Delhi District Court
State vs Asif @ Lala Anrs on 25 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS:
NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 9275/2016)
CNR No. DLND01-001306-2016
FIR No. 293/2015
Police Station Tilak Marg
Charge sheet filed 392/394/397/411/34 IPC
Under Section
Charge framed Under u/sec 392/394/34 IPC read
Section with section 397 IPC against
accused Tanveer @ Shabbu
u/sec 392/394/34 IPC against
accused Naseem Saifi
U/sec 411 IPC against accused
Asif @ Lala.
Asif @ Lala s/o Alimuddin
Saifi r/o H. No. L-2nd/ Gali
No. 23, Sangam Vihar, New
Delhi and Village Bhavanipur
State Vs. Khairu, PS Sahswn, District
Badaun, U. P
Naseem Saifi s/o Alimuddin
Saifi r/o L-2nd/1624, Gali
No. 20, Sangam Vihar, New
Delhi
Tanveer @ Shabbu s/o
Musrat Ali r/o L-2nd/578,
Gali No. 20, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi and Village
Nasirpur, PS Mujriya, District
SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 1 of 33
FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg
Digitally signed
by
DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.25
17:00:24
+0530
Badauan, Declared
U. P.
proclaimed offender vide
order dated 23.05.2022.
Date of institution 13.01.2016
Arguments concluded on 15.04.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 25.04.2026
Decision Accused Asif @ Lala
convicted u/sec 411
IPC
Accused Naseem Saifi
convicted u/sec 394/34
IPC
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS 1.1 Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that on 08.09.2015 on receipt of DD No. 31A, IO alongwith Ct. Dharmender reached at the spot i.e., near Red Light, Purana Qila, however, neither complainant nor eye witness was found there. Thereafter, on receipt of information from Lok Nayak Hospital, IO alongwith Ct. Dharmender reached at hospital where injured Manish Sharma was found admitted vide MLC No. EC1067981. IO recorded statement of injured Manish Sharma wherein he alleged that in the intervening night of 07-08.09.2015 at about 12:15 AM he left his office situated at East of Kailash for his house. At about 12:30 AM when he stopped his motorcycle at Red Light Mathura Bhairo Road, he noticed that three boys were present their alongwith their motorcycle. He further alleged that one of the boys made inquiries about the address in the meantime another boy told that his mobile phone fell to the side and requested him to help him with light SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 2 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:00:36 +0530 of his phone. He further alleged that after parking his motorcycle, he went towards the pavement and switched on the light of his mobile phone, in the meantime, one of the boys stabbed his left armpit and another boy put the knife on his neck and told him to hand over all the belongings to them. Third boy took out Rs. 33,000/- from right side pocket of his worn pants, mobile phone make Micromax Unit-II from his hands, two ATM cards (HDFC Bank and SBI Bank) and keys of his motorcycle. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away from there towards ITO and during that time, accused persons threw keys of his motorcycle. On the statement of complainant, present FIR was registered.
1.2 During investigation, site plan of the place of incident was prepared at the instance of complainant. As micromax A-106 IMEI No. 911422350892521 was put on surveillance, it was found that mobile No. 7503606294 was used in the said mobile phone on 08.09.2015. CDR and CAF of said mobile phone was obtained and same was found registered in the name of Danish Ali s/o Mohd. Ali. On 22.09.2015, raid was conducted at the house of Danish Ali and he was interrogated. During interrogation, Danish disclosed that on 08.09.2015 accused Asif @ Lala produced one Micromax phone before him for the purpose of selling and accused Asif @ Lala put SIM No. 7503606294 in the said phone. He further disclosed that when he asked for bill of the mobile phone, accused Asif @ Lala told to give the same later on, he took out his SIM from the said mobile phone. Thereafter, at the instance of Danish, accused Asif @ Lala was arrested and disclosed that the said mobile phone was handed over to him by Naseem and Shabbu to sell the same. At the instance of accused Asif @ Lala, mobile phone was recovered and seized. 1.3 During investigation, on 03.10.2015, accused Naseem Saifi was apprehended from L-2/1624, Gali No. 20, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 3 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:00:44 +0530 thereafter, at the instance of accused Naseem Saifi, accused Shabbu was apprehended. After interrogation, both the accused persons were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded wherein their confessed their involvement in the commission of offence with co-accused Mirza. Efforts were made to trace out ATM cards of complainant, SIM card and knife used in the commission of offence but of no avail and pointing out memos were prepared at the instance of accused persons. Motorcycle i.e., bearing No. DL-5SBL-0597 Hero Passion Pro used in the commission of offence was also recovered at the instance of accused Naseem. Site plan of the place of occurrence was also made at the instance of accused persons. Efforts were made to arrest accused Saddan @ Mirza but of no avail. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences under sections 392/394/397/411/34 IPC against accused persons was filed in the court.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 21.04.2016, charge under sections 392/394/34 IPC was framed against accused persons Tanveer @ Shabbu and Naseem Saifi. Accused Tanveer is additionally charged under section 397 IPC whereas accused Asif @ Lala was charged for committing an offence under section 411 IPC. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 18 witnesses in all.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY PROSECUTION WITNESSES SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 4 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:00:50 +0530 S. Name of Witness Exhibit number Description of documents N. 1 PW1 Dr. Vidhan Ex. PW1/A MLC No. ECI007981 Kumar
2. PW2 Manish Sharma Ex. PW2/A Statement (Injured) Ex. PW2/B Seizure memo of bill of mobile phone Ex. PW2/P1 Mobile phone bill Ex. PW2/C Superdarinama of mobile phone Ex. PW2/P1 Mobile Phone
3. PW3 ASI Rajvir Singh Ex. PW3/A FIR Ex. PW3/B Endorsement on rukka Ex. PW3/C Certificate under section 65-
B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW3/D DD No. 3A
4. PW4 Manoj Tandon Ex. PW4/A Request for verification of bill
5. PW5 Danish Ex. PW5/A Seizure memo of SIM card Ex. PW5/B Seizure memo of mobile phone make Micromax Ex. PW5/M1 SIM Card of Airecel company Mark PA Photographs of mobile phone
6. PW6 Ct. Rajender Ex. PW6/A Arrest memo of accused Asif SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 5 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.25 17:00:57 +0530 @ Lala Ex. PW6/B Personal search memo of accused Asif @ Lala Ex. PW6/C Disclosure statement of accused Asif @ Lala
7. PW7 Vikas Chand - Who handed over his Mallasi motorcycle to PW2 Manish
8. PW8 Ct. Ram Raj - Accompanied IO and PW6 Ct. Rajender
9. PW9 Ct. Dharmender - Accompanied IO at the spot PW13 HC Dharmender on receipt of DD No. 3A
10. PW10 Ct. Saurabh Ex. PW10/A Arrest memo of accused Naseem Saifi Ex. PW10/B Personal search memo of accused Naseem Saifi Ex. PW/10/C Disclosure statement of accused Naseem Saifi Ex. PW10/D Arrest memo of accused Tanveer @ Sabbu Ex. PW10/E Personal search memo of accused Tanveer @ Sabbu Ex. PW10/F Disclosure statement of accused Tanveer @ Sabbu
11. PW11 Salim (brother Ex. PW11/A Reply to notice under section of accused Naseem and 133 MV Act owner of motorcycle bearing No. DL-5SBL-0597) SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 6 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:01:31 +0530
12. PW12 Sanjay Singh, Ex. PW12/A CDR of mobile No. Assistant Manager, 7503606294 issued in the Aircel Ltd. name of Danish Ali.
Ex. PW12/B Cell ID Chart Ex. PW12/C Certificate under section 65- B of Indian Evidence Act 13. PW14 HC Devi Lal Ex. PW14/A Pointing out memo at the (accompanied IO instance of accused Naseem during investigation) Saifi Ex. PW14/B Pointing out memo at the instance of accused Naseem Saifi of the place where ATM card was thrown Ex. PW14/C Pointing out memo at the instance of accused Naseem Saifi of the place where SIM card was thrown Ex. PW14/D Seizure memo of motorcycle Ex. W14/E Pointing out memo at the instance of accused Tanveer @ Sabbu Ex. PW14/F Pointing out memo at the instance of accused Tanveer of the place where ATM card was thrown Ex. PW14/G Pointing out memo at the instance of accused Tanveer of the place where knife was thrown SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 7 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.25 17:01:35 +0530 Ex. PW14/H Supplementary disclosure statement of accused Tanveer Ex. PW14/I Photographs of motorcycle 14. PW15 Inspector Kishan Ex. PW15/A Site plan at the instance of Lal (IO) complainant Ex. PW15/B Application for TIP of accused Naseem and Tanveer Ex. PW15/C Site plan of recovery of mobile phone 15. PW16 HC Sunil Kumar - Accompanied IO and Ct. Devi Lal during investigation 16. PW17 Dr. Shalini Ex. PW17/A X-Ray report Sharma 17. PW18 Sujit Saurabh, Ex. PW18/X Application moved by IO for POLC-IX, Rouse TIP proceedings of accused Avenue Courts, New Naseem and Tanveer Delhi Ex. PW18/A TIP proceedings of accused Tanveer @ Sabu Ex. PW18/B Certificate of correctness of proceedings of accused Tanveer Ex. PW18/C TIP proceedings of accused Naseem Saifi Ex. PW18/D Certificate of correctness of proceedings of accused Naseem Ex. PW18/E Application of IO for supplying copy of TIP proceedings. SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 8 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.25 17:01:45 +0530 FORMAL WITNESSES
4. PW1 Dr. Vidhan Kumar deposed that on 08.09.2015 at about 12:59 AM one Manish Sharma was brought to casualty by Ct. Puran Mal with alleged history of physical assault. He further deposed that he examined the injured vide MLC No. ECI 007981 which is Ex. PW1/A. On local examination found that stab injury was present of size approximately 6 x 3 cm on left hypochondrium region laterally. He further deposed that after first aid injured was referred to general surgery department for further examination.
5. PW3 ASI Rajvir Singh being duty officer, exhibited FIR as Ex. PW3/A, endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW3/B, certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW3/C and DD No. 3A as Ex. PW3/D.
6. PW4 Manoj Tandon deposed he was running a mobile shop by the name of Vijay Electronics at 1/9294, Babarpur Road, Near Canara Bank, Shahdara, Delhi from July 2011 to January 2016. He further deposed that once a police official came to him and showed him a bill and inquired whether the said bill was issued from his shop and after verification he told that the bill was issued from his shop and he signed the request for verification of bill which is Ex. PW4/A.
7. PW7 Vikas Chand Mallasi, deposed that on the intervening night of 07-08.09.2015, his friend Manish Sharma asked him to give his motorcycle as his vehicle was not available. Accordingly, he handed over his motorcycle bearing No. DL-6SAA-9347 make Hero Honda Passion Pro to Manish Sharma.
7.1 He further deposed that on 08.09.2015, he came to know that
SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 9 of 33
FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.25
17:01:51 +0530
Manish was robbed by three persons by use of a weapon when he was riding on his motorcycle.
8. PW11 Salim deposed that he was registered owner of vehicle No. DL-5SBL-0597 make Hero Passion and he purchased the same in the year 2014. He further deposed that in the intervening night of 07-08.09.2015, said motorcycle was with his brother Naseem. He further deposed that on 04.10.2015, a notice under section 133 MV Act was served upon him to which he gave reply which is Ex. PW11/A that accused Naseem was driving the said motorcycle on the said day.
9. PW12 Sanjay Singh, Assistant Manager, Aircel Ltd. proved certified CDR of mobile No. 7503606294 registered in the name of Danish as Ex. PW12/A, certified copy of Cell ID chart as Ex. PW12/B and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW12/C.
10. PW17 Dr. Shalini Sharma, on 08.09.2015, she examined X-Ray Chest PA and X-Ray abdomen (erect and supine) of patient Manish Sharma and no significant abnormality was detected. She prepared her report which is Ex. PW17/A.
11. PW18 Sujit Saurabh, POLC-IX deposed that an application for conducting TIP proceedings of accused Naseem Saifi and Tanveer @ Sabu which is Ex. PW18/X was moved before him. He proved the TIP proceedings of accused Tanveer @ Sabu and Naseem Saifi as Ex. PW18/A and Ex. PW18/C respectively, certificate of correctness of proceedings conducted by him as Ex. PW18/B and Ex. PW18/D and an application moved by IO for SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 10 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:01:55 +0530 supplying of copy TIP proceedings as Ex. PW18/E. MATERIAL WITNESSES
12. PW2 Manish Sharma, deposed that in the intervening night of 07- 08.09.2015 at about 12:15 AM, he left his office situated at East of Kailash for his house at Shahdara on the motorcycle of his office staff as his bike was out of order. He further deposed that at about 12:30 AM, he stopped his motorcycle on the red light of Mathura Road-Bhairav Road as it was red light at that time. He further deposed that on the left side of the patri of the road, three boys were present i.e., one boy was sitting on the motorcycle whereas two boys were standing near the said motorcycle. He further deposed that accused Naseem Saifi asked some address from him and accused Tanvir @ Shabbu told him that his mobile phone had fallen on the side and he should help him with the light of his mobile phone to trace out his phone. He further deposed that he parked his motorcycle on the side, went towards the side of the patri, switched on the light of his mobile phone and in the meanwhile, accused Tanvir @ Shabbu kept a knife on side of his neck and thereafter, their third accomplice gave one knife blow on the left side of his stomach near his kidney. He further deposed that all three persons directed him to hand over all the belongings to them. They continued to manhandle him for about 5-10 minutes and thereafter, they robbed Rs. 33,000/-, ATM cards i.e., HDFC Bank and SBI Bank, keys of his motorcycle and his mobile phone Micromax Unit-II from his hands. He further deposed that they fled away on their black coloured motorcycle make Passion towards ITO and while fleeing, they threw the keys of his motorcycle there. He further deposed that blood was oozing out from his wound and some people had gathered at the spot. One auto rickshaw and one scooty also stopped there. He further deposed that two boys were sitting on the SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 11 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:02:01 +0530 said scooty and one of the boys drove his motorcycle with him as a pillion rider and the other boy drove the said scooty and they reached at LNJP Hospital. He further deposed that on the same night he was operated there and at about 05:00-05:30 AM, IO SI Kishan Lal came there and recorded his statement which is Ex. PW2/A. 12.1 He further deposed that on 22.09.2015, he had gone to police station Tilak Marg to know about the progress of his case where IO told him that they had not arrested the accused persons. He further deposed that he had gone to Tihar Jail for identification of accused persons and he identified accused Tanveer and Naseem Saifi there. He further deposed that he also handed over original mobile bill which is Ex. PW2/P1 of his mobile phone make Micromax Unit-II A106 to IO which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW2/B. He further deposed that he also showed the place of occurrence to the IO. Police also recovered his robbed mobile phone which was later on released to him on superdari vide superdarinama which is Ex. PW2/C. He proved his mobile phone as Ex. PW2/P1. 12.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Naseem and Asif @ Lala, he admitted that he was drunk on the date of incident. He stated that on the red light, he was standing in the middle of road and there was the tempo on his left side. He stated that he used to exchange money for the company with which he was working. He stated that the amount was in his pocket and same belonged to his office and same was given to him by the customer of the company. He stated that he informed his company officer about the incident on the next day. No person from his company came to the police station to verify the incident. He stated that he informed the mobile company regarding the lost of his mobile on next day and he obtained duplicate SIM after 2-3 days of the incident.
SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 12 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:02:05 +0530 12.3 He stated that no dossier of suspects were shown to him by the IO. IO had not informed him after the arrest of accused persons. He stated that no photographs of accused were taken in his presence. He stated that after the incident took place, he remained at the spot for abut 10-15 minutes and the persons on scooty came at the spot after 5-10 minutes of the incident i.e., stabbing by knife. He stated that at the time of incident, he was having two phones with mobile numbers. IO has not seized his motorcycle and he had only seen his RC. He stated that accused persons had beaten him badly with fist blows. He stated that motorcycle was taken back from hospital by his friend i.e., owner of the motorcycle and same was parked in front of the gate of emergency. He stated that his friend had taken back the motorcycle on the same night when he was in the process being taken for operation and same was taken back after arrival of police. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused persons.
13. PW5 Danish deposed that on 08.09.2015, accused Asif brought a mobile phone make Micromax to his room and asked him if he was willing to purchase the same. He further deposed that he put his SIM card of AIRCEL in the said mobile phone. He further deposed that he asked accused Asif about the receipt of said mobile phone upon which accused Asif told him to hand over the receipt after 3-4 days. He further deposed that he took out his SIM card from the said mobile phone and returned the same to accused Asif and told him that he would purchase the same on handing over the receipt/bill to him. 13.1 He further deposed that after many days, police came to his room and made inquiries from him. He further deposed that he told all the facts to the police and told them that he just put the SIM card in the said mobile phone brought by accused Asif. Thereafter, police officials told him that the said SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 13 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:02:09 +0530 mobile phone was robbed. He further deposed that he handed over his SIM card to police which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW5/A. The police officials also asked him about the whereabouts of accused Asif. He further deposed that he came to know that accused Asif was residing in Sector-10, Dwarka and thereafter, he alongwith police officials went to the work place of accused Asif @ Lala and from where he was taken to Sangam Vihar at his house. He further deposed that accused Asif produced mobile phone make Micromax before the police which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW5/B. He further deposed that accused Asif was arrested. 13.2 He identifies the SIM which he inserted in the mobile phone given by accused Asif @ Lala and exhibited the same as Ex. PW5/M1 and identifies the mobile phone in photographs Mark PA (colly).
13.3 He was cross examined on behalf of State where he admitted that SIM card was issued on a number 7503606294 in his name. He further admitted that due to lapse of time, he could not tell the number during his examination in chief.
13.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Naseem Saifi and Asif @ Lalla, he stated that he had checked the mobile phone after putting the SIM. He stated that he had gone with the IO in an auto to a kothi where accused Asif was working. He admitted that shops i.e., restaurants and hotels were there near the house of accused Asif. He stated that police did not ask any public person to join the investigation in his presence. He stated that only accused Asif had gone inside his room and brought the mobile from there. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
14. PW6 Ct. Rajender deposed that in the year 2015 (might be SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 14 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:02:13 +0530 22.09.2015), he alongwith HC Sunil and Ct. Jaibir went to Sangam Vihar on being called by SI Kishan Lal. He further deposed that SI Kishan Lal alongwith Ct. Ram Raj and two persons met them. IO told him the fact and they joined the investigation with IO. He further deposed that accused Asif @ Lalla was interrogated and he was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex.
PW6/A, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW6/B and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW6/C. He further deposed that accused Asif @ Lala took out a mobile phone make Micromax from a black colour bag which was lying in the corner of the room. 14.1 During cross examination done on behalf of Asif @ Lala, he stated that no public person was called to join the investigation. He denied that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused Asif @ Lala and recovery of mobile phone was planted upon him.
15. PW8 Ct. Ram Raj deposed that on 22.09.2015, he alongwith SI Kishan Lal went to H. No. 936, Gali No. 19, L-2, Sangam Vihar where one Danish Ali met them. He further deposed that Danish told them that he was not having mobile phone make Micro Max and told that on 08.09.2015, accused Asif @ Lalla, told him that he wanted to sell the mobile make Micro Max. He further deposed that Danish further told that he put SIM in the mobile phone brought by accused Asif @ Lala and made a call. Danish further told them that he asked accused Asif @ Lala to produce the receipt of the mobile phone, however, accused Asif @ Lala told him that he would give the receipt after 24 days. He further deposed that Danish further told that he handed over the mobile phone to Asif @ Lala after removing his SIM as he had not given the receipt of the mobile phone. He further deposed that Danish produce the SIM (AIRCEL company) to IO and IO seized the same. He further deposed that SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 15 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.25 17:02:17 +0530 inquiries were made from Danish about whereabouts of accused Asif @ Lala, who told that Asif @ Lal used to work in Dwarka with a contractor. 15.1 He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith SI Kishan Lal and Danish went to Dwarka where accused was found and they took him to Sangam Vihar. He further deposed that HC Sunil alongwith Ct. Jagvir and Ct. Rajender also reached there. IO interrogated accused Asif @ Lala, arrested him, conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement. Accused Asif @ Lala also produced mobile phone make Micro Max and told that the said mobile phone was robbed and it was given to him by other accused persons Naseem and Sabbo for selling the same. 15.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Asif @Lala, he stated that they reached Dwarka at about 11:00 AM. Contractor with whom accused was working was present there. 5-10 other workers were present there. He stated that contractor was constructing a hotel and workers were not called from inside the site to join the investigation. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
16. PW9 Ct. Dharmender also examined as PW13, deposed that in the intervening night of 07-08.09.2015, on receipt of DD No. 3A, he alongwith SI Kishan Lal went to the spot i.e., near red light, Old Quila, New Delhi, however, neither complainant nor eye witness met them. He further deposed that IO made a call on the number of the caller but he could not be contacted. He further deposed that on receiving an information regarding MLC, he alongwith IO SI Kishan Lal went to LNJP Hospital where IO obtained MLC of injured Manish Sharma. He further deposed that IO recorded statement of injured, prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he took the rukka to police station and handed SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 16 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:02:22 +0530 over the same to duty officer for registration of FIR. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, duty officer handed over to him copy of FIR and original rukka and he took the same to spot and handed over the same to IO. He further deposed that they searched for accused and case property but same could not be traced.
17. PW10 Ct. Saurabh deposed that on 03.10.2015, he joined the investigation of this case with SI Kishan Lal and Ct. Devi Lal and they went to L-2 Block, Sangam Vihar. He further deposed that after that they went to H. No. 1624, Gali No. 20 in the said block where accused Naseem was interrogated by IO. He further deposed that accused Naseem Saifi took them to H. No. 578, Gali No. 20 where accused Tanvir @ Sabbu was present. IO made inquiries from accused Tanvir @ Sabbu. Thereafter, both the accused persons were taken to police station Tilak Marg where accused Naseem was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW10/A, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW10/B and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW10/C. He further deposed that accused Tanvir @ Sabbu was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW10/D, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW10/E and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW10/F. 17.1 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Naseem Saifi, he stated that they entered into the house of accused Naseem Saifi and from there he was apprehended. He stated that only Nagma, sister of accused was present in the house besides accused Naseem Saifi. He stated that house of accused Tanvir was situated near the house of accused Naseem Saifi. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 17 of 33
FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.25
17:02:26 +0530
18. PW14 HC Devi Lal deposed on the lines of PW10 Ct. Saurabh qua apprehension of accused Naseem Saifi and Tanvir @ Shabbu. 18.1 In addition, he deposed that on 04.10.2015, he alongwith Ct. Sunil and IO alongwith accused Naseem Saifi left the police station for investigation and accused Naseem Saifi led them at T-Point, Bhairo Road, Mathura Road and pointing out memo was prepared at his instance which is Ex. PW14/A. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Naseem Saifi led them at BRT, Mehrauli Badarpur Road, on the left side near red light where he pointed out towards the spot where he had thrown robbed ATM cards. IO tried to search the robbed ATM cards but it could not be recovered and prepared pointing out memo which is Ex. PW14/B. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Naseem Saifi led them at Bandh Road, Sangam Vihar where he pointed out the place where he robbed the SIM card vide pointing out memo which is Ex. PW14/C, however, robbed SIM card could not be recovered. 18.2 He further deposed that thereafter, accused Naseem Saifi led them at his house i.e., H. No. L-2/1624, Gali No. 20, Sangam Vihar where at his instance a motorcycle bearing No. DL-5SBL-0597 was recovered which was used in the commission of offence which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW14/D. Photographs of motorcycle are Ex. PW14/I. He further deposed that the registered owner of the said motorcycle was found Salim (brother of accused Naseem). IO served notice upon Salim to join the investigation and recorded his statement.
18.3 He further deposed that on 16.10.2015, he alongwith IO and accused Tavir went to T-Point, Bhairo Road, Mathura Road as led by accused Tanveer and pointing out memo was prepared at his instance which is Ex. PW14/E. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Tanvir @ Shabu led them at BRT, Mehrauli Badarpur Road on left side near red light and pointed the SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 18 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:02:31 +0530 spot where accused Naseem Saifi had thrown robbed ATM card vide pointing out memo which is Ex. PW14/F. He further deposed that accused Tanvir @ Shabbu led them at Bandh Road, Sangam Vihar and pointed the place where he threw the knife which was used by him at the time of commission vide pointing out memo which is Ex. PW14/G. Accused Tanvir @ Shabbu also disclosed about his co-associate Mirza @ Saddan Mirza and IO recorded his supplementary disclosure statement which is Ex. PW14/H. 18.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Asif @ Lala and Naseem Saifi, he stated that sister of accused Naseem namely Nagma was present in the house but no inquiry/investigation was done from her. He stated that nobody from the locality was present at the time of raid. He stated that personal search of accused Tanveer and Naseem were conducted at the police station. He stated that complainant never visited the police station in his presence. He stated that on 04.10.2015, no request was made by him or by the IO to any public witness to join the investigation at the T-Point. He stated that no site plan was prepared by the IO in his presence at the place i.e., BRT M. B. Road. He stated that when they visited the house of accused Naseem Saifi on 03.10.2015, he did not see any bike bearing No. DL-5SBL-0597 outside his house. He stated that on 04.10.2015 when they visited the house of accused Naseem alongwith him, they saw the bike was parked outside his house and brother of accused Salim was present in the house. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
19. PW15 Inspector Kishan Lal, being the IO deposed about the investigation carried out by him and on the lines of PW6 Ct. Rajender, PW8 Ct. Ram Raj, PW9 Ct. Dharmender, PW10 Ct. Saurabh, PW14 HC Devi Lal and PW16 HC Sunil Kumar.
SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 19 of 33
FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.25
17:02:36 +0530
19.1 He exhibited site plan as Ex. PW15/A, application for TIP of
accused Tanveer and Naseem as Ex. PW15/B, site plan of the place of recovery of mobile phone as Ex. PW15/C. 19.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Naseem and Asif, he admitted that complainant never disclosed the number of motorcycle used by the accused persons. He stated that no blood was found at the crime spot and crime team could not be called for inspection as he was not certain about the place of occurrence. He stated that complainant was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of recording of his statement. He stated that at the time of recovery of mobile, he asked the public persons to join the investigation but they left after disclosing their excuse or reason and no notice was served upon them. He stated that he visited the room from inside from where the mobile phone was recovered. He stated that disclosure statement of accused Asif was recorded outside his house on the same day at around 06:30 PM. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused persons.
20. PW16 HC Sunil Kumar deposed on the lines of PW14 HC Devi Lal and PW15 Inspector Kishan Lal during his examination.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
21. After closure of PE, statement of accused Naseem Saifi and Asif @ Lal were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 16.12.2025, wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence put to them. They stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
21.1 Both accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence.
22. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 20 of 33
FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2026.04.25
17:02:41 +0530
ARGUMENTS
23. I have heard Sh. Gyan Prakash Ray, Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused persons.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
24. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature. Accused Naseem Saifi, Tanveer @ Shabbu (PO) and accused Saddan @ Mirza (PO) committed armed robbery with complainant Manish by robbing his phone, Rs. 33,000/- alongwith other documents. During the incident, accused Saddan @ Mirza stabbed the victim and accused Tanveer also used a knife for threatening purposes. During investigation, on the basis of surveillance, mobile phone of the complainant was traced and accused Asif was arrested at the instance of PW Danish. Accused Asif got recovered the stolen mobile phone from his possession. PW Manish has thoroughly supported the case of the prosecution and correctly identified accused Naseem Saifi and Tanveer during his deposition. PW Danish has deposed that robbed mobile phone was given to him by accused Asif for the purpose of selling the same but he did not purchase the same without bill. The recovery proceedings have been duly proved during evidence. Therefore, prosecution has proved its case against accused Naseem Saifi sections 392/394/34 IPC and section 411 IPC against accused Asif @ Lala.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelieved and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 .
SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 21 of 33
FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.25
17:02:45 +0530
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS
25. Per contra, Ld. LAC for accused persons has argued that this is a false and concocted case foisted against the accused. It is submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case as IO could not recover the knife allegedly used in the offence and robbed amount of Rs. 33,000/-. The recovery of robbed mobile phone and motorcycle is apparently false as no public witness has been cited in the recovery proceedings. The bill of the mobile phone has not been proved as per law as it is a handwritten bill having no sanctity attached to it. It is further argued that motorcycle was owned by one Saleem and not by accused Naseem. Moreover, complainant never revealed the number of the motorcycle to the IO. The TIP proceedings of the accused persons are tainted. It is further argued that complainant has not levelled any allegation against accused Naseem that he was stabbed by him. It is further argued that there is an unexplained delay in registration of FIR which raises a substantial suspicion on the investigation procedure. It is further argued that the statement of complainant is unreliable as he was admittedly under the influence of liquor at the time of alleged incident. He created a false story as he had misappropriated the amount of Rs. 33,000/- of his company and to save his skin from that offence, he weaved a story of robbery. It is argued that the persons, who shifted the injured to the hospital, have not been examined by the IO. It is stated that the investigation is full of lacunas which has created a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution and accused persons are entitled to be given benefit of doubt and they may be acquitted accordingly.
26. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record. I have also perused the written arguments filed by Ld. LAC.
SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 22 of 33
FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.25
17:02:52 +0530
27. Vide this judgment, I shall disposed off the case against accused Naseem Saifi and Asif @ Lala only as accused Tanveer @ Shabbu has absconded and was declared proclaimed offender.
FINDINGS
28. The accused accused Naseem Saifi is charged under sections 392/394/34 IPC and accused accused Asif @ Lala is charged for committing an offence under section 411 IPC.
29. The relevant sections are reproduced as under:
SECTION 392 IPC Punishment for robbery- 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.
SECTION 394 IPC Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.- 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.
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.
SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 23 of 33
FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.25
17:03:00 +0530
SECTION 411 IPC
Dishonestly receiving stolen property.-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.
SECTION 34 IPC Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
30. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 24 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:03:04 +0530 "the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved.It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
31. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
32. The star witness of the prosecution is PW2 Manish Sharma, who has thoroughly supported the case of the prosecution and correctly identified accused Naseem Saifi as the person, who was present at the spot. He described his role by stating that he contacted the complainant when he was standing in traffic congestion due to a red light signal and accused Naseem Saifi inquired about an address from him. He was accompanied by accused Tanveer and Saddan @ Mirza. Accused Tanveer asked the complainant to assist them as he had dropped his mobile in darkness and he requested the complainant to help him to search his mobile phone with the help of light of his mobile phone.
When complainant proceeded to help then accused Tanveer took out a knife and pointed towards the stomach of the complainant. Accused Saddan @ Mirza stabbed him and all three accused persons robbed Rs. 33,000/- from him, his mobile phone and other documents. While fleeing away on a black colour motorcycle, they also threw the key of the motorcycle of the complainant. This witness has been thoroughly cross examined on behalf of the accused persons but nothing concrete could be extracted which could be of SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 25 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:03:09 +0530 any help to the cause of accused persons.
33. It is argued on behalf of accused persons that IO could not recover the robbed amount of Rs. 33,000/- and the knives used in the offence. The incident occurred on 08.09.2015 at around 12:30 AM whereas the first person was arrested on 22.09.2015 in the form of accused Asif @ Lala. This case was worked out as mobile phone of the injured was kept on surveillance. One day, one mobile SIM registered in the name of PW5 Danish Ali, was used in the said mobile phone. When police contacted PW5 Danish Ali, he stated that the mobile phone was brought by accused Asif @ Lala for selling the same and he checked the mobile by inserting the same. He took out his SIM back as accused Asif could not produce the bill of the mobile. Thereafter, accused Asif was arrested and he disclosed the involvement of other accused persons.
34. As stated above, the incident occurred on 08.09.2015 whereas the first arrest was effected on 22.09.2015 and in the time gap of these 14 days, it was not an uphill task for the accused persons to spend and use the robbed amount of Rs. 33,000/-. So, I do not find any reason to suspect the case of the prosecution if IO could not recover the robbed amount and this aspect is insignificant in the light of credible testimony of PW2 and PW5 Danish Ali.
35. As far as non recovery of weapon of offence is concerned, that is not a sine qua non to prove an offence against an accused.
36. In Saleem Khan Vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 491/2020 decided on 05.01.2022, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has dealt with the similar factual matrix which are identical to the present case. In SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 26 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:03:14 +0530 that case injured and his brother had deposed against the accused that accused attacked them with a knife (churri). Injured suffered two injuries one on his neck and the other one on his stomach. Accused also attacked his brother when he tried to save the injured from the accused. During investigation, police could not seize the weapon of offence and no public witness was joined in the investigation. The trial court convicted the accused and the judgment was upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. While dealing with testimony of an injured, the court relied upon State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naresh and Ors. 2011 4 SCC 324 wherein it was held as under:
27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
37. While relying upon the judgment of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naresh (supra), Hon'ble High Court held that testimonies of injured and his brother were credit worthy and reliable and the appeal was dismissed.
Applying the ratio of Saleem Khan's case (supra) the credible testimony of PW2 Manish Sharma cannot be categorized as suspicious as he has thoroughly supported the case of the prosecution. It is not the case of the prosecution that they have been falsely implicated and identified by PW2 Manish and PW5 Danish on account of previous enmity. So, non recovery of weapon of offence has no bearing on the merits of this case.
SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 27 of 33
FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.25
17:03:18 +0530
38. It is also pleaded on behalf of accused persons that IO did not examine the persons, who had shifted the injured to the hospital. No public witness was cited in the recovery proceedings of mobile phone as well as motorcycle used by the accused persons in the commission of offence.
39. The issue of absence of public witness during investigation has been deliberated over many a times by higher courts. In State Vs. Sunil and Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 652, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It need hardly be said that in order to lend assurance that the investigation has been proceeding in fair and honest manner, it would be necessary for the Investigating Officer to take independent witnesses to the discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act; and without taking independent witnesses and taking highly interested persons and the police officers as the witnesses to the discovery would render the discovery, at least, not free from doubt.
In this context we may point out that there is no requirement either under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to obtain signature of independent witnesses on the record in which statement of an accused is written. The legal obligation to call independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the exercise made by the police is cast on the police officer when searches are made under Chapter VII of the Code. Section 100(5) of the Code requires that such search shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found, shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses. It must be remembered that search is made to find out a thing or document which the searching officer has no prior idea where the thing or document is kept. He prowls for it either on reasonable suspicion or on some guess work that it could possibly be ferreted out in such prowling. It is a stark reality that during searches the team which conducts search would have to meddle with lots of other articles and documents also and in such process many such articles or documents are likely to be displaced or even strewn helter-skelter. The legislative idea in insisting on such searches to be made in the presence of two independent inhabitants of the locality is to ensure the safety of all such articles meddled with and to protect the rights of the persons entitled thereto. But recovery of an object pursuant to the information supplied by an accused in custody is different from the searching endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code. This Court has indicated the difference between the two processes in the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & anr. vs. S. Sardar Ali & ors. (1983 SC 1225). Following observations of Chinnappa Reddy, J. can be used to support the said legal proposition: Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code to which reference was SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 28 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:03:23 +0530 made by the counsel deals with searches and not seizures. In the very nature of things when property is seized and not recovered during a search, it is not possible to comply with the provisions of sub-section (4) and (5) of section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of a seizure [under the Motor Vehicles Act], there is no provision for preparing a list of the things seized in the course of the seizure for the obvious reason that all those things are seized not separately but as part of the vehicle itself.
Hence it is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the Investigating Officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily be attested by independent witnesses. Of course, if any such statement leads to recovery of any article it is open to the Investigating Officer to take the signature of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The court has to consider the evidence of the Investigating Officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth.
We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hang over persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions.
40. In Rizwan Khan Vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4297, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 29 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:03:27 +0530 ground of non-corroboration by independent witness. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case, [see "Pardeep Kumar (supra)].
In the recent decision in the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563, while considering somewhat similar submission of non-examination of independent witnesses, while dealing with the offence under the NDPS Act, in paragraphs 15 and 16, this Court observed and held as under: "15. The judgment in Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 521, relied on by the counsel for the respondent State also supports the case of the prosecution. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held that merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that the accused was falsely implicated. The evidence of official witnesses cannot be distrusted and disbelieved, merely on account of their official status.
As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way round. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature."
41. So, law is settled that the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected merely on the ground that public persons could not be joined in recovery proceedings. In fact, this argument is apparently misconceived as seizure memo of the mobile phone was prepared in the presence of PW5 Danish Ali, who happens to be a public witness. He proved the seizure memo as Ex. PW5/B and also deposed in unequivocal manner against accused Asif @ Lala. The recovery of the motorcycle was effected at the instance of accused Naseem Saifi from his residence and he himself handed over the keys of the same. Prosecution has examined, PW11 Saleem, who happens to be the brother of the accused Naseem and registered owner of the motorcycle. He has deposed that motorcycle bearing No. DL 5SBL 0597 owned by him was in possession and control of accused Naseem Saifi on the date, time and place of incident. Although, the motorcycle is not a case property in this case but still this Court has no reason to question the seizure proceedings of the same merely on the ground that it was not witnessed by a public witness.
SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 30 of 33
FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.25
17:03:32 +0530
42. It is also argued on behalf of accused persons that there is a considerable delay in registration of FIR but this argument is completely devoid of any merit. As per the complaint of victim Manish Sharma, the incident occurred around 12:30 AM and the police was informed at 00:59 hours vide DD No. 003A. Therefore, the police was informed immediately to the effect that the offence of robbery was committed and the victim was stabbed. IO recorded the statement of the complainant in the hospital and sent the rukka for registration of FIR at 05:35 AM which is not a delayed one by any stretch of imagination. The incident occurred at 12:30 AM and the rukka was sent at 05:35 AM. So, there is no delay in registration in FIR or informing the police.
43. It is also argued on behalf of accused that bill of the mobile phone is an unrelied document. This argument is again of no consequence in this case. This bill was seized by the IO vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW2/B as it was handed over by the complainant. Prosecution has examined PW4 Manoj Tandon, who is owner of Vijay Electronics from where the robbed mobile was purchased by the complainant. PW4 verified the mobile bill which is Ex. PW2/P1. The genuineness of the bill cannot be questioned merely on the basis that details have been mentioned in handwriting and the entire bill is not a printed one. The IMEI number of the mobile is duly mentioned in the bill and so, there is no reason to suspect the correctness of this bill. Moreover, the mobile phone has been identified by PW2 Manish Sharma in his examination. So, argument of Ld. LAC with regard to bill of the mobile phone is liable to be rejected.
44. Last but not the least argument addressed on behalf of accused SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 31 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:03:37 +0530 persons is that complainant was under the influence of liquor and he had misappropriated Rs. 33,000/- of his office and he cooked up a story of armed robbery to cover up his misappropriation of the said amount. As per contents of MLC, complainant had consumed liquor on the date of incident but it is also mentioned by the doctor that he was conscious and oriented. If a person is under the influence of liquor then it has to be seen whether he was oriented or not to act as a prudent and responsible citizen. The deposition of complainant cannot be brushed away merely on the basis of fact that he had consumed some amount of alcohol on that day. If he was heavily drunk on that day then this fact should have been mentioned by the doctor in the MLC. As far as misappropriation of the amount is concerned, this is again a defence put up without any corroboration of it. As stated above, complainant has no rhyme or reason to identify the accused persons in the Court. If complainant had cooked up a false story then role of PW5 Danish Ali would not have come in picture. When the police traced the mobile of the complainant, it was PW5 Danish Ali, who disclosed the involvement of accused Asif @ Lala and who subsequently disclosed about roles of other accused persons. Therefore, the fact that victim was under the influence of alcohol at the time of incident is inconsequential to the outcome of this case and it is of no help to the accused persons.
CONCLUSION
45. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, I am of the considered view that prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused Naseem Saifi under section 394/34 IPC as he actively participated in the armed robbery with co-accused persons in furtherance of their common intention. He has been correctly identified by PW2 Manish Sharma during his deposition and this Court has no reason to suspect his deposition. PW2 Manish Sharma had SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 32 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.25 17:03:42 +0530 suffered simple injuries inflicted by a knife, accused Naseem stands convicted under section 394/34 IPC which is a graver offence than section 392 IPC, ends of justice would be served, if he is convicted under section 394/34 IPC only.
46. Accused Asif @ Lala was found in possession of the robbed mobile which he tried to sell to PW5 Danish Ali. He was fully aware that it was a stolen property as he never contacted Danish Ali again to sell the mobile phone when he asked for bill of the mobile. The mobile phone was recovered at his instance from his residence and that too in presence of PW5 Danish Ali. Accused Asif @ Lala was found in possession of stolen mobile phone having reason to believe to be as stolen property and hence, accused Asif @ Lala stands convicted under section 411 IPC.
47. Put up for arguments on sentence on 30.04.2026.
Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.25 17:03:47 +0530 Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana) Court on 25.04.2026 ASJ-07, Patiala House Courts, (running in 33 pages) New Delhi. SC No. 9275/2016 State Vs. Asif @ Lala & Ors. Page No. 33 of 33 FIR No. 293/2015 PS Tilak Marg