Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu on 19 February, 2026
(RK) CA 271/2025
IN THE COURT OF BABRU BHAN, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-04, NORTH-EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 271/2025
STATE Vs. SONU
FIR No-78/2020
PS-(NEW USMANPUR)
U/s:-356/379/411/34 of IPC
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. STATE (through Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor, N/E, KKD
Courts, Delhi) ...Appellant
Versus
1. Sonu @ Rahul
S/o- Sh. Sanjay,
R/o- H.No-10/6, Gali No-19,
West Ghonda, Delhi. ...Respondent
Date of Institution : 02.12.2025 Date of O r d e r : 19.02.2026 ORDER ON APPEAL Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2026.02.19 17:47:45 +0530 State Vs. Sonu FIR No-78/2020 Page No. 1 of 8 (RK) CA 271/2025
1. The appellant/State has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 06.08.2025, passed by Ld. JMFC-02, N/E Distt, KKD Courts, Delhi in case titled as "State Vs. Sonu @ Rahul" which was registered at PS New Usmanpur vide FIR No-78/2020.
2. The present appeal has been filed after a delay of 24 days, therefore, same is also annexed with an application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. The application says that the certified copies of the impugned judgment were received on 25.09.2025. Thereafter, final approval was given by the concerned DM on 09.10.2025. The said approval was conveyed to the O/o Ld. CP, East on 30.10.2025. The aforesaid procedure consumed a considerable time and the delay occurred.
3. The notice of the application has been given to Ld. Counsel for the respondent/accused today in the court.
4. Submissions on the application have been heard.
5. While dealing with such applications of short delays, the court should adopt a justice oriented approach. A hyper- technical view should be avoided so that the matter may be taken to its logical conclusion on merits.
6. Here in this case, the present appeal has been filed after a small delay of 24 days. Same has been properly explained. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay stands allowed. The delay is hereby condoned.
7. Now returning to the merits, the case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.02.2020, respondent/accused alongwith his Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2026.02.19 17:47:53 +0530 State Vs. Sonu FIR No-78/2020 Page No. 2 of 8 (RK) CA 271/2025 associate (since not arrested) snatched a mobile phone make Lenovo, colour Golden from the possession of complainant Bharat Jain. The complainant Bharat Jain had levelled further allegations that the mobile phone was forcibly snatched using criminal force. Subsequently, respondent/accused was arrested in case FIR No-479/2020, PS New Usmanpur and he got recovered the mobile phone which is subject matter of this case. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed before the Ld. Trial Court for offence U/s 356/379/411/34 of IPC.
8. The Ld. Trial Court framed the charges against the respondent/accused for offence U/s 356/379/411 of IPC vide order dated 12.05.2023. After framing of charges, Ld. Trial Court issued summons to the only material witness Bharat Jain but he did not appear despite service of summons through DCP. Consequently, Ld. Trial Court dropped him from the list of witnesses. Since, there was no other material witness therefore Ld. Trial Court proceeded to acquit the respondent/accused via the impugned judgment.
9. During course of arguments, Ld. Addl. PP for State has submitted that Ld. Trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused on a very questionable and invalid ground that prosecution failed to secure the presence of the material witnesses. Ld. APP has further argued that once charge is framed, the matter comes completely in the hands of the court and the Trial Judge has no alternative but to decide the case on merits one way or another, depending upon the quality of evidence produced before it. Here in this Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2026.02.19 State Vs. Sonu FIR No-78/2020 Page No. 3 of 8 17:47:58 +0530 (RK) CA 271/2025 case, if the investigating agency was not producing the witness despite service of summons, the court should have taken coercive steps to ensure the presence of the witness. Criminal proceedings are not conducted at the mercy and discretion of a witness. It is duty of the court to exercise all the powers to secure the presence of a witness. Thus, it was not appropriate for the Ld. Trial Court to struck off the name of material witness because he had not appeared despite service of summons through DCP. Ld. APP has also submitted that the appeal be allowed and the matter be remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court with directions to take coercive steps against the complainant in case, he does not appear on service of summons.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent/accused has submitted that Ld. Trial Court had made all the possible efforts to secure the presence of the material witness Bharat Jain. Intervention of higher police authority was also sought. Summons were issued through DCP concerned but he did not appear. When a material witness did not appear before the court despite service of summons through DCP concerned, Ld. Trial Court had no option but to drop him from the list. Since, the remaining witnesses were formal in nature and their examination would have been a fruitless exercise, therefore, there was no occasion to continue with a trial which had already been rendered lame. Thus, the Trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent/accused.
11. Submissions have been heard. Record has been perused.
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2026.02.19 State Vs. Sonu FIR No-78/2020 Page No. 4 of 8 17:48:04 +0530 (RK) CA 271/2025
12. In case titled as "State Of Gujarat vs Rajendrasinh Ramjansinh And Ors. on 18 March, 1996", Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat had held as under:-
"1. We have been simply stunned to find quite queer and totally indiscreet attitude of the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in acquitting four accused persons on the most questionable ground, viz., that the prosecution failed to examine the witnesses!! It is simply unfortunate and disgusting too, that on the one hand the learned trial Judge did not care to realise his own duty to do justice, as if he had none, and on the other hand, placing the entire blame on the prosecution side, as if that was just and sufficient ground to white-wash the accusation of serious offence levelled against the accused, more particularly in a serious case wherein sword has been used, and the accused has been arraigned for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the 1. P. Code!! It is indeed a settled legal position to be ignorant about by any experienced Judge that once the charge is framed, the ball is unquestionably in the court of the trial Court and the learned trial Judge has, indeed no alternative but to decide the case on merits one way or the other depending upon the quality of evidence produced before him. If the Investigating Agency was found to be careless, remiss in not assisting in keeping the witnesses present before it, the Court ought not have felt that utterly helpless in exercising its powers, by seeing that the witnesses were made to be kept present by adopting coercive method. Merely because apparently the learned trial Judge was annoyed and frustrated with the prosecuting agency in not keeping the witnesses present before the Court for examination on the date so fixed for hearing, that wrath, anger and displeasure could not have been given vent to the greatest detriment and prejudice of the cause of justice!! To do so is not only indiscreet, illegal but with respect, we may further add and assert that it is gross judicial misconduct also. If the prosecuting agency did not keep witnesses present before the Court, what wrong, fault was indeed committed by the injured, aggrieved citizen who knocked the door of the Court for justice? In fact, this is a case wherein we believe that if the prosecution failed to discharge its duty in keeping the witnesses present before the Court, likewise the trial Court has also unpardonably miserably failed in discharge of its duty in not issuing bailable, failing which even non-bailable warrants to the recalcitrant witnesses and concerned Investigating Officer to secure their presence before the Court and give evidence. Here in the instant case, in Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Sonu FIR No-78/2020 Page No. 5 of 8 2026.02.19 17:48:10 +0530 (RK) CA 271/2025 fact, it appears that the learned A.P.P. had asked for some time that was not granted by the trial Court. In our view, if the summons were served and it was brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer, and still, if the witnesses did not remain present, nothing prevented the learned trial Judge from issuing non-bailable warrants against the concerned witnesses, including the Police Officer. When the prosecution for whatever reasons does not keep the witnesses present before the Court and at this juncture, if the Court also, depending upon the mercy of the process serving agency surrenders its duty and will to do justice to the recalcitrant witness and/or to the inefficient investigation agency, then, in that case, we are afraid, in good many cases, the Court will have to record the order of acquittals If Under such circumstances, what is the difference between the Courts doing justice and the recalcitrant witnesses and inefficient process serving agency, hostile to the cause of justice? To sit passive with the folded hands! Such unjust and illegal acquittals because of spineless attitude of the Judge is always nothing but a judicial suicide. We totally disapprove and condemn such negative attitude which has brought about the total failure of justice. If the criminal justice system is gradually failing, shaking the faith of people in it, it is entirely because of the unconcerned judicial attitude, with no sense of accountability to the cause of justice! This simply cannot be done and never done and yet we find that the learned trial Judge has done it!! In fact, on this point of elementary duty of the Court and procedure to be followed when witnesses are not present or produced before the Court, there are plethora of judgments from this Court itself, and had indeed the learned trial Judge and for that purpose even the learned P.P. tried little even to go through the digest of cases, they could have surely found out a correct procedure and acted upon the same. To cite some such reported decisions, they are: (1) State of Gujarat v. Lalit Mohan 1989(2) GLR 952; (2) State of Gujarat v. Ramanbhai R. Pandya 1993(1) GLR 881; (3) State of Gujarat v. Dr. C.K. Patel, ; (4) State of Gujarat v. Kirti Maganbhai Patel 1993(1) GLR 674; (5) State of Gujarat v. Lohana Prakash Dayalji and Anr. 1994( 1) GLR 112; (6) State of Gujarat v. Shambhubhai Jivrambhai Patel 1995(1) GLR 803; (7) B.J. Pandya, Octroi Inspector, Godhra Municipality v. Arvindkumar Kanubhai Hadial and Ors. 1995(2) GLR 1100; and (8) State of Gujarat v. Bhupatbhai Muljibhai and Anr., 1995(1) GCD 786. In this last mentioned case, in para 6, it is held as under: "Now having heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides quite at length, it clearly appears to this Court that the Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN State Vs. Sonu FIR No-78/2020 Page No. 6 of 8 BHAN Date:
2026.02.19 17:48:17 +0530 (RK) CA 271/2025 impugned order is per-se perverse and illegal."
13. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that once charge is framed, the ball is unquestionably in the court of the Trial Court and the Ld. Trial Judge has indeed no alternative but to decide the case on merits, one way or other depending upon the quality of evidence produced before it. If, the investigating agency is found to be careless, remiss in not assisting in getting the witness present before it, the court should not feel helpless in exercising its powers and to ensure the presence of the witness by adopting coercive methods.
14. Here in this case, the summons issued to PW Bharat Jain were received back served but despite service, he did not appear. On non-appearance of the witness, Ld. Trial Court struck off his name as if it was discretionary or optional for the witness to appear in the court. Undoubtedly, when a witness is not traceable despite all the possible efforts and intervention of higher police authorities, court is justified in striking off such witness as there is no other option. However, when a witness is duly served but he chooses not to appear, the court is not remediless. It can validly take coercive steps in form of Bailable Warrants or Attachment Warrants in case of non-appearance after execution to Bailable Warrants. Here in this case, Ld. Trial Court did not carry out any such exercise.
15. To the understanding of this court, Ld. Trial Court was not right in its approach by extending unwarranted benefit to the respondent/accused merely because the witness had Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2026.02.19 State Vs. Sonu FIR No-78/2020 Page No. 7 of 8 17:48:23 +0530 (RK) CA 271/2025 chosen not to appear despite service of summons. Nothing had prevented the Ld. Trial Court from taking coercive steps against the witness.
16. For the reasons above, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is not sustainable in eyes of law. Same is accordingly set aside. Appeal is allowed.
17. Matter is remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court with direction to make all the possible efforts to ensure the presence of material witness namely Bharat Jain. In case, he does not appear, needless to say, Ld. Trial Court shall adopt required coercive methods.
18. Matter be put up to Ld. CJM, N/E for 23.02.2026.
19. TCR, if any be sent back to the concerned Court alongwith copy of this order.
20. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
21. Ordered accordingly. BABRU BHAN Pronounced in the open court Digitally signed on 19-02-2026. by BABRU BHAN Date: 2026.02.19 17:48:31 +0530 (BABRU BHAN) ASJ-04/North-East District KKD/Delhi/19.02.2026 State Vs. Sonu FIR No-78/2020 Page No. 8 of 8