Delhi District Court
Fir No. 239/2016 State vs . Shekhar on 23 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI, ASJ-04
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No.DLCT01-002906-2017
SC No. 149/17
FIR No. 239/2016
U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC
PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station
STATE
vs.
Shekhar
S/o. Sh. Prem Pal
R/o. H. No. 3278, Rani Bagh,
Delhi.
Date of institution of case : 22.02.2017
Date on which judgment reserved : 02.11.2022
Date on which judgment pronounced : 23.12.2022
Decision : Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. In the present case, accused Shekhar has been charged and tried for the offences punishable under Section 392/394/397/34 IPC.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on 30.10.2016 under Section 394/397/34 IPC on the complaint of the complainant/injured Vinod Kumar, dated 30.10.2016, on the allegations that on 29.10.2016, the complainant alongwith his friend Sunil FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 1 of 20 and others was travelling from Bhatinda, Punjab to his native village by Punjab Mail train for the festival of Diwali. When the train reached Kishan Ganj Railway Station at around 5.00 p.m. on 30.10.2016, the complainant sensed that someone is touching his pocket and on checking, he found Rs. 10,000/- missing from the pocket of his pant. He caught hold of the accused Shekhar who was standing next to him, on which the accused Shekhar handed over the stolen money to his associate and started attacking the hands of complainant with blade. Due to loud noise, the other passengers of the train got awake and one of them found his mobile phone missing and when the call was made to his mobile phone by using the mobile phone of other passenger, the mobile phone found ringing in the pocket of accused Shekhar. The passenger took his mobile phone and to avoid any legal proceedings, the passenger left from there without disclosing his particulars. The friend of the complainant namely Sunil came there and at that time, accused Shekhar asked his associate Raju to run away on which the associate Raju fled away from there. During scuffle, the complainant and his friend received injuries. As the train was moving slowly, the accused got down from the train and started running. The complainant and his friend started chasing the accused while shouting, on which the RPF officials namely Ct. Subhash and Ct. Dharmender came there and with their help, the accused Shekhar was apprehended.
FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 2 of 20
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court against the accused Shekhar for the offences punishable under Sections 394/397/34 IPC.
4. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.
P.C., ld. M.M. committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
CHARGE
5. The charge under section 392/394/397/34 IPC was framed against the accused Shekhar to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION/DENIAL U/S 294 CR.P.C.
6. The accused admitted the following documents in the admission/denial proceedings u/s. 294 Cr. P.C. on 05.03.2020:-
MLC No. 7215/16 and 7214/16 of patients Sunil and Vinod already Ex. PW-7/B and Ex. PW-7/A. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. During prosecution evidence, in order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution has examined total 10 witnesses.
8. PW-1 Ct. Subhash Chand and PW-5 Ct. Dharmender deposed that on 30.10.2016, they were on duty and were present near the platform Kishan Ganj Railway station.
At about 5:30 am, when the Punjab Mail train arrived there, they saw the public persons chasing the accused FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 3 of 20 and shouting "chor-chor". They apprehended the accused Shekhar and he was taken to police post RPF Kishan Ganj from where the accused was handed over to the local police. They also deposed that one of the person chasing the accused was having hand injury and blood was oozing out from his injury and he had informed them that accused had robbed his money.
9. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he does not know whether any handing over memo was prepared. He further stated that he does not remember the exact date when his statement was recorded by the IO. He further stated that his statement was not recorded on the day of the incident and that he had not signed his statement. He denied the suggestion that he did not hand over the accused to the Duty Officer or that he is deposing falsely.
10. PW-2 WSI Prafulla deposed that on 30.10.2016, she was posted as Duty Officer. She recorded the FIR Ex.PW2/A and made endorsement Ex.PW2/B on the rukka and gave the certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW2/C. PW-2 was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
11. PW-3 Sh. Vinod Kumar is the complainant in the present case, who deposed that he is a labour by profession and on 29.10.2016, he alongwith his friend Sunil was returning from Bhatinda and was going to their native place i.e. Agra by Punjab Mail train. When their train reached at Kisan Ganj railway station at about 5-5:30 am, he felt his cash amount of Rs.10,000/- which was kept in FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 4 of 20 his pant pocket was missing and he immediately noticed one person near him and when he looked at him, that persons started running towards the gate of the train. He further deposed that he apprehended the said person at the gate and he asked him to return his money who immediately attacked upon him with blade and caused injury on his hand. PW-3 correctly identified the accused Shekhar in the Court during the testimony. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, his friend Sunil also reached there and accused Shekhar said to his associate 'Raju bhaag' and thereafter, both i.e. accused Shekhar and Raju deboarded from the slowly moving train and started running. He alongwith his friend Sunil also deboarded from the train and started chasing them. He further deposed that once they had apprehended both the accused persons, upon which the accused persons started manhandling with them. He also deposed that they had caused injury to his friend Sunil and thereafter one of them i.e. Raju managed to flee away from the spot and when the accused persons were trying to flee away, accused Shekhar had passed his cash amount of Rs. 10,000/- to Raju and thereafter Raju fled away from the spot alongwith his robbed cash. He also deposed that they were shouting 'chor-chor' and meanwhile, RPF police officials namely Subhash and Dharmender came there and accused Shekhar was apprehended and he was taken to police station Sarai Rohilla Railway Station and thereafter, they were medically examined in the hospital. He also deposed that he made complaint Ex.PW-3/A FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 5 of 20 regarding the incident to the police. He also deposed that his robbed cash has not been recovered till today. He further deposed that when they were in the train one passenger complained about missing of his mobile phone and he gave ring on his mobile phone by the mobile phone of another person upon which the missing mobile phone of said passenger was found from accused Shekhar and the said passenger had taken back his mobile phone. He also deposed that police had taken the copy of his train ticket Ex.PW3/B. He also deposed that he had taken his original ticket because he was not having much money to purchase another ticket. He also deposed that accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/D.
12. During cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that he had not seen the accused Shekhar while he was taking out the money from his pocket. He denied the suggestion that the accused had not taken any mobile phone of passenger or that no mobile phone was recovered from his possession which belongs to the passenger of the train. He also denied the suggestion that he has been tutored by the IO of this case. He further denied the suggestion that the accused Shekhar had not robbed his money or that he had not caused any injury upon him or his friend Sunil. He further denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further denied FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 6 of 20 the suggestion that he and Sunil had received injuries due to fall on the railway track.
13. PW-4 Sh. Sunil deposed that he is a labour by profession and used to do work of stone/ marble cutting. He also deposed that on 29.10.16, he alongwith his friend Vinod was going to their native place i.e. Agra from Bhatinda, Punjab by Punjab Mail train. He also deposed that they were in general coach of the train and at about 5/5:30 am, when their train reached near Kishan Ganj railway station, the mobile phone of one of the passenger and cash of Rs. 10,000/- of his friend Vinod was picked pocketed. He also deposed that the said passenger gave ring on his mobile phone by the mobile phone of another passenger, upon which ring tone of his mobile phone rang and the said mobile phone was found in the pocket of accused Shekhar, whose name was disclosed later on. He also deposed that the said passenger had taken back his mobile phone from accused Shekhar. He also deposed that his friend Vinod when tried to apprehend the person who had picked pocket cash, the said person had inflicted injury upon the hand of Vinod due to which Vinod sustained injury. Accused was correctly identified in the Court by PW-4. He also deposed that when he reached near Vinod to help him, accused alongwith his associate de-boarded from slow moving train and started running from there and that the accused Shekhar had passed the stolen cash to his associate and said 'Raju Bhagh'. He also deposed that they had also de-boarded from the train and FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 7 of 20 started chasing by shouting 'chor-chor' and in the meanwhile, two police personnel came there and accused Shekhar was apprehended. He also deposed that the associate of accused managed to flee away from the spot alongwith the cash of Vinod. He also deposed that when they were apprehending the accused Shekhar, he had manhandled with him also and due to that he had also sustained injuries. He also deposed that his friend Vinod and he were sent to hospital for their medical treatment. He also stated that police recorded his statement and also statement of his friend Vinod and FIR was registered. He further deposed that the robbed cash was not recovered.
14. During cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he had given his train ticket to the IO. He denied the suggestion that he had never purchased any train ticket or that he never boarded the train and that is why he is not able to show his train ticket. He stated that he had given statement to the police that when their train reached near Kishan Ganj railway station, the mobile phone of one of the passengers was pick-pocketed and recovered from the possession of the accused Shekhar. The witness was confronted with his statement u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. Ex. PW- 4/DA where it is not so recorded. The witness was further confronted with his statement u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. with respect to the other statements made in examination in chief. The witness could not tell whether the incident took place before the train reached Kishan Ganj railway station or thereafter as he had sustained injuries as he was FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 8 of 20 not in senses. He stated that he can not tell the name of the hospital where he was taken for treatment. He further stated that his friend has informed him that he had been pick-pocketed.
15. PW-6 ASI Ombir Tyagi, PW-8 HC Sujender and PW-10 SI Ved Prakash deposed on the same lines of investigation regarding the receipt of DD no. 5A and reaching the spot i.e. Kishan Ganj Railway Station, RPF post, where the custody of the accused Shekhar was handed over. Both the victims Sunil and Vinod as well as the accused Shekhar were taken to Hindu Rao Hospital where they were medically examined. IO recorded the statement of the complainant Vinod Kumar and prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct. Sujender. The accused Shekhar was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-3/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-3/D. IO also deposed that the photocopy of travelling ticket Ex. PW-3/B was seized from the victim Vinod Kumar. The witnesses were duly cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused on the lines of investigation.
16. PW-7 Dr. Amit Sharma, CMO, Hindu Rao Hospital, deposed that he medically examined injured Vinod, injured Sunil and accused Shekhar vide MLC bearing no. 7214/16 Ex. PW-7/A, MLC bearing no. 7215/16 Ex. PW- 7/B and MLC bearing no. 7216/16 Ex. PW-7/C respectively.
FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 9 of 20
17. In cross-examination, PW-7 has admitted that he has not opined about the nature of injury in all the abovesaid MLCs.
18. PW-9 HC Ramesh Chand deposed that on 29/30.10.2016, he was on duty at PS Sarai Rohilla from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. and at about 6.10 a.m. on 30.10.2016, he received the information from Control Room, which was reduced into writing vide DD No.5A Ex.PW-9/A and the computerized copy of DD No.5A is Ex.PW-9/B. He further deposed that the same was marked to HC Ombir. The witness was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.
19. The PE was closed and the statement of accused under section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. All the incriminating evidence was put to him and he stated that some quarrel took place with the complainant and the story of the complainant is false and fabricated. He further stated that he boarded the train from Shakur Basti for going to Aligarh and the complainant was not allowing him to board the train and scuffle took place with him. He also stated that the persons accompanying the complainant falsely raised allegations of stealing cash as well as mobile phone but nothing of that sort had happened except the scuffle. He also stated that he also sustained injuries in the scuffle. Accused wished not to lead evidence in his defence. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 10 of 20 FINAL ARGUMENTS
20. The Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the presence of the accused at the spot is not disputed. It is further argued that the statements of the victims and the police officials corroborate each other. It is further argued that if the matter was only of scuffle, there was no reason to make such a big case against the accused. It is further argued that there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused and the case has been sufficiently proved by the prosecution.
21. The Counsel for the accused argued that on the day of incident, the accused was alone and the complainant was accompanied by many people. It is further argued that the accused has been falsely implicated and the story of the prosecution is not favourable as the co-accused has not been arrested and the alleged stolen money has not been recovered. It is further argued that the prosecution has not proved whose mobile phone was stolen and that person is not made as a witness. It is further argued that despite taking PC remand of the accused, nothing could be recovered nor the co-accused could be arrested. It is further argued that there was no such incident of robbery but only scuffle. It is also argued that there is no recovery of the weapon of offence and that there are contradictions in the statement of witnesses. It is further argued that the statement of Ct. Subhash was not recorded on the day of incident and no other public person present in the train FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 11 of 20 have been examined by the prosecution. It is prayed the accused be acquitted from the charges in the present case.
LAW, ANALYSIS, APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND COURT FINDINGS
22. This court has heard the final arguments from both the sides and has meticulously perused the judicial record.
23. It is trite in law that to bring home conviction of accused, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond any reasonable doubt and the accused is presumed to be innocent till the time he is proved guilty and any benefit of doubt goes in the favour of the accused.
24. The accused Shekhar has been charged for the offences u/s 392/394/397/34 IPC.
25. Thus, the prosecution was under obligation to prove that the accused Shekhar had caused injuries to the complainant while committing robbery and that he had also used deadly weapon in the commission of such robbery.
26. In the present case, the criminal machinery was set into motion when an information reached PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station regarding quarrel which was recorded vide DD No. 5A dated 30.10.2016. On receipt of DD No. 5A, HC Ombir, Ct. Sujender, ASI Ved Prakash reached at RPF post, Sarai Rohilla Railway Station where the accused Shekhar was handed over by the RPF officials namely Ct. Dharmender and Ct. Subhash Chand. FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 12 of 20
27. The IO ASI Ved Prakash recorded the statement of complainant Vinod Kumar who alleged that the accused Shekhar had robbed his Rs. 10,000/- and also caused injuries on his hand by using blade and has also caused injuries to his friend Sunil. On the basis of the complaint, the present FIR was registered.
28. During the testimony in the Court, the complainant Vinod Kumar as PW-3 deposed that on 30.10.2016, at about 5.00/5.30 a.m., when the Punjab Mail train reached at Kishan Ganj Railway Station, the accused Shekhar had stolen Rs. 10,000/- from his pocket and when he tried to apprehend the accused Shekhar, the accused hit his hand with blade. The complainant also deposed that the accused handed over the stolen money to his associate and asked him to flee away. He also deposed that as the train was moving slowly, the accused got down from the train and started running, on which he alongwith his friend Sunil chased the accused while shouting "chor- chor" and with the help of RPF officials, the accused Shekhar was apprehended. The complainant was cross- examined at length by the ld. Counsel for the accused but the testimony of the complainant has remained unimpeachable. There is nothing in the cross-examination to shake the testimony of the complainant or to render it untrustworthy.
29. The complainant is the natural and injured eye witness of the incident, who is accorded a special status in law. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh, (2011) 4 FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 13 of 20 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:
"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 the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
30. In the case of Abdul Saved v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed thus:
"The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".
31. The friend of complainant namely Sunil Kumar was examined as PW-4 and he also deposed on the same lines FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 14 of 20 and corroborated the testimony of the complainant. Though, in the cross-examination, PW-4 has been confronted with his statement u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. on some parts of his examination in chief, however, the testimony of the complainant PW-3 finds material corroboration from the testimony of PW-4. Some improvements in the testimony of PW-4 will not efface the whole of the testimony of the witness PW-4.
32. The testimony of the complainant also finds corroboration from the deposition of the RPF officials PW-1 and PW-5 with the help of whom the accused Shekhar was apprehended, while the complainant and his friend were chasing the accused. PW-1 and PW-5 have unanimously stated that on the day of incident, they found the accused being chased by the complainant and his friend by shouting "chor-chor" and they also found the hand of the complainant bleeding. Their testimony has also remained unblemished even after the cross- examination by the ld. Counsel for the accused.
MLC OF THE COMPLAINANT
33. The complainant was medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW-7/A which reveals the following injuries on the hand of the complainant :-
(i) Incised wound on right side of the hand 6x5 cm.
(ii) Incised wound on right side of hand 1x2 cm.
FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 15 of 20
34. A bare glance at the injuries would reveal that they are incised in nature which means that they were caused by some sharp edged weapon. The MLC Ex PW7/A has been duly proved by the PW-7 Dr. Amit Sharma, CMO, Hindu Rao Hospital. The said MLC has also been admitted by the accused in admission denial proceedings u/s 294 Cr. P.C. Hence, there is no dispute over the fact that the complainant has received the aforesaid sharp injuries on 30.10.16 during the incident. The presence of such injuries further lends support and corroboration to the testimony of the complainant. In the examination u/s 313 Cr. P.C. the accused had admitted that there was scuffle between him the complainant, but he has not explained how the complainant has received such sharp injuries. During the cross-examination of PW-1, ld. Counsel for the accused has given a suggestion that the complainant and his friend have received injuries by falling on the railway track, but such suggestion is not found to be in consonance with the injuries sustained by the complainant which are incised in nature and that too in multiple number.
NO PREVIOUS ENMITY OR GRUDGE, NO DELAY IN REGISTRATION OF FIR, ARREST FROM SPOT
35. There is no previous enmity or grudge between the complainant and the accused or between the other witnesses for that matter. Thus, there can not be any reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. There is no delay in the FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 16 of 20 registration of FIR and the accused has been arrested from the spot immediately after the incident. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the complainant PW-3 and public witness PW-4 which are duly corroborated by the other evidence available on record. Their testimonies are trustworthy and have remained unblemished even after due cross examination.
NON ARREST OF CO-ACCUSED, NON RECOVERY OF STOLEN MONEY OR NON RECOVERY OF BLADE
36. The mere fact that the co-accused Raju could not be traced and arrested or that the case property i.e. Rs. 10,000/- has not been recovered could not be the reason to exonerate the accused. It is in the disclosure statement of the accused that he used to meet the co-accused on railway platform and that he does not know his proper particulars. Thus, non traceability of the co-accused and consequent non recovery of case property is not injurious to the prosecution case.
37. As regards the non-recovery of weapon of offence, it is a matter of record that after the incident, the accused deboarded the train and started running and was apprehended with the help of RPF officials. That being so, it was quite probable that the blade was thrown away by the accused to get rid of the same. But that by itself is not sufficient to cast any dent on the prosecution version because as held in Mohinder Vs. State, 2010 VII AD(Delhi) 645, non-recovery of weapon of offence is not FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 17 of 20 fatal to the case of prosecution. Further, the non recovery of weapon i.e. blade is also inconsequential as the injury suffered by the complainant clearly reveals that they were caused by some sharp edged weapon.
NON JOINING OF OTHER PUBLIC WITNESSES
38. The arguments of the defence Counsel that other passengers of the train were not cited or examined as a witness and therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted, are not found convincing. It is general tendency of the public persons not to join the police proceedings as they shy away to prevent unnecessary legal complications. The complaint/injured is the natural eye witness of the incident and his testimony is corroborated by other public witness. It is settled law that it is the quality of witness that matter but not the quantity of the witnesses. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted. It is so stipulated in Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, non joining of the other public witnesses who were the passengers of Punjab Mail train is not found material so as to affect the merits of this case.
39. In State of A.P. vs. S. Rayappa and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 512, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India commented upon the reasons for reluctance of the public persons to join as witnesses in criminal cases. It was observed thus:-
"7. On the contrary it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the Court especially in criminal case FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 18 of 20 because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are a harassed lot. They are being threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross- examination..."
40. It is a common experience that public persons are generally reluctant to join police proceedings. There is general apathy and indifference on the part of public to join such proceedings. This position of law was reiterated in Aslam v. State, 2010 III AD (Delhi) 133 where it was observed by the Hon'ble Court that reluctance of the citizens to join police proceedings is well known and needs to be recognized. It cannot be disregarded that public does not want to get dragged in police and criminal cases and wants to avoid them because of long drawn trials and unnecessary harassment.
FINDINGS
41. The presence of accused Shekhar at the time of incident on the spot is not disputed. No evidence has been led by the accused to prove his travel details and no train ticket of accused has been proved on record to show his bonafide travel. On the other hand, the copy of train ticket of the complainant pertaining to Punjab Mail train was duly seized which has not been controverted during the trial. The presence of the complainant at the spot is proved and he is the natural and injured eye witness of the incident. The sharp injuries on the hand of the complainant are properly proved by medical evidence. There is no delay in the registration of the FIR and the FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 19 of 20 accused has been arrested from the spot itself. The testimony of the complainant is found credible, cogent and reliable. Even after the lengthy cross-examination, the deposition of the complainant remains unimpeachable and unblemished. The testimony of the complainant finds corroboration from the testimonies of other witnesses and evidence on record. Considering the overall evidence on record, this court is of the view that the prosecution has sufficiently proved its case against the accused Shekhar and he could not escape his nemesis.
CONCLUSION
42. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds the accused Shekhar guilty and he is hereby convicted for offences U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC.
Pronounced in open court on 23rd December, 2022 (SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI) Additional Sessions Judge-04, Central, Delhi, THC, Delhi.
FIR No. 239/2016 State Vs. Shekhar PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, U/s. 392/394/397/34 IPC 20 of 20