Delhi District Court
State vs Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana on 8 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL KATARE, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-06, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS,
DELHI.
CNR No. : DLSW020140122016
FIR Number : 374/2016
Police Station : Dwarka North
Section : 392/34 IPC
STATE VS. KARAMVIR @ MONU @ PANA & ANR.
(MORE THAN 7 YEARS OLD CASE)
a) Cr. no. of the Case : 433173/2016
b) Name & address of the Complainant : Sumit Singh, S/o Sh.
Amar Singh, R/o Qtr.
No. 603 CRPF,
Sect 16B, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
c) Name & address of the accused : (1) Karamvir @Monu @ Pana,
S/o Sh. Attar Singh,
R/o VPO Kair,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
(2) Vinayak @ Sonu
S/o Sh. Krishan Murari,
R/o VPO Kair,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
d) Date of Commission of offence : 01.08.2016
e) Offence complained of : 392/34 IPC
FIR Number : 374/20
374/2016
16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 1 of 19
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Accused Vinayak @ Sonu
stands convicted for the
offence u/s 392/34 IPC.
Whereas accused Karamvir
@ Monu @ Pana stands
acquitted for the offence
u/s 392/34 IPC.
Date of registration of FIR : 02.08.2016
Final arguments heard on : 02.02.2026
Judgment Pronounced on : 08.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana and Vinayak @ Sonu are facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) in connection with the case FIR No. 374/2016 registered at P.S. Dwarka North.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 01.08.2016 at around 11:30 pm, the complainant was going to Dwarka Metro Station on his motorcycle make Splendor Pro bearing No. DL3SCY1075 to pick up his brother, namely, Amit Kumar. When he reached near Kakrola Drain Road, behind police picket, four persons came on a motorcycle and stopped the motorcycle of the complainant. One of the accused person pointed out pistol towards the complainant and robbed his motorcycle and his mobile phone make Lava IRIS X8 and thereafter, all the accused persons ran away from the spot. Complainant informed the police officials. Police came to the FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 2 of 19 spot and recorded his statement, based on the rukka was prepared and present FIR was registered.
3. After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out and chargesheet was filed. Thereafter, cognizance was taken under section 392/34 IPC.
4. On finding sufficient material on record against accused persons, they were summoned before this Court and on their appearance, copies of the challan and other documents were supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (herein referred to as Cr.P.C). Thereafter, on finding prima facie charge for offences under section 392/34 IPC was made against accused Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana and Vinayak @ Sonu. Charge was put to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to have a defence to make.
5. Thereafter, prosecution was called upon to adduce its evidence. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 05 witnesses.
(i) PW-1 Sumit Singh is the complainant.
(ii) PW-2 ASI Rohtas Singh.
(iii) PW-3 ASI Josh Kumar.
(iv) PW-4 Ct. Lakhami Chand.
(v) PW-5 Inspector Satish Yadav, who is the Investigating Officer of the present case.
FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 3 of 19
6. Thereafter, joint statement of both accused u/s 294 Cr.PC r/w Section 291 Cr.PC was recorded wherein they admitted following documents relied upon by the prosecution :
1. FIR No.374/2016 PS Dwarka Ex.P/A/1 North
2. Certificate u/s 65B IEA Ex.P/A/2
3. DD No.61A PS Dwarka North Ex.P/A/3 and Ex.P/A/4 and DD No.32B PS Dwarka North
4. TIP of the accused Karamvir @ Ex.P/A/5 Monu dated 31.08.2016
5. Documents of FIR No.152/2016 Ex.P/A/6 PS J.P. Kalan
6. TIP proceedings of accused Ex.P/A/7 Vinayak @ Sonu dated 16.11.2016
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, incriminating evidence adduced by prosecution was put to accused persons by recording their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the case of prosecution and pleaded innocence and preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence.
Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
8. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Solanki, Ld. APP for State and Mr. Anil Kumar, Ld. counsel for accused Karamvir @ Monu and Ms. Priyanka, Ld. LADC for accused Vinayak @ Sonu have gone through the records carefully.
9. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that the evidence of hostile witness can be read on material points, and it can be used to prove the FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 4 of 19 offence charged against the accused persons. As such, it is prayed that accused persons be punished for the said offence.
10. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused Karamvir @ Monu has argued that State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt as the main witness/complainant has failed to identify the accused Karamvir @ Monu in the Court and there are no other witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused Karamvir @ Monu. Whereas, Ld. LADC for the accused Vinayak has argued that the accused Vinayak cannot be convicted solely on the testimony of the complainant. No other independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, therefore benefit of doubt must be given to the accused Vinayak.
11. On the basis of evidence on record, the following points arise for determination in the present case:
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 01.08.2016 at around 11:30 pm near Ganda Nala, opposite CRPF Quarters, near Village Kakrola, the accused Karamvir @ Monu and Vinayak @ Sonu, in furtherance of their common intention, committed robbery upon the complainant Sumit Singh of his motorcycle bearing No. DL3SCY1075 and his mobile phone make Lava IRIS X8, as alleged?
(ii) Final order.
FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 5 of 19 REASONS FOR FINDINGS POINT NO. 1 & 2
12. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 Sumit Singh, who is the star witness/ complainant in the present case and he has stepped into the witness-box and deposed that on 01.08.2016, he was residing at Quarter No. 603, Jyoti Kunj Apartment, CRPF, Sector-16B, Dwarka. His father was working in CRPF as a Head Constable. On that day, he was going to Dwarka Metro Station on his black colour Splendor Pro motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-3S-CY-1075 to pick up his brother, Amit Kumar, who was working in Okhla Phase-I and used to commute by Metro. At about 11:30 PM, when he reached near Kakrola Drain Road behind a police picket (which was at a distance of about 150-200 meters), four persons aged about 24-25 years came from behind on a motorcycle and stopped him by parking their motorcycle in front of his vehicle. One of the accused persons, who was lean and thin, pointed a pistol at him and robbed him of his motorcycle and his mobile phone, i.e., Lava Iris X-8 bearing SIM No. 9971936678. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled from the spot. He further stated that he informed the police officials present at the police post. His statement (Ex. PW1/A) was recorded by the police, and a site plan was prepared at his instance. He also handed over the bill of his mobile phone to the Investigating Officer (IO), which is Ex. PW1/B. He further stated that after some days, the IO called him to Tihar Jail, where the Test Identification Parade (TIP) of accused Vinayak @ Sonu @ Ajay Hooda was conducted. The witness proved the TIP proceedings of the said accused as Ex. PW1/C. The accused Vinayak @ Sonu was correctly identified by the witness in Court.
FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 6 of 19
13. During his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he failed to identify the accused Karamvir @ Monu and stated that he could not see the faces of all the accused persons as it was dark at the time of the incident. He denied the suggestion that on 31.08.2016, he went to PS Dwarka North and correctly identified the accused Karamvir @ Monu who was later on arrested by the IO and he also denied that he had stated to the IO that the accused Karamvir @ Monu is one of the person who robbed him and the accused Karamvir @ Monu was the pillion rider of the motorcycle and caught hold of hands of PW1 and the other accused persons robbed his mobile phone and motorcycle. He further denied the suggestion that he is intentionally not identifying the accused Karamvir @ Monu as he had been won over by him. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to save the accused Karamvir @ Monu from the legal implications of the present case.
14. During his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for the accused Vinayak, PW1 deposed that he left his house at about 11:25 PM and was proceeding towards Dwarka Sector 16 Metro Station. The distance between his house and the said metro station was approximately 2-2½ kilometers. He further stated that the distance between the spot of the incident and Dwarka Sector 16 Metro Station was about 1-2 kilometers. He stated that he did not remember whether the police prepared the site plan in his presence. He admitted that it was dark at the spot where the incident took place. He further stated that he did not make any call to number 100. He also stated that he went to the police picket where a police official made a call to number 100). He stated that he did not give any written complaint at the police picket at that time. He also stated that his complaint was recorded by the police after two days). He again stated that he gave his complaint (Ex. PW1/A) on the same day at the police station. He further stated that the police arrived at the spot FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 7 of 19 within about ten minutes of the call made to number 100. At that time, he was present at the police picket. The police inquired from him about the facts of the case, after which he went to the police station from the police picket. He also stated that PCR officials had inquired from him at the police picket. He stated that he did not remember the exact time when the police from the police station arrived at the police picket, but they came approximately 15 minutes after the incident. He admitted that police officials from PS Dwarka North met him at the police picket, and thereafter, they went to the police station together. He stated that he remained at the police station until about 1:00-1:30 AM. He further stated that he did not know the make and registration number of the motorcycle on which the accused persons had come. He denied the suggestion that public persons, including a rickshaw puller, were present at the spot at the time of the incident. He admitted that he had stated to the police that the accused persons had parked their motorcycle in front of his motorcycle in order to stop him (confronted with Ex. PW1/A, where it is not so recorded). He stated that he could identify the person who had snatched his mobile phone and motorcycle. He further stated that he had met the police officials 2-3 times at the police station and did not know on how many documents he had signed there. He stated that he had not seen accused Vinayak at the police station prior to his Test Identification Parade (TIP). He denied the suggestion that the police had shown him photographs of the accused Vinayak prior to the TIP proceedings. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons had not committed any offence against him or that they had not robbed his motorcycle and mobile phone. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the police.
15. Further, to prove its case, prosecution examined PW2 ASI Rohtas Singh, who stepped into the witness-box and deposed that The witness FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 8 of 19 stated that on the intervening night of 01/02.08.2016, he was posted as ASI at PS Dwarka North. On that day, his duty hours were from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. He received DD No. 61A regarding a robbery near CRPF Quarters, Sector-16, Dwarka, New Delhi. He further stated that he, along with Ct. Ravinder, reached the spot where he met the complainant, Sumit Kumar. He recorded the statement of the complainant as Ex. PW1/A. He then prepared the rukka, Ex. PW2/A. Ct. Ravinder was sent to the police station for registration of the FIR. He further stated that in the meantime, SI Satish Yadav, along with Ct. Ravinder, reached the spot, and SI Satish Yadav informed him that the investigation of the present case had been marked to him by the SHO. They made efforts to search for the accused persons, but they could not be traced. Thereafter, he left the spot.
16. During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons, PW2 deposed that he received DD No. 61A at about 11:35 PM and soon thereafter left the police station to reach the spot. He stated that no specific departure or arrival entry was made. He further stated that it took him about 5-7 minutes to reach the spot, and he went there on his personal motorcycle. He stated that the complainant gave his statement in the presence of his brother, whose name he does not remember. He further stated that he remained at the spot for about 1 to 1½ hours. He stated that when he reached the spot, the complainant, his brother, beat staff, and PCR staff were already present there. He further stated that the Investigating Officer had not recorded the statements of those persons in his presence, and he could not say whether the IO recorded the statement of the complainant's brother or not. He stated that after handing over the investigation to the IO, he left the spot. He further stated that he cannot recall the exact time at which he left the spot. He stated that when the IO came to the spot, he left approximately 5-10 minutes FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 9 of 19 thereafter after explaining the situation to the IO. He stated that he might have reached the spot at about 1:35-1:40 AM. He further stated that the spot was approximately 200 meters away from the police picket. He denied the suggestion that the spot was not properly illuminated. He stated that Ct. Ravinder was sent to the police station at about 1:00 AM and returned to the spot along with the IO at about 1:35-1:40 AM. He stated that the complainant never met him at the police station in connection with the present case. He further stated that he tried to search for the accused persons nearby the spot on a motorcycle. He did not remember the colour and registration number of the Splendor motorcycle allegedly robbed from the complainant, but stated that it was a Splendor make motorcycle. He stated that no documents were prepared in his presence by the IO. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot or that all documentation was prepared at the police station and not at the spot. He further denied the suggestion that the accused had not robbed the motorcycle and mobile phone of the complainant. He also denied the suggestion that he did not make any efforts to trace the accused persons or that he was deposing falsely.
17. Further, to prove its case, prosecution examined PW3 ASI Josh Singh, who has stepped into the witness-box and deposed that on 31.08.2016, he was posted as a Constable at PS Dwarka North. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present case along with SI Satish Yadav. He further stated that he, along with the Investigating Officer (IO), reached Dwarka Court, where accused Karamvir was already produced before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. The IO interrogated the accused, and his disclosure statement was recorded, wherein he stated that he had thrown the mobile phone used in the incident and that the motorcycle used in the incident was with accused Vinayak. The witness stated that accused Karamvir was FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 10 of 19 arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/A. The pointing out memo was prepared by the IO vide Ex. PW3/B. The disclosure statement of the accused was prepared by the IO vide Ex. PW3/C. He further stated that thereafter, the accused was produced before the court in muffled face, and one day police custody remand was obtained. The accused was taken for medical examination to DDU Hospital. Thereafter, the accused led them to the spot, i.e., Kakrola Ganda Nala. He stated that the accused refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade (TIP). Co-accused Vinayak was searched, but he was not traceable. Thereafter, they returned to the police station along with accused Karamvir. Witness correctly identified accused Karamvir in the Court. He also stated that his statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
18. During his cross-examination by Ld. LADC for the accused Vinayak, PW3 denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter as no recovery was effected from him. He further denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting at the police station. He also denied the suggestion that the accused had not made any disclosure statement or that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. He further denied the suggestion that he had not conducted a fair and proper investigation in the present case and also denied that he was deposing falsely. Accused Karamvir @ Monu adopted the cross-examination conducted by the Ld. LADC for co-accused Vinayak.
19. Further, to prove its case, prosecution examined PW4 Ct. Lakhami Chand, who stepped into the witness-box and deposed that on the intervening night of 01/02.08.2016, he was posted at PS Dwarka North as Constable and on that day, he was on duty at Picket at Kakrola Ganda Nala. At about 11:50 pm, the complainant came at the picket and told him that he FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 11 of 19 has been robbed by four accused persons. The complainant took mobile phone of PW4 and called PCR and his mother. Thereafter, police came at the spot and statement u/s 161 CrPC of PW4 was recorded.
20. In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Karamvir @ Monu, PW4 deposed that he was on night duty from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am and he does not remember the person who had given him lift till picket of Section 16. He further deposed that he does not remember if a separate departure entry was made or not. He denied the suggestion that he does not remember the DD Number of the departure as he was never present at the spot. He admitted that he had not seen the boys involved in the incident. He further denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot at the time of the incident and he is deposing falsely and the complainant had not informed him about the incident. PW4 was duly cross-examined by Ld. LADC for accused Vinayak, as Nil, despite opportunity given.
21. And, last in order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW5 Inspector Satish Yadav, who being the investigating officer of the case, stepped into the witness-box and deposed that on 02.08.2016, he was posted as SI at PS Dwarka North. On that day, the investigation of the present case was marked to him after registration of the FIR. Thereafter, he reached the spot, i.e., near Ganda Nala Road, opposite CRPF Quarters, Village Kakrola, Dwarka, where he met ASI Rohtash, Ct. Ravinder, and the complainant Sumit. He prepared the site plan Ex. PW5/A at the instance of the complainant. The complainant provided him with a copy of the RC and the invoice of the mobile phone, which he placed on record. He further stated that on 21.08.2016, he received information from the Duty Officer, PS Dwarka North, regarding the arrest of one person namely Karamvir @ Monu in FIR No. 152/2016, PS Jafarpur Kalan, wherein he disclosed his involvement in the FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 12 of 19 present matter. He collected the relevant documents of the said case and placed them on record. He also moved an application for formal arrest of the accused. He stated that on 31.08.2016, accused Karamvir @ Monu was produced before the court, and with the court's permission, he interrogated the accused at Dwarka Court Complex and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/C. He formally arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A. On the same day, he moved an application for conducting TIP of the accused; however, the accused refused to participate in the same. Thereafter, one day police custody remand was granted by the Hon'ble Court. He prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW3/B of the spot at the instance of accused Karamvir @ Monu. On the same day, the complainant Sumit visited the police station and identified accused Karamvir @ Monu at the police station. He further stated that efforts were made to recover the case property, but the same could not be recovered from accused Karamvir @ Monu. He further stated that on 06.11.2016, the Duty Officer, PS Dwarka North, informed him regarding the arrest of co-accused Vinayak in FIR No. 62/2016, PS Special Cell, South-West Range, Saket, wherein he disclosed his involvement in the present case. He collected the relevant documents of the said case and placed them on record. He moved an application (Ex.PW5/B) for production of the accused on 09.11.2016. He further stated that on 10.11.2016, accused Karamvir @ Monu was produced before the court, and with court permission, he interrogated the accused at Dwarka Court Complex and recorded his disclosure statement, which is Ex. PW5/C. He formally arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/D. On the same day, he moved an application for TIP of the accused, and TIP was conducted on 16.11.2016, wherein the complainant correctly identified accused Vinayak @ Sonu. He further stated that during the investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses, and upon completion of the investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 13 of 19 court. He further stated that on 17.11.2016, he obtained one day police custody remand of the accused from the Hon'ble Court. He prepared the pointing out memo of the spot at the instance of accused Vinayak, as Ex. PW5/E. He also prepared a memo at the instance of accused Vinayak regarding the place where he had kept the stolen motorcycle, which is Ex. PW5/F. He recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of accused Vinayak, which is Ex. PW5/G. He further stated that during the investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses and, upon completion of the investigation, prepared the supplementary charge-sheet and filed the same before the court. Both accused Karamvir @ Monu and Vinayak were correctly identified by the witness.
22. During his cross-examination by Ld. LADC for the accused Vinayak, PW5 deposed that he visited the spot on the same day of the incident. The complainant was already present there. He further stated that no public persons were present at the spot and no CCTV cameras were installed there. He stated that the complainant informed them about the registration number of the motorcycle involved in the incident. He denied the suggestion that he had shown the face of accused Vinayak to the complainant at the police station, due to which the complainant was able to identify him in the TIP proceedings. He further denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter merely because no recovery was effected from him. He also denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting at the police station. He further denied the suggestion that the accused had not made any disclosure statement or that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted a fair and proper investigation in the present case and also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 14 of 19
23. During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Karamvir @ Monu, PW-5 stated that he had visited the spot on the same day of the incident. The complainant was already present at the spot. He further stated that no public persons were present at the spot and no CCTV cameras were installed there. He stated that the complainant informed them about the registration number of the motorcycle. He denied the suggestion that he had shown the face of accused Vinayak to the complainant at the police station due to which the complainant was able to identify him during the TIP proceedings. He further denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter as no recovery was effected from him. He also denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting at the police station. He further denied the suggestion that the accused had not made any disclosure statement or that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted a fair and proper investigation in the present case and also denied that he was deposing falsely.
24. Before discussing the testimonies of the PWs, it would be prudent to discuss the legal position involved in the present case.
25. To bring home the culpability of accused under Section 392 IPC, it is pertinent that relevant provisions of law are first read. Offence of Robbery is defined u/s Section 390 and punished u/s 392 PC and both are reproduced herein below:
390. Robbery.--In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery.--Theft is "robbery"
if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 15 of 19 to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. When extortion is robbery.-- Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted. Explanation.--The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
Section 392 IPC: Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years."
26. For a case to fall under section 392 IPC in case of theft amounting to robbery, actual theft as defined in section 378 IPC should be committed. In case titled "Malkhan Singh vs. State of Haryana 1994 SCC (Crl) 1422)", the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that for Section 392 IPC to apply, the prosecution has to establish that during the course of commission of the offence of theft the offender had caused or had intended to cause threat of death or hurt or wrongful restraint.
27. It is trite that in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused must be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the case at hand, is to be weighed keeping in view these legal standards.
FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 16 of 19
28. While considering the arguments of Ld. LADC for the accused Vinayak @ Sonu regarding conviction of the accused persons based on the sole testimony of the complainant concerned, it should be noted that the said arguments does not hold any ground. It is a settled proposition of law that an accused can be convicted based on the testimony of sole witness, if the same is found to be unblemished and gains the confidence of the Court. Further, section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, clearly provides that no particular number of witness is required to establish a case. It is the quality of the witness, not the quantity, which is to be seen. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also reiterated the said principle in the case of State Through Inspector of Police Vs. Laly @ Manikandan & Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 1424, and held that there can be a conviction on the basis of deposition of the sole eyewitness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and reliable.
29. Hence, in view of the above discussion, it becomes very clear that the accused can be convicted based on the sole testimony of the witness, however, it must be unblemished and wins the confidence of the Court.
30. In the instant case, the prosecution has already examined PW1 as the star-witness/ eyewitness to the incident. No other independent or public witness have been examined by the prosecution. Perusal of testimony of PW1 reveals that he had supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that four accused persons had stopped his motorcycle and one of them shown pistol to him and the other accused persons robbed his motorcycle and his mobile phone make Lava IRIS X8. He has identified the accused Vinayak @ Sonu during the TIP proceedings. He has also identified the said accused in the Court. The PW1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. LADC for the FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 17 of 19 accused Vinayak @ Sonu and no material contradiction could be seen in his testimony. Also, the Ld. LADC did not bring on record any material to show as to why the complainant would falsely implicate the accused Vinayak @ Sonu in the present case, even when they were not known to each other. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the testimony of the PW1 qua the accused Vinayak @ Sonu as it is free from any material contradiction or improvement.
31. However, the PW1 failed to identify the accused Karamvir @ Monu as he stated that he was not able to see the faces of all accused persons as it was dark at the time of the incident. PW1 was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that under Indian Law, the evidence of a hostile witness is not discarded completely as the legal maxim "false in uno false in omnibus" is not applicable. Reliance can be placed on the following observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana(2013) 14 SCC 434:
"It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
32. Therefore, it must be seen if the evidence of such hostile witness can be relied in part. PW1 in his testimony has correctly identified the accused Vinayak @ Sonu during his TIP proceedings and has also correctly identified him in the Court. He has also further supported the prosecution story. However, he failed to identify the accused Karamvir @ Monu and FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 18 of 19 clearly stated he could not see the faces of all accused persons as it was dark. Therefore, merely the witness has failed to identify the accused Karamvir @ Monu, his testimony could not be discarded as whole. Thus, if the evidence of PW1 is considered, there are sufficient material to implicate the accused Vinayak @ Sonu in the commission of the offence, however there is nothing to implicate the accused Karamvir @ Monu.
33. Therefore, in view of the above-discussions and findings, this Court finds that prosecution has proved the present case beyond reasonable doubt qua the accused Vinayak @ Sonu for the offence under section 392/34 IPC. However, the prosecution has failed to prove the present case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Karamvir @ Monu.
FINAL ORDER:
34. Thus, the accused Vinayak @ Sonu stands convicted for the offence u/s 392/34 IPC. However, the accused Karamvir @ Monu stands acquitted for the offence u/s 392/34 of IPC.
35. The accused Vinayak @ Sonu be heard separately on the point of sentencing.
Announced and signed in the Open Court on 8th day of April, 2026.
Digitally signedRAHUL by RAHUL KATARE KATARE Date: 2026.04.08 17:01:51 +0530 (Rahul Katare) JMFC-06/SWD/Dwarka Court New Delhi/08.04.2026 It is certified that this judgment contains 19 pages, and each page bears my signature.
FIR Number : 374/20 374/2016 16 PS Dwarka North State vs. Karamvir @ Monu @ Pana & Anr. Page 19 of 19