Monu @ Chinees into possession, vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/E; that of accused Vishal @ Rahul @ Chunnu, vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/F and that of accused Nikhil Srivastava, vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/G. He arrested accused Monu @ Chinees, vide memo Ex.PW8/H and personally searched him, vide memo Ex.PW8/I. He arrested Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.Digitally signed by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:15 +0530 8 accused Vishal @ Rahul @ Chunnu, vide memo Ex.PW8/J and personally searched him, vide memo Ex.PW8/K. He arrested accused Nikhil Srivastava, vide memo Ex.PW8/L and personally searched him, vide memo Ex.PW8/M. He prepared pointing out memo of the spot at the instance of accused Monu @ Chinees, vide memo Ex.PW8/N; at the instance of accused Vishal @ Rahul @ Chunnu, vide memo Ex.PW8/O and at the instance of accused Nikhil Srivastava, vide memo Ex.PW8/P. He also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Monu @ Chinees, vide Ex.PW8/Q; that of accused Vishal @ Chunnu, vide Ex.PW8/R and that of accused Nikhil Srivastava, vide Ex.PW8/S. He had correctly identified the accused persons as well as the case property in the court. All the documents proved by him pertained to case FIR No. 689/22 PS New Usmanpur.
Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.Digitally signed by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:18 +0530 9 PW-9 SI Bhupender He had joined investigation with PW-8 Insp. Praveen Kumar Vats and proved the memos, as Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/S. He had correctly identified the accused persons as well as the case property in the court.
5. Now coming to the two main witnesses of the present case. Sh. Tushar Vashisth has been examined as, PW-1. He deposed that on 08.07.2022 at about 7:30 PM, he was going to Red Fort from Bhajanpura by his scooty bearing registration no. DL-14SC-2261 alongwith his cousin brother Sarvagya Gaur and about 600 meters before the 5th Pushta, New Usmanpur, he received a phone call of his friend Shashank, who informed him (PW-1) that the petrol of his scooty was finished and he asked for petrol from PW-1. Thereafter, PW-1 took petrol in a bottle from a mechanic shop near a Mandir, Bhajanpura and reached at 5th Pushta, New Usmanpur and handed over petrol bottle to Shashank. He also deposed that after about 10-15 meters from the said place, two persons followed them and his cousin brother Sarvagya Gaur told him to stop the scooty and when PW-1 stopped the scooty, one of the said persons came to him and he took out the key of his scooty and also took a stone from the ground in his hand. PW-1 immediately called Shashank to come to the spot.
6. PW-1 further deposed that the said two assailants alongwith other 2-3 assailants came there. One Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.Digitally signed by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:25 +0530 10 of the persons caught hold of PW-1 from back side and another person gave knife blow at the back side of his right thigh and the said person also put his hand in the pocket of the wearing pant of PW-1 and he took out his mobile phone of Samsung containing SIM Card of mobile no. 9582737361 and leather purse of black colour containing credit cards, ATM Card and about Rs.1000-1500/- cash and the said person left his purse and all the cards and took out the currency notes. PW-1 also deposed that the other assailants were also attacking his cousin brother Sarvagya Gaur and trying to rob him and the assailants robbed him also of his mobile phone make VIVO, his wrist watch and one silver ear stud and after committing the incident with them, the said four assailants moved toward Shashank and thereafter, PW-1 heard the noise of robbery incident of other persons.
7. PW-1 further deposed that meanwhile, 2-3 police officials came there and they informed them about the incident and the other victim of robbery also came there and who also informed the police about the incident took place with him. Thereafter, PW-1 alongwith his cousin brother and Rohit went to Jag Parvesh Hospital on the bike of Rohit for treatment and while he was in the hospital, he came to know that 3-4 assailants were arrested by the police and one of the assailants was brought to the hospital as he had received injury in a firing case. PW-1 identified the said assailant in JPC hospital and his name was disclosed by the police as Akash. The said Akash had caught hold of PW-1 from back side, when the incident Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.Digitally signed by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:21 +0530 11 took place with him.
8. PW-1 further deposed that at about 12:00 midnight, police came at the house of PW-1 and made enquiries from him and police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 had shown the place of incident to the police and proved the site plan Ex.PW1/B. PW-1 also deposed that after about one month of the incident, he went to Mandoli Jail with police for TIP proceedings, where, he identified three assailants, who had committed the above said incident with him. PW-1 correctly identified accused Monu @ Chinees, (who apprehended PW-1 from his back side and who also apprehended his cousin brother at the spot, while the above said incident took place) and other co-accused Vishal @ Rahul @ Chunnu (who had had given knife blow at the back side of right thigh of PW-1) and Nikhil Shrivastava (who firstly came to PW-1 at the spot and called his other assailants) in the court.
9. PW-1 further deposed that after about one and half month of the incident, he took his mobile phone on superdari by the order of the court, vide superdarinama Ex.PW1/C. PW-1 also identified his mobile phone in the court in two photographs (Ex.PW1/D-1 and Ex.PW1/D-2) from the judicial file. PW-1 also proved the tax invoice (Ex.PW1/E) of the abovesaid mobile phone, which he had handed over to the police. PW-1 also identified his signatures on the TIP proceedings of accused Monu @ Chinees (Ex.PW1/H) at point A; that of co-accused Nikhil Shrivastava (Ex.PW1/F) and Vishal @ Rahul @ Chunnu (Ex.PW1/G) at points A respectively.
Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:17 +0530 12
10. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he stated that there was some darkness at the spot at the time of incident. He admitted that it was not mentioned in his statement Ex.PW1/A that he had suffered any injury on his thigh in the alleged occurrence and that the ATM Card, credit card and Rs.1000 - 1500 were also robbed. He also admitted that it was mentioned in his statement Ex.PW1/A that 6-7 other assailants also met those 3-4 assailants and all fled away from there and that on the date of occurrence, he was present alongwith Shashank and that he had deposed in the court that he was with one Sarvagya Gaur and that he did not tell to the police about the physical description of the accused as well as the alleged knife used in commission of the offence. He also admitted that he did not tell to the police at the time of recording his statement Ex.PW1/A, that he had identified one of the assailants in the hospital.
He denied the suggestion that at the time of recording of his statement Ex.PW1/A, none of the accused was apprehended, or that his mobile phone was not recovered by the police by that time. He admitted that the police officials had told him names of the accused. He also denied the suggestion that no such incidents of robbery took place or causing of injuries to him have even taken place, or that he had identified the accused persons at the instance of the police officials.
11. Shashank has been examined as PW-2. He deposed that on 08.7.2022 at about 6:00 PM, he alongwith his friend Jerry was present at parking of 5 th Pushta, Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:24 +0530 13 Yamuna Khadar. His other friends namely Tushar Sharma, Rohit and Parth were also present in the said parking for having drinks. PW-2 also called his another friend Tushar Vashisht in the said parking and after 5-10 minutes, Tushar Vashisht reached there and he stayed there for about 30-45 minutes and on receiving call from his home, he left from there on his scooty. He also deposed that all of a sudden, they heard noise from outside and when they switched on the light of their phones, they saw that 4-5 boys came to them and one of them, put knife on his neck and asked them to handover their belongings/goods. On this, PW-2 handed over his mobile phone and purse to a boy, who had put knife on his neck.
12. PW-2 further deposed that since, it was an iphone, so, they returned the said mobile phone to PW-2. Thereafter, all the robbers fled away from there towards Yamuna Khadar. He also deposed that when he alongwith his friend came out from the parking, they saw that their friend Tushar Vashisht was also stabbed and two police officials were also present with him. Thereafter, Tushar Vashisht was shifted to JPC hospital and police made enquiries from PW-2 and recorded his statement (Ex.PW2/X).
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.
13. After completing the prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons u/s. 313 CrPC were recorded separately, wherein, all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them were put Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:20 +0530 14 to them as required u/s 313 CrPC. The accused persons stated that they were falsely implicated in the present case, as some other criminal cases were pending against them. They had not made any disclosure statement and their signatures were obtained on some blank papers by the police and they were wrongly identified by the witnesses to falsely implicate them in the present case.
14. No defence evidence was led by any of the accused persons.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
15. I have heard Sh. F. M. Ansari, learned Addl. PP for the State, Sh. Parveen, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused persons.
16. Sh. F. M. Ansari, Ld. Additional PP for the State submitted that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It has been argued that the complainant has correctly identified all the accused persons during his evidence in the court. Even, he specified their roles during commission of the offence. Moreover, all the essential ingredients of the offences against all the accused have been duly proved and contended that since the charges have been proved against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, all the accused persons are liable to be convicted in the present case.
17. Sh. Parveen, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused persons submitted to the contrary. It has been argued that there are material contradictions in the case of the prosecution. It has been argued that there are Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:18 +0530 15 contradiction in the testimonies of the witnesses, regarding place, where the statement of complainant was recorded by the IO and whether the PW-1 and PW-2 were present together or not. Moreover, the recovery of the robbed mobile phone is also disputed, as the same was not recovered from the possession of the accused and was planted upon the accused in the present case. It is further argued that as per the initial complaint of the complainant, Shashank was present with him at the place of incident, however, in his chief examination recorded in the court, he stated that police came to his house and recorded his statement, but no such statement of any police official to that effect is there on record. It is also argued that as per the record, arrest of the accused persons was made on the next day of the incident, whereas as per the statement of PW-1, one of the assailants was brought to the hospital on the very same night, when PW-1 was present in the hospital and he came to know about apprehension of the robbers. It is also argued that as per complainant, Shashank was with him, but, as per chief examination of PW-1, one Sarvagya Gaur was with him and Sarvagya Gaur was not examined as a witness in the present case. Apart from it, there are many improvements in the chief examination of the complainant, which create doubts in the version of the prosecution and benefit of doubts, must be given to the accused persons. Moreover, PW-2 Shashank failed to identify the accused persons in the court. Therefore, all the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted, as the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.Digitally signed by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:22 +0530 16 persons, beyond reasonable doubt.
18. I have considered the rival submissions, put forth by both the sides.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIONS AND FINDINGS
19. As per the record, total 09 witnesses, including the complainant, have been examined by the prosecution, out of which, 07 witnesses are formal/official in nature.
20. Now, it is to be seen whether the testimonies of PW-1 Tushar and PW-2 Shashank are credible and trustworthy enough so that conviction can be passed solely upon their testimony.
21. All the accused persons have been charged for committing the offences u/s. 392/394/34 IPC. Accused Vishal @ Rahul @ Chunnu has been additionally charged for committing the offence punishable u/s. 397 IPC and accused Nikhil Srivastav has also been charged for committing the offence punishable u/s. 411 IPC.
22. Sec. 390 of IPC defines robbery and Sec. 392 of IPC provides for punishment for the offence of robbery. To establish an offence under Section 392 IPC, prosecution is required to prove the following essential ingredients: (a) the act of carrying away or attempting to carry away property, (b) the offender voluntarily causing or attempting to cause death, hurt, wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or hurt to any person during such act. Furthermore, under Section 397 IPC, the offence becomes an aggravated Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:16 +0530 17 form of robbery if the offender, while committing robbery as defined under Section 392 IPC, either uses a "deadly weapon," or causes grievous hurt, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person. Section 394 IPC provides for voluntary causing hurt in committing the robbery, which is aggravated form of robbery and provides for enhanced punishment. Section 397 IPC further provides for more aggravated form of robbery wherein at the time of committing robbery the offenders uses any deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt to any person or attempt to cause hurt or grievous hurt to any person.
23. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused persons had committed the offence of robbery and robbed the complainant of his mobile phone and some cash amount, which he was carrying and while doing so, the accused Vishal @ Rahul @ Chunnu also used a deadly weapon i.e. knife, while committing the said robbery against the complainant Tushar. Subsequently, the said mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Nikhil Shrivastav. The said incident had happened on 08.07.2022 at about 8:00 PM at 5th Pusta, Yamuna Khadar Parking, New Usmanpur, Delhi. Since, complainant Tushar had suffered some injury, he was taken to JPC Hospital and after getting some treatment, he had gone to his home.
24. As per the prosecution, the statement of the complainant was recorded on the very night i.e. immediately after the incident and in his statement, which is Ex.PW1/A, he very categorically stated that on Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:19 +0530 18 08.07.2022 at about 8:00 PM, when he was alongwith Shashank at 5th Pusta, Yamuna Khadar Parking, New Usmanpur, Delhi, 3-4 unknown persons armed with Chaku-Churri and some pistol like object came there and asked them to handover whatever they were having with them, failing which, they would face dire consequences.
When the complainant objected to the same, one of the assailants attacked upon him with knife and thereafter, the assailants had snatched his mobile phone make Samsung and ran away from the spot and while running, they also showed the knife and pistol like object to them and warned them not to follow the assailants.
25. When he stepped into the witness box and deposed as PW-1, he reiterated the same on oath and duly supported the case of the prosecution. Although, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused persons had pointed out some improvements in the testimony of PW-1 and referred to them, as contradictions, however, in the considered opinion of this court, the said improvements cannot be termed as contradictions so far as the alleged offence is concerned. In his complaint Ex.PW1/A, he had stated that he was with one Shashank, whereas, in his testimony as PW-1, he had stated that at that time, he was going to Red Fort to drop his cousin Sarvagya, when he received a phone call from his friend Shashank asking to bring some petrol for him, as petrol of his scooty was finished. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that Sarvagya Gaur was a very important witness, but he was neither mentioned in the list of witnesses, nor examined as Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:24 +0530 19 witness, which is a serious gap in the prosecution story and contradicts the entire testimony of PW-1. However, in the considered opinion of this court, though, there are some improvements in his testimony regarding presence of Sarvagya Gaur at the spot, but, merely because, he has neither been cited as a witness, nor been examined as witness, cannot be said to be such a huge contradiction so as to totally disbelieve the case of the prosecution. The complainant has very categorically stated the entire facts of the case in his testimony and very specifically pointed out the role played by each of the accused persons, while committing the said offence, which is sufficient enough to believe his testimony and merely because, Sarvagya Gaur has not been examined, as a witness, will not put any dent in the case of the prosecution. More so, when the accused persons were duly identified by the complainant not only in the court, but also during the TIP proceedings, which were conducted during investigation. Further, it is worth- noticing that Ld. Legal Aid Counsel failed to show as to why, the complainant would falsely implicate the accused persons, when they were totally unknown to the complainant and there was no previous enmity between the complainant and the accused persons. Further, the fact that the mobile phone which was allegedly robbed from the complainant, was recovered from the possession of accused Nikhil Shrivastav on the next day of the incident further strengthens the case of the prosecution.
26. PW-2 Shashank has, although, failed to identify the accused persons, yet he had supported the case Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:21 +0530 20 of the prosecution to the extent that when he was present alongwith the complainant and other friends in the parking of 5th Pusta, Yamuna Khadar, 4-5 persons came there and one of them put knife on the neck of Shashank and asked them to handover all the belongings. After robbing them, all of them fled away from there towards Yamuna Khadar. When they came out from the parking, they saw that complainant was stabbed. Thus, to that extent, he has supported the case of the prosecution and but, he was not able to recall the faces of the robbers due to lapse of time and that is why, he could not identify them in the court. However, since he had supported the case of the prosecution, so far as the alleged offence is concerned, his testimony cannot be said to be totally worthless.
27. The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 duly supported and corroborated each other. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused persons did not dispute the MLC of the complainant and admitted the same u/s. 294 CrPC. The MLC which is Ex.PA also shows that due to the alleged incident, the complainant had suffered stab wound on the backside of his right thigh. As per the MLC, the nature of injury was simple, which further proves the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. The contradictions pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons are not such, which would cast any doubt on the prosecution story especially in the absence of anything on record to show as to why the accused persons would be falsely implicated in the present case. Admittedly, the accused persons were got arrested on Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:17 +0530 21 09.07.2022 in another case FIR No. 689/22 and from their disclosure statements as well as from recovery of the mobile phone of the complainant, their involvement in the present case came out and while they were in judicial custody in case FIR No. 689/22, they were also arrested in the present case and their TIP was got conducted, which was successful and since, the complainant duly identified all the three accused persons during TIP proceedings, they were chargesheeted in the present case also.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 has held that:
"3.... So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eyewitness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect..."
29. In Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, IV (2010) CCR 245 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"The deposition of injured witness cannot be lightly brushed aside and the same alone can form the basis of conviction unless there are Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.Digitally signed by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:15 +0530 22 strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein as his presence at the spot cannot be doubted and his deposition must be given due weightage."
30. So far as omission of name of Sarvagya Gaur from the list of witnesses and non-examination of him as a witness is concerned, although it is a lapse on the part of the IO, however, it will not make the entire case of the prosecution to be doubtful.
31. It is also settled law that for certain defects in investigation, the accused cannot be acquitted. This aspect has been considered in various decisions. In C. Muniappan and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (9) SCC567, the following discussion and conclusion are relevant which are as follows:
'55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the Court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.Digitally signed by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:24 +0530 23 finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation.'
32. In Dayal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal, 2012 (8) SCC 263, while reiterating the principles rendered in C. Muniappan (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
'18... Merely because PW 3 and PW 6 have failed to perform their duties in accordance with the requirements of law, and there has been some defect in the investigation, it will not be to the benefit of the accused persons to the extent that they would be entitled to an order of acquittal on this ground.'
33. In Gajoo v. State of Uttarakhand, 2012 (9) SCC 532, while reiterating the same principle again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
'19......defective investigation, unless affects the very root of the prosecution case and is prejudicial to the accused should not be an aspect of material consideration by the Court."
34. In it's decision in C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"71. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the Court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.Digitally signed by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:22 +0530 24 be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution's witness. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. (vide Sohrab and Anr. v. The State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 2020; State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48; Bharwada Bhogini Bhai Hirji Bhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753; State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, AIR 2007 SC 2257; Prithu Prithi Chand and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 588; State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar and Ors., (2009) 9SCC 626; and State v. Saravanan and Anr.)."
35. After considering the entire evidence and the case laws, as cited above, so far as the offences u/s. 392 & 394 IPC are concerned, this court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons in pursuance of their common intention, committed robbery and while doing so, they voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant, which fact has been duly proved by the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 and also vide MLC of the complainant, which is Ex.PA.
36. So far as the offence u/s. 397 IPC is concerned, for the offence of Sec. 397 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that while committing the robbery, the accused persons either used deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt to the complainant or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to any person. Admittedly, as per Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:20 +0530 25 the MLC, the nature of injury suffered by the complainant was simple hurt. Thus, it does not fall within the category of grievous hurt, as required under Sec. 397 IPC.
37. Now, it is to be seen whether the accused persons used any deadly weapon at the time of said offence or not. It is pertinent to mention here that in his initial statement Ex.PW1/A, the complainant had stated that at the time of alleged offence, the accused persons were having knife and one pistol like object and when they were running away, they had shown knife and pistol and threatened them not to follow them. However, when he had stepped into the witness box as PW-1, he did not state anything about the pistol like object having been carried by the accused persons. In his testimony as PW-1, he did state that one of the accused persons was carrying a knife and he gave knife blow at the backside of his thigh. Similarly, PW-2 also did not state anything to the effect that any of the accused persons was carrying any pistol like object. Although, he had also stated about knife being carried by one of the accused persons. No doubt, knife is a deadly weapon and in case, knife is used, Sec. 397 IPC squarely applies. However, in the present case, nothing has been produced on record by the prosecution to prove as to what type of knife was actually used by the accused persons. The accused persons were arrested in another case FIR No. 689/22 PS New Usmanpur, wherein, they were apprehended with knife and pistol and also live cartridges, but, separate FIR to that effect has also been registered and they are facing trial in that FIR. No evidence has been Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:14 +0530 26 brought on record to show that the said knife or pistol was actually used in the commission of the present offence or not. Neither the said knife or pistol has been identified, nor it was put to PW-1 or PW-2 for the purpose of identification to show whether the said knife or pistol was used in commission of the present offence or not. Thus, this factum of actually using a deadly weapon stood not proved in the present case.
38. In Mohd. Arif v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12546, the Hon'ble High Court had observed as under:-
"A conviction under Section 397 of the IPC can be sustained only if it is established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt that the offender had used the 'deadly weapon' at the time of committing robbery or dacoity. This Court is of the view that the alleged recovery of the deadly weapon has become doubtful in view of the size of the knife and the testimony of PW-4 which has been discussed supra."
39. In Asif v. State, 2022 (DLT SOFT) 30, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court altered the conviction u/s. 397 IPC to u/s. 392 IPC on the basis that the details of the weapon are important to be ascertained to determine whether it is "deadly weapon" or not.
40. Thus, no doubt the complainant in his testimony has stated that while committing the offence, accused Vishal @ Rahul @ Chunnu used a knife and caused stab wound to him, but the nature of knife and it's description could not be proved by the prosecution and the prosecution also failed to prove the knife which was recovered from the accused persons qua which a separate Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:13 +0530 27 FIR has also been registered against them was actually used in commission of the present offence.
41. So far as the offence u/s. 411 IPC qua accused Nikhil Shrivastav is concerned, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt recovery of the mobile phone of the complainant from the possession of accused Nikhil Shrivastav, which was robbed from the complainant and the said mobile phone was duly identified by the complainant in his testimony. So, the offence u/s. 411 IPC also stated to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
42. In view of the above discussion, it can be said that the prosecution has been able to prove it's case beyond all reasonable doubts with respect to the offences u/s. 392/394/34 & 411 IPC. Therefore, all the three accused persons namely Monu @ Chinees, Vishal @ Chunnu and Nikhil Shrivastav are convicted for committing the offences u/s. 392/394/34 IPC. Accused Nikhil Shrivastav is also convicted for committing the offence punishable u/s. 411 IPC. Accused Vishal @ Rahul @ Chunnu is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s. 397 IPC.
43. Let accused persons be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on 11th day of November, 2025 (PUNEET PAHWA) Special Judge (NDPS)/Addl. Sessions Judge/ North East District/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Sessions Case No. 409/2022 State Vs. Monu Chinees & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.11.12 15:01:23 +0530