Delhi District Court
State vs Mujaffar Ali on 9 September, 2025
FIR No. 250/2009
PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN GUPTA: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - 04 : NEW DELHI DISTRICT :
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
DLND010083432017
FIR No. 250/2009
PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
(MORE THAN 15 YEARS OLD MATTER)
STATE VS. MUJAFFAR ALI & ORS.
SC No. : 192/2017
Date of offence : 24.06.2009
Accused : (1) Mujaffar Ali
S/o Sh. Irfan Ali
R/o Vill. Til Begampur, PO
PS Sikandrabad, Distt.
Bulandshehar Uttar Pradesh
(2) Ashif Ali @ Tamancha
S/o Sh. Bhure Khan
R/o H. No. 902, Mohalla Bazar
Wala, near Fuwara Chowk,
VPO & PS Kishore,
State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 1 of 22
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.09
16:01:46
+0530
FIR No. 250/2009
PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
Distt. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh
(3) Arman @ Kala
S/o Sh. Ishtiyak
R/o Mohalla Badwaliyan,
PO & PS Kithore,
Distt. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh
(4) Taslim
S/o Late Sh. Mohd. Anwar
R/o Mohalla Badwaliyan,
near Jalaldhipura,
VPO & PS Kishore,
Distt. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused Mujaffar Ali is
convicted for the offence under
S. 393 IPC
Date of committal : 26.05.2017
Date of conclusion of
final arguments : 06.09.2025
Date of judgment : 09.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons are facing trial for the offences u/s 392/395/397/120B/34 IPC.
State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 2 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN Date:
GUPTA GUPTA 2025.09.09 16:01:57 +0530 FIR No. 250/2009 PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH BRIEF FACTS
2. The case of prosecution is that on 24.06.2009, on receipt of DD No. 45A, the police officials of PS Vasant Kunj North reached at the spot i.e. NH-8 Rajokari Flyover, Gurugaon, Delhi. On reaching the spot, they found that crowd had gathered and one person by the name of Mujaffar Ali was produced by the crowd. The complainant Satya Narayan gave the statement that he is working as helper in the vehicle of Vinod bearing No. HR55H1677. In the intervening night of 24- 25.06.2009, when the driver of the dumper after parking the vehicle went to take water and he was inside the vehicle, two persons entered into the dumper and forcibly caught hold of him from his legs and led him on the stairs. Two more persons entered into the dumper and one of them pointed pistol on his head and the other sat on his chest. Out of the four, one tied his neck with rope and the other started the dumper. They also inserted the cloth in his mouth and threatened to keep him quiet otherwise they would kill him. They brought the dumper above, however, the dumper could not move due to hand brake. He got chance to raise alarm and raised the alarm. On hearing his noise, driver Rajesh and some other public persons as well as owner of the dumper namely Vinod rushed to him and he was escaped State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 3 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.09.09 16:02:02 +0530 FIR No. 250/2009 PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH from the robbers. Out of the four assailants, three managed to escape and one was apprehended i.e. accused Mujaffar Ali. On the basis of the statement of Satya Narayan, FIR u/s 392/34 IPC was lodged. Accused Mujaffar Ali was arrested and the relevant exhibits were lifted and seized from the spot. On the basis of the disclosure statement of Mujaffar Ali, remaining persons namely Taslim, Arman, Asif, Nafees, Abid and Zahid were arrested. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against all these persons u/s 392/395/120B/34 IPC r/w 25/54/59 Arms Act.
CHARGE
3. In the present matter, vide order dated 21.05.2022, accused Nafees, Abid Ali and Zahid were discharged for all the offences. The charges for the offences u/s 392/323/34 IPC were framed against accused Mujaffar Ali, Asif Ali, Armaan and Taslim. Vide order dated 21.05.2022, additional charge for the offence u/s 397 IPC was framed against accused Taslim. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.07.2022, additional charge for the offence u/s 394/34 was framed against accused Mujaffar, Asif Ali, Armaan and Taslim. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 4 of 22
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.09
16:02:06
+0530
FIR No. 250/2009
PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. ADMITTED DOCUMENTS
(a) FIR as Ex.A1,
(b) Endorsement on the rukka as A-2,
(c) DD No. 45A dated 24.06.2009 as A-3,
(d) DD No. 17A dated 15.07.2009 as A-4,
(e) DD No. 62B dated 24.06.2009 as A-5,
(f)TIP proceedings of accused Asif Ali as A-6 (refused),
(g) TIP proceedings of accused Armaan as A-7 (refused),
(h) TIP proceedings of accused Taslim as A-8 (also Ex.PW3/D) (refused).
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined following fourteen witnesses.
A. PW-1 Satya Narayan is the complainant. He deposed that in 2009, he was working as helper with driver Rajesh on dumper No. HR1677. In the intervening night of 24-25.06.2009, at about 01:00 am, he was present in the dumper. The driver went to bring State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 5 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.09 16:02:12 +0530 FIR No. 250/2009 PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH water from Rajokri Flyover. The dumper was parked near some distance from their office. He was sitting inside the dumper. Two persons entered into the dumper and forcibly caught hold of him from his legs and led on the stairs. Two more persons entered into the dumper and one of them pointed pistol on his head and the other sat on his chest. Out of the four, one tied his neck with rope and the other started the dumper. They also inserted the cloth in his mouth and threatened to keep him quiet otherwise they would kill him. They brought the dumper above, however, the dumper could not move due to hand brake. He got chance to raise alarm and raised the alarm. On hearing his noise, driver Rajesh and some other public persons as well as owner of the dumper namely Vinod rushed to him and he was escaped from the robbers. Out of the four assailants, three managed to escape and one was apprehended i.e. accused Mujaffar Ali. He further deposed that accused Mujaffar Ali was handed over to the police. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. He deposed that accused Arman caught hold of him from his leg, accused Asif assaulted him and caused injury on his head and eye brow. He identified accused Taslim as the person who had caught hold of him from his hair and sat on his chest. He deposed that all the accused persons assaulted him. He gave the plastic rope Ex.P1 which was used by accused Mujaffar and co-accused persons which was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B. State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 6 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.09 16:02:19 +0530 FIR No. 250/2009 PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH Accused Mujaffar was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/C, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He further deposed that later on he was called to the court for identifying the other accused. He had identified accused Armaan, Taslim and Asif Ali when they were coming out from the court room in muffled face and they had removed their muffle from their faces.
He during his cross-examination deposed that at the time of incident he was 18 years old. The distance between office and the place where the dumper was parked was about 4-5 feet. There was no other vehicle present near the dumper. There was street light. The electricity pole was situated at a distance of 9-10 feet. He admitted that the position of electricity light pole is not shown in the site plan. The driver had parked the dumper at about 12:30 - 12:45 am. After few minutes, driver Rajesh went for taking water from the office leaving him in the dumper. At the time of the incident, the light of the cabin was OFF. He had boarded the dumper from conductor side. He was sleeping when the accused persons had entered into the dumper. He was having keypad mobile phone at that time and the same was misplaced during the incident. He deposed that accused Armaan and Mujaffar had entered from conductor side and accused Asif and State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 7 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.09
16:02:24
+0530
FIR No. 250/2009
PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
Taslim from driver side. The width of window from which the accused persons entered was about 2-3 feet.
B. PW-2 Vinod Kumar Yadav is the owner of the dumper. He deposed that in the intervening night of 24-25.06.2009, at around 01:00 am, he received a call from his driver who informed him that some persons came and forcibly entered into the dumper when the helper was sitting inside and he had come out to take water. He immediately reached the spot where police official, his driver, helper and one person i.e. accused Mujaffar was in custody. The dumper was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A and the documents Ex.P1 were seized vide Ex.PW2/B. He during his cross-examination deposed that at the time of incident, he was present in his house and reached at the spot after receiving the call from driver. His residence was at the distance of about 1-2 km from the place of incident. He had reached the spot within 10 minutes. Police and public persons were found present at the spot when he reached there. There were around 40-50 public persons. One accused was apprehended at the spot and was handed over to the police. Satyanarayan who was working as a helper is in his distant relation. He used to call Satyanarayan as and when required.
State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 8 of 22
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.09
16:02:29
+0530
FIR No. 250/2009
PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
He does not remember, if, police official recorded statement of any public person.
C. PW-3 Insp. Ravi Yadav & PW-12 SI Rajbir Singh:
PW-3 deposed that on 15.03.2010, he was assigned the investigation of the present case. It was revealed to him that accused Taslim would be produced before the court on request of IO from UP. He alongwith Ct. Mahavir reached the concerned court where accused Taslim was to be produced by UP police. PW-3 and PW-12 deposed that on 15.03.2010, PW-3 moved an application for interrogation of accused Taslim and during interrogation, he gave the disclosure statement Ex.PW3/A. They arrested accused Taslim vide memo Ex.PW3/B and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW12/A. They deposed that accused Taslim refused for TIP vide proceedings Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D. They deposed that accused Taslim took the police party to the place of occurrence and pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW3/E. PW-12 SI Rajbir Singh further deposed that on 17.03.2010, he alongwith other police officials went to the house of accused Taslim at Kasba and PS Kithore, District Meerut. They searched for a person namely Mustaq but nothing could be revealed State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 9 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.09 16:02:34 +0530 FIR No. 250/2009 PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH by him. Accused Taslim gave supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW11/C .
D. PW-4 ASI Rajender Singh deposed that on 26.06.2009, accused Mujaffar Ali took the police party to village Kithore, Meerut, UP and got arrested accused Asif Ali. The accused Asif Ali gave the disclosure statement Ex.PW4/A. He was arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/C. He pointed out the spot vide memo Ex.PW4/D. E. PW-5 Ct. Subhash Chand & PW-8 Insp. Aishveer Singh:
Both these witnesses deposed that on 14.07.2009, on the basis of the information of the secret informer, they alongwith other police officials arrested accused Arman and Nafees (discharged) from a Tata 407, Andheria Road, Vasant Kunj. They proved the arrest memo and relevant documents of accused Arman as Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C and his disclosure statement as Ex.PW5/D. They proved the kalandra as Ex.PW5/E and the DD entry 47A as Ex.PW8/A. The seizure memo of the Tata 407 as Ex.PW5/A. State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 10 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.09 16:02:39 +0530 FIR No. 250/2009 PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH F. PW-6 Dr. Sandeep Sharma proved the MLC of injured Satyanarayan Ex.PW6/A. He during his cross-examination admitted that no opinion in respect of nature of injury is given on the MLC Ex.PW6/A. He deposed that he cannot give any opinion as to the nature of injuries suffered by the patient.
G. PW-9 ASI Amir Khan deposed that on the intervening night of 24-25.06.2009, at around 01:00 am, he was on patrolling duty on the road coming from Gurugaon side and going towards Dhaula Kuan side of NH-8. He saw crowd had gathered there. ASI Rai Singh and HC Ved Prakash had also reached there. As he entered the crowd, he saw that accused Mujaffar Ali was being beaten by public persons. One dumper vehicle bearing No. HR55H1677 was also found standing on the side of the road. Its owner, helper and driver were also present at the spot. The helper Satyanarayan narrated the entire incident to ASI Rai Singh and produced the rope which was used by accused persons for strangulating him and robbing the dumper on gun point. IO recorded the statement of Satya Narayan and after preparing the tehrir got the FIR registered and arrested accused Mujaffar Ali vide memo Ex.PW1/C, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/D, seized the rope Ex.P1 vide memo Ex.PW1/E, seized the State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 11 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.09 16:02:44 +0530 FIR No. 250/2009 PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH dumper vide memo Ex.PW2/A. Accused Mujaffar Ali gave the disclosure statement Ex.PW9/A. PW9 during his cross-examination deposed that he used to patrol the area of NH8 and used to attend calls relating to that area. They had not received any call with regard to present incident and were on routine patrolling duty. At about 1 am, they had reached Rajokri Flyover, going from Gurgaon to Dhaula Kuan. About 25-30 public persons were standing on the road on Rajokri Flyover. When they reached Rajokri Flyover, accused Mujaffar Ali was already apprehended after being beaten by the public persons. He observed bleeding injuries on the face of accused Mujaffar Ali. He did not make any independent inquiry from the public persons present at the spot except the driver, owner and helper of the dumper truck.
H. PW-10 ASI Baljeet Singh deposed that on 15.07.2009, co-accused Arman and Nafees were produced before the court and after permission of the court, they were interrogated and arrested in the present case vide memos Ex.PW10/A to Ex.PW10/D. Both the accused persons gave the disclosure statements Ex.PW10/E and Ex.PW10/F. State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 12 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.09 16:02:48 +0530 FIR No. 250/2009 PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH I. PW-11 ASI Ved Prakash deposed that in the intervening night of 24-25.06.2009, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am with ASI Rai Singh. While they were returning to PS and had reached Rajokri Flyover, they observed crowd had gathered there. Accused Mujaffar Ali was produced before the IO by PW-1 Satya Narayan who informed that he was the helper in vehicle number HR55H1677 and narrated the entire incident to the IO that accused persons tied him with plastic rope and tried to take away the dumper at gun point. That the IO recorded the statement of Satya Narayan and after preparing the tehrir handed over the same to him for registration of the FIR. He after registration of the FIR returned back to the spot alongwith the copy of FIR and tehrir. PW-11 further deposed that IO arrested accused Mujaffar Ali and took truck and rope Ex.P1 into possession and deposited the same in maalkhana. He also identified the signatures of IO/ASI Rai Singh (since expired) on the complaint Ex.PW1/A and the rukka Ex.PW11/A. He also identified the signatures of IO/ASI Rai Singh on arrest memos of accused persons Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW3/B. He identified the signatures of the IO on the personal search memos Ex.PW4/C, Ex.PW10/C, Ex.PW1/DA and seizure memos Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/D. He identified the signatures of IO/ASI Rai Singh on the disclosure statements of accused persons Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW4/A, State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 13 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.09
16:02:53
+0530
FIR No. 250/2009
PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
Ex.PW10/E & Ex.PW11/C and the pointing out memo of accused Asif Ali Ex.PW4/D. PW11 during his cross-examination deposed that on the day of incident he was on emergency call in other case. He cannot say how many persons had gathered at the spot. The accused Mujaffar Ali was produced to the IO by Satyanarayan and driver of the truck. He prepared the rukka and left for the registration of the FIR. The IO had recorded the statement of 3-4 public persons.
J. PW-13 SI Jaipal Singh deposed that on 14.07.2009, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Mehrauli. SI Aishveer had deposited a Tata 407 and had also deposited two personal search memo articles pertaining to accused Arman @ Nafis in register No. 19 at Sr. No. 3295 Ex.PW13/A. That on 18.07.2009 he had sent the Tata 407 vehicle through ASI Rai Singh to PS Vasant Kunj where the present case was got registered vide RC No. 43/21/09 vide entry Ex.PW13/B. K. PW-14 SI Jagmal Singh deposed that he was also working as MHC(M) on 25.06.2009. ASI Rai Singh has deposited with him one personal search memo articles i.e. one plastic rope & one dumper truck. PW-14 deposed that he had made entry at Sr. No. State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 14 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.09
16:02:57
+0530
FIR No. 250/2009
PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
2725 Ex.PW14/A(OSR) in register no. 19. That on 27.06.2009, the said dumper truck was released on superdari. On 18.07.2009, ASI Rai Singh deposited with him one Tata 407 Truck and details thereof were entered by him at Sr. No. 2766 Ex.PW14/B(OSR) which is in his handwriting. The said Tata 407 Truck was released on superdari on 23.07.2009.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, all incriminating material as appearing in the evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC. They pleaded innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated by police officials in the present case in order to solve the blind robbery case. They chose not to lead DE.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
7. The accused persons are facing trial for the offences under S. 392/394/323/34 IPC. The accused Taslim is also facing trial for the offence under S. 397 IPC. The ingredients of robbery are-
State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 15 of 22
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.09
16:03:02
+0530
FIR No. 250/2009
PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
a) There must have been commission of theft as defined in section 378 IPC,
b) The act of theft must have been committed by the offender causing or attempting to cause fear of death, hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
8. The material witnesses of prosecution are PW1 Satyanarayan and PW2 Vinod Kumar Yadav. PW1 Satyanarayan was working as helper in the dumper which the accused persons tried to rob on the intervening night of 24-25.06.2009. PW1 during his testimony has deposed that while he was sitting in the dumper, two persons entered and forcibly caught hold of him with his legs and led him on the stairs. While other two more persons entered into the dumper and one of them pointed a pistol upon his head and the other sat on his chest. One of them tied his neck with rope and the other started dumper, but they could not move the dumper due to hand brake. He raised noise and on hearing his noise a lot of public as well as the driver Rajesh Gandhi and owner of the vehicle Vinod rushed to him and got him escaped from those robbers. Three of the said robbers managed to run away and they caught hold of one of the robbers who was subsequently identified as accused Mujaffar Ali.
State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 16 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN Date:
GUPTA GUPTA 2025.09.09 16:03:08 +0530 FIR No. 250/2009 PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
9. In the present case, only one of the accused Mujaffar Ali was caught on the spot and the remaining accused persons have been arrested subsequently on the basis of the disclosure statement of accused Mujaffar Ali. The accused Asif, Taslim and Arman refused for their TIP. The offence is alleged to have been committed in the intervening night of 24-25.06.2009 and the accused Asif, Taslim and Arman were shown to the complainant/PW1 on 07.07.2022 during his testimony before the court. PW1 during his testimony has deposed that he had seen the accused persons when they were produced for their TIP in the muffled face. He has stated that during the time they removed their muffle after refusal of TIP, he identified them. Though, PW1 has deposed that he had identified them in the court, however, there is no such statement of PW1 on record.
10. The only evidence against accused Asif, Taslim and Arman is identification by PW1 during his testimony in the court which was recorded on 07.07.2022, hence, the court has to be careful in accepting the said identification, because the incident had taken place in the night. The offence took place in the night and as per the testimony of PW1 while he was sitting inside the dumper, two boys caught hold of him with his legs and led him on the stairs and the State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 17 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.09
16:03:13
+0530
FIR No. 250/2009
PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
other two persons pointed pistol and one sat on his chest. He during his cross-examination deposed that the light inside the dumper was OFF and he was sleeping at that time. The encounter of offenders with the witness/PW-1 was for a very short time. In such a situation, even, if there was sufficient visibility as per the testimony of PW1, identification of accused persons by him in the court is required to be corroborated by some more facts. It has come up in the testimony of PW1 that he had identified the accused persons when they had appeared in the court in the muffled face. This shows that the IO had deliberately brought the complainant to the court before moving the application for the TIP of accused Asif, Taslim and Arman, hence, the reason assigned by the accused persons that they have been shown by the IO to the complainant while refusing for the TIP is justified. The possibility of PW1 seeing them prior to TIP cannot be ruled out.
11. As discussed above, except the sole testimony of PW1 Satyanarayan, prosecution has failed to bring on record any other evidence, either oral or documentary to prove the allegations against accused Asif, Taslim and Arman. I have carefully perused the statement of PW1. It has been held in catena of decisions that there is no legal hurdle in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness, if, his version is clear and reliable, for the principle is that the State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 18 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.09
16:03:18
+0530
FIR No. 250/2009
PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness. [Reliance placed upon Kusti Mallaiah vs State of A.P.; 2013 Cri.LJ 3098]
12. In the present matter, the testimony of PW1 falls in the third category of cases. Thus, the court has to be circumspect while relying upon the testimony of the sole witness. As discussed above, there is no corroboration on any of the aspect either direct or circumstantial. The accused Taslim is facing charges for the offence under S. 397 IPC however, nothing has come up in the testimony of PW1 that he pointed any deadly weapon towards him during the incident. As discussed above, the identification of accused Asif, State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 19 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.09
16:03:23
+0530
FIR No. 250/2009
PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
Taslim and Arman for the first time by PW1 in the court does not repose confidence as his testimony has been recorded almost after 13 years of the incident.
13. In the present case, accused Mujaffar Ali has been arrested from the spot. Admittedly, the dumper which he tried to rob could not be robbed as PW1 raised alarm and he was apprehended on the spot. At the most from the testimony of PW1, the offence of attempt to commit robbery is made out against accused Mujaffar Ali only.
14. In Harbir Singh v. Sheeshpal & Ors. (2016) SCC 418, it was observed that it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted.
State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 20 of 22
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.09
16:03:28
+0530
FIR No. 250/2009
PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH
15. It is settled law that if two views are possible, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted. The Apex Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. The Dist. Inspector of Police and Ors. (2015) 10 SCC 152, has held that if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Relevant para whereof is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"25. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam MANU/SC/0564/2013: (2013) 12 SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused".
16. It is relevant to note that in the present case, there is no independent witness produced by the prosecution in support of its version and to corroborate the testimony of sole witness PW1. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case set out against the accused persons much less beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under S. State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 21 of 22 Digitally signed by KIRAN KIRAN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.09 16:03:33 +0530 FIR No. 250/2009 PS: VASANT KUNJ NORTH 392/394/323/34 IPC. Accordingly, all the accused persons are acquitted for the offences under S. 392/394/323/34 IPC. The accused Taslim is also acquitted for the offence under S. 397 IPC.
However, the prosecution has proved that the accused Mujaffar Ali attempted to commit robbery of the dumper and was arrested on the spot. Hence, the accused Mujaffar Ali is convicted for the offence under S. 393 IPC.
CONCLUSION The accused persons namely Asif Ali, Arman and Taslim are acquitted for all the offences in the present case. Accused Mujaffar Ali is acquitted for all the other offences, but is convicted for the offence under S. 393 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.09
16:03:38
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (KIRAN GUPTA)
COURT ON 09.09.2025 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04 NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI State Vs. Mujaffar Ali & Ors. Page no. 22 of 22