Delhi District Court
State vs Amarjeet Singh Etc. (3) on 11 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)WEST
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
In the matter of:
STATE
Vs.
AMARJEET SINGH & ANR. FIR No.430/15
Police Station: Tilak Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. no. of case Sessions Case No. 56532/16
2. CNR no. DLWT01-000926-2015
3. Date of Institution 10.06.2015
4. Date of Commission of 05.03.2015 offence
5. Name of the accused 1. Amarjeet Singh (Proceedings abated) S/o Lt. Sh. Manohar Singh R/o WZ-75A, Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
2. Jaspal Singh @ Sunny S/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh R/o WZ-4A, 3 Krishna Nagar, Tilak Nagar, West Delhi
3. Tej Pratap Singh @ Raja S/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh R/o E-22-B, Slum Flats, Tilak Vihar, Tilak Nagar, West Delhi, Delhi-110018 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11 14:54:43 +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 1 of 21 FIR no.430/15
4. Harpreet Singh @ Vishal S/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh R/o WZ-4A, 3 Krishna Nagar, Tilak Nagar, West Delhi
6. Offence Complained of Section 411 IPC Section 450/34, 394/34 and 397 IPC Section 174A IPC
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the 24.07.2025 judgment
9. Final order Acquitted
10. Date of such judgment 11.08.2025 Case of the prosecution
1. Story of the prosecution is that on 05.03.2015 at around 10.00-10.30 PM, complainant was working in his office at WZ-7A/2, Ground Floor, Krishna Nagar, MBS, New Delhi, three persons entered his office and started asking him for Rs.5000/-. Two of them threatened him with life and dire consequences. When the complainant opposed, one of them grabbed him from his collar and dragged him out of the office table and started beating him with fists and kicks. Complainant was injured badly and got injuries on his face, lips, nose and internal bleeding from nose. The fourth young man, who was identified as Harpreet Singh @ Vishal later on was also standing there, who was instructing them to beat him. The said young man was also an accused in another FIR registered at his instance for snatching of his gold chain and religious disrespect. After that, all those four physcially assaulted the complainant and smashed Digitally signed by his face with the help of helmet and fists. Complainant became POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11 14:54:58 unconscious, they stole the money lying in his pocket, which was +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 2 of 21 FIR no.430/15 approx. Rs.17,000/-. They also took his mobile phone make Micromax Canvas with them in which his mobile phone no. 9891911118 was working. They kept on beating him until some passersby intervened. Thereafter all four of them left the spot after extending threats. Thereafter, the complainant called PCR from his other mobile phone bearing no. 9873789816, which was lying inside the drawer of his table. Thereafter, PCR van came to the spot and took him to DDU Hospital, where he was given initial treatment and his MIC was prepared there by the doctor concerned. After giving him initial treatment and emergency aid, he was discharged from the hospital. Thereafter he visited PP Tilak Vihar and gave his written complaint to the police. The present case was then registered.
2. On the basis of complaint, FIR under Section 392/397/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons.
Charge
3. Charge was framed against the accused Jaspal Singh @ Sunny under Section 411 IPC.
4. Accused Amarjeet Singh, Jaspal Singh, Tej Pratap Singh and Tej Pratap Singh have been charged for commission of offence under Section 450/34, 394/34, 397 IPC vide order dated 31.08.2015.
5. Accused Harpreet Singh @ Vishal is charged for Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA commission of offence under Section 394/34 and 174A IPC vide TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11 14:55:17 +0530 order dated 05.10.2016.
SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 3 of 21 FIR no.430/15
6. During trial accused Amarjeet Singh expired and proceedings qua him stand abated vide order dated 14.03.2024.
Prosecution evidence
7. In order to prove its case prosecution examined ten witnesses as under :-
Material witnesses:
i) PW1: Mankandeep Singh deposed that:
"On 05/03/2015 at about 10-10.30 pm, I was working in my office at WZ-7A/2, Ground Floor, Krishna Nagar, MBS Nagar, New Delhi-110018. On that day, when I was working in my office, three persons entered in my office against my wish and started asking me for Rs 5000/-. Out of those persons, two were sikh and one was non sikh and one out of those sikhs was an aged person. All those three persons are present in court today (correctly identified).
When I tried to ask them as to on what account they are asking me to pay the said amount of Rs 5000/- all those persons started to extend threats to me for my life and dire consequences. Thereafter, one of those young persons caught hold me from my hand i.e., accused Tej Pratap Singh, who was known to me being my client but at the time of incident, I could not recognize him and another young man, out of those namely Jaspal Singh (whose name later on I came to know) caught hold me from my collar and they pulled me out of my table and continued to extend threats of my life and dire consequences. I kept on opposing them and thereafter they pulled me out of my office by Digitally signed by beating me and in front of my office, they beaten me up with POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11 kicks, fists and later on they beaten me with the help of one 14:56:53 +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 4 of 21 FIR no.430/15 helmet also. When I was pulled out of my office, the fourth young man, who was identified as Harpreet Singh @ Vishal later on, who is present in court today (correctly identified) was also standing there, who was instructing them to beat me upto my killing. The said young man was also an accused in another FIR registered at my instance for snatching of my gold chain and religious disrespect. After that, all those four started to beat me badly and smashed my face with the help of said helmet and fists. After beating me, I became unconscious, they took off the money lying in my pocket, which was nearly an amount of Rs 17,000/-. They also took my mobile phone make Micromax Canvas with them in which my mobile phone no. 9891911118 was working. They kept on beating me until some passersby intervened into and after intervention of passersby, all four of them left the spot while extending life threats in case if I dare to complain of the said incident to police.
During the said beatings, my spects were also broken and my banian (under shirt) was also torn due to the beating given to me by accused persons. Thereafter, in few minutes I took myself inside my office and called PCR from my second mobile phone bearing no. 9873789816, which was lying inside the drawer of my table, due to which it could be saved from the accused persons Due to said beatings, I sustained injuries on my nose and my upper lip.
Thereafter, PCR van came to the spot and took me to DDU Hospital, where I was given initial treatment and my MIC was prepared there by the doctor concerned, which is now Ex PWI/A, bearing my LTI at point A and RTI at point B. after giving me Digitally signed by POOJA initial treatment and emergency aid, I was discharged from the POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11 14:57:08 hospital. Thereafter I visited PP Tilak Vihar and gave my written +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 5 of 21 FIR no.430/15 complaint to the police, which is Ex PW1/B, bearing my signatures at point A. I can identify the baniyan, helmet and spex, if shown to At this stage, MHC(M) has produced case properties and the Id. Counsel in testimony of PW4 has not disputed the identity of articles seized in the offense.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP for state seeks permission to cross examine the witness, as the witness is not telling the complete fact.
Heard. Allowed.
XXXXX by Sh. Himanshu Garg, Ld. Addl. PP for the state.
It is wrong to suggest that my memory card make samsung 32 EVO was recovered from possession of accused Jaspal. I did not state police official that at the time of arrest of accused Jaspal my memory card was recovered from his possession. Confronted with the statement Ex.PW1/C from pt. A to Al where it is so recorded (statement Ex.PW1/C is shown and read over to witness) It is correct that seizure memo of samsung memory card present on file bears my signature at Pt. A and said seizure memo is Ex.PW1/D. Vol. Police officials obtained my signature on some document when I was in hospital and not fully conscious.
At this stage, MHC(M) produced one sealed parcel with seal of KS and seal is intact and out of which one samsung 32 EVO memory card taken out and shown to the witness and witness on seeing the same, states that he cannot identity that it belongs to him due to lapse of time".
ii) PW9: Parvinder Singh deposed that:
"I am residing at above mentioned address. On 05.03.2015 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR at around 10.15-10.30 PM, I received information through phone TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11 14:57:24 +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 6 of 21 FIR no.430/15 call that someone had beaten advocate Mankandeep and snatched his money. Advocate Mankandeep is my cousin brother. Thereafter, I went to the spot i.e. WZ-7A/2, Ground Floor, MBS Nagar, Tilak Vihar, Delhi and there I came to know that PCR van had already taken Mankandeep to hospital. Blood was lying there on the ground. Pieces of broken helmet, torn banian and broken spectacles were lying there on the ground. Around 10-15 persons were present there and some persons from the said 10-15 persons told me that the resident of Gali no. 27 namely Amarjeet and his sons Tej Pratap, Jaspal and Vishal had beaten Mankandeep and snatched his money. In the meantime, Chandandeep Singh, the real brother of Mankandeep Singh had also arrived on the spot. Later on I along with Chandandeep Singh went to the Police Post Tilak Vihar. My statement was recorded by the police.
I can identify the case property, if shown to me. The identity of the case property i.e. said helmet, banian and spectacles is not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel".
Witnesses of Investigation:
i) PW2: SI Paramjeet deposed that on 22.05.2015 further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He perused the case file and found that three accused persons namely Amarjeet Singh, Jaspal Singh and Tej Pratap Singh @ Raja were already arrested. He further found that the previous IO had already obtained the NBWs of accused Harpreet Singh @ Vishal.
He moved an application and obtained fresh NBWs of accused Harpreet Singh @ Vishal. Thereafter, he prepared charge-sheet in Digitally signed by respect of accused Amarjeet, Jaspal and Tej Pratap Singh. During POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11 the course of further investigation, he obtained process u/s 82 14:57:40 +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 7 of 21 FIR no.430/15 Cr.P.C in respect of accused Harpreet Singh and got said accused Harpreet Singh @ Vishal declared PO. Since accused Harpreet Singh @Vishal was granted anticipatory bail, he formally effected his arrest vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW2/B and upon completion of investigation, he filed supplementary charge-sheet in respect of accused Harpreet Singh @ Vishal. Identity of accused Harpreet Singh was not disputed. During investigation, he also recorded the statement of witnesses.
ii) PW3: HC Babu Lal deposed that on 13.03.2015 he was on emergency call and on receipt of call, he alongwith SI Kuldeep reached at Raja Dhaba, Shahpura where complainant Manakdeep Singh met them and he produced accused Amarjeet Singh. IO SI Kuldeep Singh interrogated the accused and thereafter, arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.3/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW3/C. Thereafter, accused led them at the place of occurrence and pointed out the place vide pointing out memo Ex.PW3/D. Thereafter, accused was got medically examined from DDU hospital and thereafter, he was provided food and then sent to the lock up. IO recorded his statement.
iii) PW4: HC Punit deposed that on 05.03.2015 he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar, PP Tilak Vihar as Constable and was on night emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM alongwith HC Satbir Singh.
On that day, DD No. 27 PP was marked to HC Satbir Singh and Digitally signed by accordingly, he accompanied him to the place of occurrence i.e. POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11 WZ-7A/2, ground floor, MBS Nagar, Tilak Vihar, Delhi. At the 14:57:54 +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 8 of 21 FIR no.430/15 spot, it was revealed to them that injured Mankandeep Singh was taken to DDU hospital by PCR officials. On the spot, one broken helmet, blood stains and blood stained baniyan was found. On the spot, blood was also found lying inside the office. HC Satbir left him at the spot and went to hospital. After some time, HC Satbir returned back to the spot and prepared rukka and rukka was handed over to him. Accordingly, he went to PS, got the FIR registered, came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Kuldeep to whom investigation was marked and SI Kuldeep accompanied him to the place of occurrence. During investigation, IO seized one broken specs lying at in front of office after sealing the same with the seal of KS vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A.During investigation, IO also seized blood stained baniyan lying inside the said office after sealing the same with the seal of KS vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. IO also seized one broken helmet lying at inside the said office after sealing the same with the seal of KS vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. Accused persons did not dispute the identity of the said articles.
iv) PW5: Retd. SI Satbir deposed that on 05.03.2015 he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar as HC and was on night emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM alongwith Ct. Punit. On that day, DD No. 27PP was marked to him and accordingly, he alongwith Ct.
Punit went to the place of occurrence i.e. WZ-7A/2, Ground Floor, MBS Nagar, Tilak Vihar, Delhi Upon reaching at the spot, it was revealed to them that injured Mankandeep Singh was taken to DDU hospital in a PCR van. On the spot, one broken helmet, Digitally blood stained waist/baniyan and blood stains were found lying. POOJA signed by POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
Blood was also found lying inside the office. He left Ct. Punit at 2025.08.11 14:58:07 +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 9 of 21 FIR no.430/15 the spot and went to DDU hospital. In the said hospital, he collected MLC No. 1786/15 of injured Mankandeep Singh. In the said hospital, complainant Mankandeep Singh produced written complaint which is Ex. PW1/3. Thereafter, he returned back to the spot. On the basis of the statement made by complainant, contents of MLC and facts and circumstances of the case, he prepared rukka Ex.PW5/A and rukka was handed over to Ct. Punit. Accordingly, Ct. Punit went to PS, got the FIR registered and as investigation was marked to SI Kuldeep Singh, Ct. Punit alongwith Sl Kuldeep returned back to the spot. Thereafter, he left the spot. During investigation, IO SI Kuldeep recorded his statement.
v) PW6: ASI Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 13.03.2015 at about 7.30 PM wireless operator gave an information that one offender of robbery has been apprehended at Raju ka dhaba, Shahpura, Tilak Nagar involved in FIR no. 430/15. Accordingly, he had lodged DD no. 25 in rojnamcha. Original rojnamcha seen and returned and true copy of DD is Ex.PW6/A. He handed over copy of said DD to HC Sita Ram who alongwith Ct. Raj Singh went to the place of information. Thereafter on 04.04.2015, he was posted at PP Tilak Vihar, PS Tilak Nagar as DD writer having duty hours from 4 PM to 12 Midnight. On that day, at about 10.07 PM wireless operator gave an information that one person who is an absconder was hiding in a house situated at near Shiv Model School. Accordingly, he lodged DD no. 24 PP in rojnamcha. Original rojnamcha seen and returned and true copy Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA of DD is Ex.PW6/B. He handed over copy of said DD to ASI TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11 14:58:36 +0530 Paramjeet Singh who alongwith Ct. Sandeep went to the place of information.
SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 10 of 21 FIR no.430/15
vi) PW7: HC Raj Singh deposed that on 05.03.2015 at about 10.50 PM wireless operator gave an information regarding the commission of offence of dacoity. Accordingly, he lodged DD no. 27 PP in rojnamcha. Original rojnamcha seen and returned and true copy of DD is Ex.PW7/A. He handed over copy of said DD to HC Satbir Singh who alongwith Ct. Puneet went to the place of information.
vii) PW8: Insp. Kuldeep Singh deposed that on 06.03.2015 after registration of FIR, investigation was marked to him. He visited the place of incident and prepared site plan of the spot at the instance of complainant which is Ex.PW8/A. One broken specs, one torn blood stained vest, pieces of broken helmet were lying at the spot and he took the same into police possession separately and sealed with seal of KS vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C. On 13.03.2015, he arrested one accused Amarjeet Singh (expired) vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A at the instance of complainant and personally searched vide Ex.PW3/B and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/C. The said Amarjeet pointed place of incident and pointing out memo of place of incident was prepared at his instance Ex.PW3/D. The said Amarjeet was produced before concerned court and was sent to J/C. On 04.04.2015, he arrested another accused Jaspal Singh vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/B at the instance of complainant and personally searched vide Ex.PW8/C and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/D. The said Jaspal Singh pointed place of incident and pointing out memo of place of incident was prepared at his instance Ex.PW8/E. One memory POOJA TALWAR card belonging to complainant recovered from the possession of Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Jaspal and the same was seized and sealed with seal of KS vide Date: 2025.08.11 14:58:45 +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 11 of 21 FIR no.430/15 seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. The said Jaspal singh was produced before concerned court and was sent to J/C. On 07.05.2015, he arrested one accused Tej Partpal Singh @ Raja vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/F at the instance of complainant and personally searched vide Ex.PW8/G and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/H. The said Tej Partap pointed place of incident and pointing out memo of place of incident was prepared at his instance Ex.PW8/I. One day PC remand of accused was taken and during PC remand they tried to search robbed mobile phone of the complainant but it could not be traced. Thereafter, Tej Partap Singh was produced before concerned court and was sent to J/C. The said Tej Partap Singh @ Raja and Jaspal were correctly identified by the witness. Thereafter, he was transferred and case file was handed over to MHC (R).
viii) PW10: Retd. ASI Prem Ram Arya deposed that on 06.03.2015 SI Kuldeep Singh deposited the case property of the present case in the malkhana. He made an entry regarding the same in register no.19 at serial no. 4101. He produced the original register no.19 containing the above-mentioned entry. The copy of the said DD entry Ex.PW10/A.
8. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, accused persons namely Tej Pratap Singh, Harpreet Singh and Jaspal Singh stated that they were implicated falsely in this case as accused due to mistaken and hearsay identity.
9. Accused persons admitted the MLC No. 1786/14 Digitally prepared by Dr. Shubnat, JR, DDU Hospital under the signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
supervision of Dr. Dhanraj, CMO, DDU Hospital Ex. P-1, final 2025.08.11 14:59:12 +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 12 of 21 FIR no.430/15 opinion on the said MLC given by Dr. Saurabh, SR, DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi, the fact of registration of FIR No. 430/2015 at PS Tilak Nagar but did not admit its contents. FIR is Ex. Z-1.
Arguments on behalf of the State
10. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the accused persons succeeded in winning over complainant however facts deposed by him in examination in chief are sufficient to prove the guilt of accused persons. They deserve to be convicted.
Arguments on behalf of accused
11. Ld. counsel for accused, per contra argued that the complainant dispte knowing the accused perons did not name them in his complaint. Prosecution has failed to prove presence and identity of accused persons at the place of incident. Nothing incriminating has come against the accused persons on record. Hence accused persons deserve acquittal.
12. I have heard the arguments advanced by all concerned and have perused the records including documents relied upon by the prosecution carefully.
Observation of the Court
13. Proceedings in the present case were initiated on the complaint Ex.PW1/B of the injured. It is stated in the complaint that on 05.03.2015 at about 10/10.30 pm when the complainant was sitting in his office, three men entered his office and started Digitally signed by POOJA asking for Rs.5000/-. Out of the three two were young and they POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11 14:59:23 +0530 threatened him with dire consequences. When he resisted one of SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 13 of 21 FIR no.430/15 them held his hand, the other grabbed his collar and dragged him and they started giving him fist and kick blows. They also beat him with the helmet and caused injury to him on his face, lips and nose. His clothes were also torn. Besides the three men one more boy was standing outside the office who exhorted them to beat him. This boy was the one against whom he had lodged an FIR for snatching of gold chain. They then snatched his mobile phone make Micromax Canvas and cash approx. 17 thousand from his pocket. They then threatened him and went away. He was badly injured and was saved by some passerby.
14. On the complaint, accused Jaspal Singh @ Sunny has been charged for commission of offenc under Section 411 IPC, accused Amarjeet Singh, Jaspal Singh, Tej Pratap Singh and Tej Pratap Singh have been charged for commission of offence under Section 450/34, 394/34, 397 IPC. Accused Harpreet Singh @ Vishal is charged for commission of offence under Section 394/34 and 174A IPC.
15. For ready reference sections are reproduced herein under:
Section 411- Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
16. Definition of house tress pass is defined in Section Digitally 442 IPC, however punishment is defined under Section 450 IPC: POOJA signed by POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11 Section 442 is reproduced herein under: 14:59:43 +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 14 of 21 FIR no.430/15 "Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house- trespass".
Section 394 IPC- If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 397 IPC- If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, so attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years."
17. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined two material witnesses i.e. complainant as PW1 and his cousin Parvinder Singh as PW9.
18. Complainant when stepped into the witness box deposed that on 05.03.2015 three persons entered his office and started asking for Rs.5000/-. Out of these three two were sikhs and one was an aged person. He correctly identified all the three persons present in the court. He further deposed that when he Digitally signed by tried to ask them the reason for paying Rs.5000/- one of the POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11 young persons caught hold of his hand. The said man was known 14:59:55 +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 15 of 21 FIR no.430/15 to him as he was his client but at the time of incident he could not recognize him. He further stated that he did not know the name of other accused Jaspal who held his collar. The fourth young man who was identified in the court as Harpreet was not known to the accused at the time of incident.
19. This witness when was recalled for cross-
examination stated that "I had seen the accused persons who attacked me on the day of incident, but I could not see their faces as their faces were muffled at that time."
20. This fact of perpetrator being muffled face was brought on record for the first time in cross-examination.
21. PW9 Parvinder Singh deposed that when he reached the place of incident on 05.03.2015 he was informed by the people who were gathered at the place of incident that the complainant was assaulted by Amarjeet and his sons. meaning thereby the names of the accused persons came to the knowledge of this Parvinder on the date of alleged incident itself.
22. Even if it is assumed that the complainant could not see the faces of attackers but would have been informed by his cousin PW9 Parvinder before filing of complaint. Despite that no name is mentioned in the FIR.
23. It is stated by the complainant in his cross- examination "After the incident, when all the accused persons Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR ran away, one of my neighbours informed me that the persons TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11 15:00:07 +0530 who attacked me are Raja, his brothers and his father." SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 16 of 21 FIR no.430/15
24. Despite having received this information the names of the accused were not mentioned in the complaint which further raises suspicion in the identity of the accused.
25. Further it is stated by complainant PW1 that there were CCTV cameras installed in his office but the footage was never provided to the IO for reasons best known to him.
26. Interestingly the mobile phone allegedly snatched from the complainant PW1 was not recovered but the memory card was recovered from accused Jaspal. It is strange that the mobile phone would not be used by the accused but only the memory card would be retained. Over and above that the said memory card also goes unidentified by the complainant.
27. With this backdrop I shall proceed to decide the charges levelled against the accused persons.
28. The accused Jaspal @ Sunny has been charged with the offence under Section 411 IPC for being in possession of Sumsang 32 EVO belonging to the complainant.
29. The alleged recovery is effected from the purse of the accused as per the prosecution story. However when the complainant was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP he denied that he stated to the police that his memory card was recovered from possession of accused Jaspal. With respect to his signatures on seizure memo Ex.PW1/D he stated that the same were Digitally obtained while he was in hospital and not fully conscious. He POOJA signed by POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
even failed to identify the said memory card when shown to him. 2025.08.11 15:00:21 +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 17 of 21 FIR no.430/15
30. Prosecution thus failed to prove recovery of memory card Sumsang 32 EVO from accused Jaspal.
31. Further all the accused persons have been charged under Section 450/34 IPC for entering into the office of complainant with intent to commit an offence.
32. PW1 when entered into the witness box deposed that he could not identify the accused persons at the time of incident as they were muffled face, however their identity was revealed to him later on. It has already been discussed in preceding paragraphs that despite getting to know the names of the accused persons from the neighbours who were present in the street when the alleged incident occurred, still the names of accused were not mentioned in the FIR which was registered on the basis of complaint Ex.PW1/B.
33. Complainant was allegedly saved by passerby. He was informed by neighbour that Amarjeet and his sons assaulted him, yet no independent witness is examined.
34. The complainant PW1 admitted that there was CCTV cameras in his office, however, neither the IO collected the footage nor he provided the same to the IO.
35. From the evidence so brought on record by the prosecution presence of the accused persons in the office of POOJA TALWAR complainant on the date, time as alleged stands unproved. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2025.08.11 15:00:32 +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 18 of 21 FIR no.430/15
36. Accordingly the accused persons cannot be held liable under Section 450/34 IPC.
37. Further accused persons have been charged for the offence under Section 394/34 IPC for robbing the mobile phone make Micromax of the complainant as well as Rs.17,000/- from him and also for causing injuries on his body.
38. The two star witnesses of the prosecution when stepped into the witness box could not prove the identity of the accused persons. PW1 complainant despite knowing the names of the accused on the date of incident failed to mention the same in his hand written complaint Ex.PW1/B and PW9 Parvinder Singh too did not disclose the names of the perpetrators to the IO on the date of alleged incident.
39. The best corroborative evidence i.e. the CCTV footage which was readily available with the complainant PW1 was neither collected by the IO nor handed over by the complainant himself to the IO.
40. Once prosecution failed to prove the presence of accused persons in the office of the complainant. Recovery of mobile phone could not be effected. Prosecution faield to prove that accused were present in office of complainant nor could the mobile phone be recovered, hence the accused persons cannot be held liable under Section 394/34 IPC.
41. Further accused Jaspal Singh and Tej Pratap have Digitally signed by POOJA also been charged under Section 397 IPC for causing grievous POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11 15:00:43 +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 19 of 21 FIR no.430/15 hurt on the person of complainant while committing robbery.
42. It has already been discussed in detailed that how the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of accused persons and their presence in the office of complainant PW1 on the date and time as alleged. In absence of some cogent evidence with respect to the presence of the accused persons in the office of complainant, accused persons cannot be held liable under Section 397 IPC.
43. Further accused Harpreet has also been charged under Section 174A IPC for concealing himself and not appearing before the court when called for.
44. Report of the process server has been perused. In the said report the proceedings were executed at WZ75A Gali no.27. This address happens to be the address of other co-accused who are his father and brothers. The report is silent with respect to presence of the co-accused at the said address. No statement of the witnesses were recorded by the process server who went to execute the process.
45. Moreover this report Ex.CW1/A was never put to accused Harpreet while recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC. No opportunity was given to him to explain his non appearance in court. On perusal of file it is revealed that no complaint under Section 195 CrPC too is on record.
46. It has been held in judgment by our own High Court Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA TALWAR TALWAR Date:
in Amandeep Gil & Anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported as 2025.08.11 15:01:01 +0530 SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 20 of 21 FIR no.430/15 Crl. MC.5219/2017 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that "Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalizes non- appearance in court after being declared a proclaimed offender, is subject to the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the CrPC, requiring a complaint by a public servant for taking cognizance of the offense. However, if an acquittal occurs in the original case, the Delhi High Court, in line with Supreme Court precedent, has acknowledged that such an acquittal can serve as a valid ground to potentially conclude proceedings under Section 174A IPC, especially if it undermines the basis for the proclamation."
47. In view of the aforesaid accused Harpreet cannot be held liable under Section 174A IPC Conclusion:
48. In view of the aforesaid findings, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Jaspal Singh @ Sunny is acquitted for commission of offence under Section 411 IPC, 450/34 IPC, 394/34 IPC and 397 IPC. Accused Tej Pratap Singh @ Raja is acquitted for commission of offence under Section 450/34 IPC, 394/34 IPC and 397 IPC and accused Harpreet Singh @ Vishal is also acquitted for commission of offence 394/34 and 174A IPC.
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2025.08.11
15:01:21
+0530
Announced in the open court (POOJA TALWAR)
on 11.08.2025 ASJ-01(FTC) West District,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
SC No. 56532/16 State. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & anr. Page : 21 of 21
FIR no.430/15