Delhi District Court
State vs Dharmender on 16 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT
DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Twinkle Chawla, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 45082/2016
CNR No. -: DLND020005672008
FIR No. -: 102/2008
Police Station -: Inderpuri
Section(s) -: 394/468/471/474/34 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Pal Singh
R/o Village Bahadurpur,
PO Nayabas Distt Etah, UP.
Vijay Bharti Raj @ Sonu
S/o Sh. Jagdish Babu
R/o Village Bithwara,
PO Jhapara District Ferozabad, UP
...Accused Persons
1. Name of Complainant :- Neeraj
2. Name of Accused Persons :- (i) Dharmender Yadav
@ Ravi Kumar
(ii) Vijay Bharti Raj @
Sonu
3. Offence complained of or proved :- 394/468/471/474/34
IPC
4. Plea of Accused Person :- NOT GUILTY.
5. Date of Commission of offence :- 08.08.2008
6. Date of Filing of case :- 04.10.2008
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 30.03.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 16.04.2026
FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. PageDigitally
1 of 20
signed by
Twinkle
Twinkle Chawla
Chawla Date:
2026.04.16
15:49:22
+0530
9. Final Order :- Accused Dharmender
acquitted of the
offences U/s
394/468/471/34 IPC
and Convicted of the
offence U/s 474 IPC
Accused Vijay Bharti
Raj acquitted of the
offence U/s 394/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.08.2008 at about 08:45 pm at Ratanpuri Chowk, the accused persons namely Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar and Vijay Bharti Raj @ Sonu voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant (Madhur) by using a helmet, in the commission of robbery in respect of motorcycle no. DL 4S BJ 5654 (make Bajaj XCD), belonging to the complainant. Further, during the arrest and apprehension of accused Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar, one fake/forged DL bearing no. 499/FZD /2006 and a PAN card bearing no. ASXPK-2534L was recovered from him. As per the prosecution, the said DL and PAN Card were issued in the name of one Ravi Kumar S/o Mohar Singh, who is a distinct person from the present accused Dharmender Yadav S/o Rajpal Singh, but bears the photograph of the present accused. Hence, as per the prosecution, both accused persons have committed the offence punishable u/s 394/34 IPC and the Accused Dharmender has also committed the offences punishable u/s 468/471/474 IPC.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the above named Accused and challan was presented in the court on 28.07.2008.
FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. PageDigitally 2 of 20 signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:49:31 +0530
3. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to him in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a prima facie case against the Accused persons, charge for the commission of offences, punishable under Section 394/34 IPC was framed upon both the Accused persons and the additional charge for the commission of offences punishable under Section 468/471 IPC was framed upon the Accused Dharmender on 25.01.2010 for which the Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, additional charge for the commission of offence punishable under Section 474 IPC was framed upon the Accused Dharmender on 25.02.2026, for which the Accused pleaded not guilty. However, the State did not wish to lead any further evidence and at the request of Ld. Counsel for the Accused, PW-3, PW-7, PW-14 and PW-17, were re-called for further cross-examination.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial for the offence u/s 394/34 IPC and u/s 468/471/474 IPC, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the Accused persons to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 :- Sh. Neeraj Maggo (Eye-Witness) PW-2 :- Sh. Lala Ram (Uncle of Ravi Kumar) PW-3 :- Sh. Madhur (Complainant/Victim qua robbery) PW-4 :- Sh. Ravi Kumar (Victim qua forgery) PW-5 :- Sh. Arvind Kumar (LDC, Licensing Authority, Firojabad) PW-6 :- Sh. Ajay Kumar (MLO, Burari Transport Authority, Delhi) PW-7 :- HC Mahavir (Witness of Arrest and Recovery) PW-8 :- Ct. Akhilendra Kumar (Witness of recovery during PC remand of Accused Dharmender) PW-9 :- HC Rajeev Kumar (Verified Parcha-12 of Accused Dharmender) FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 20 Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:49:38 +0530 PW-10 :- ASI Darshan Kumar (Duty Officer) PW-11 :- IO/Insp. Surender Singh (2nd IO) PW-12 :- Sh. Sanjay Jain (Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, AC-39) PW-13 :- ASI Kishan Singh (Verified Parcha-12 of Accused Vijay Bharti) PW-14 :- ASI Jai Bhagwan (1st IO Accompanying Witness) PW-15 :- SI Amarpal Singh (1st IO) PW-16 :- Sh. Pankaj Sood (Food Safety Officer, Circle
67) PW-17 :- (Retd.) SI Nanak Chand (Assisted 2nd IO in investigation) PW-18 :- (Retd.) SI Om Prakash (Duty Officer of PS Karol Bagh) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A :- Seizure memo of motorcycle Mark A :- Copy of PAN Card Ex. PW3/A :- Statement of Complainant Ex. PW1/C :- Personal search memo of accused Ex. PW1/D :- Seizure memo of the case property Ex. PW5/A :- Copy of relevant page of license register Ex. PW5/B :- Computer generated details Ex. PW6/A :- Record of DL and standing circular authorizing weeding out of record Ex. PW6/B :- Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex. PW7/A :- Arrest memo of accused Dharmender @ Ravi Ex.PW7/B :- Personal search memo of accused Dharmender @ Ravi Ex.PW7/C :- Arrest memo of accused Vijay Bharti @ Sonu Ex-PW7/D :- Personal search memo of accused Vijay Bharti @ Sonu Ex-PW7/E :- Disclosure statement of accused Vijay Bharti @ Sonu Ex-PW8/A :- Disclosure statement of Accused Dharmender @ Ravi Ex-PW8/B & :- Seizure memo of receipts & ration card of Ex-PW8/C Accused Dharmender Ex-PW8/D :- Sezure memo of copy of ration card of FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 4 of 20 Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:49:45 +0530 accused Dharmender Ex-PW10/A :- Rukka Ex-PW10/B :- FIR No. 102/08 Ex-PW10/C :- Rojnamcha register Ex-PW11/A :- Copy of request to Ex-
PW11/E Ex-PW12/A :- Report Ex-PW15/A :- Site plan Ex-PW15/B :- Disclosure statement of Accused Dharmender Ex-PW15/C :- Disclosure statement of Accused Vijay Ex-PW15/D :- Seizure memo of case property Ex-PW16/A :- Report Ex-PW18/A :- NCR report
5. PW1- Neeraj Maggo, deposed in his testimony that on 08.08.2008 at about 7:30/7:45 pm he alongwith his friend Nitin Sharma were going towards Patel Nagar in Santro Car and when they reached near Chowk near NPL Colony, both of them saw two persons fighting with one other person. Thereafter, PW1 and his friend intervened in the matter, and made a call to the police officials. The cause of the quarrel was a motorcycle. Further, PW1 deposed that both accused persons were beating the victim with the help of fists, blows as well as a helmet. With permission of the court, PW1 was cross examined by Ld. APP for the state, during which he denied that the accused persons took the motorcycle and tried to flee from the spot.
He further denied the fact that PW1 had put his car in front of the accused persons, to prevent them from taking the motorcycle. PW1 also did not identify the helmet, which was produced in case property, on lapse of time. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
6. PW2 - Lala Ram, deposed in his testimony that he is a vegetable vendor. Further, he deposed that on 10.08.2008, the police officials had shown him a PAN Card of his nephew namely, Ravi FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 5 of 20 Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:49:51 +0530 Kumar on which photograph of accused Dharmender was affixed. He correctly identified the Accused in court.
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
7. PW-3 -Madhur/Complainant deposed in his testimony that on 08.08.2008, at about 08:45 pm, he was going back to his home at Patel Nagar and at that time he was on his motorcyle. When he reached near Bus Stand Ratan Puri Chowk, he stopped his motorcycle in front of a Bettle shop, to purchase a cigarette. At that time, the accused persons came and sat on his motorcycle and at that time, both of them were under the influence of liquor. They started saying "yamha yamha". When PW3 saw them sitting on his motorcycle, he asked them to leave his bike bearing registration no. DL 4SBJ-5654 as he had to go to his home. Then they said 'Hamari bike kaha lekar jaayega tu" and they tried to snatch the keys of his motorcycle and both of them starting beating him. PW3 made a call to the police at 100 number. Police came to the spot and police took him to police station where his statement was recorded by the police officials, i.e., Ex. PW3/A. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital for medical treatment. He correctly identified both accused persons in court. With permission, he was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State, and in the said cross examination, he admitted that he had settled the matter with the accused persons and forgiven them out of humanity. Further, he deposed that he had stated to the police officials that the accused persons were forcibly removed by him from the motorcycle. Further, he deposed that when he started the motorcycle and tried to leave the place, the accused Dharmender caught hold of the motorcycle from the back and accused Vijay came in front of his motorcycle and started beating him. Thereafter, the complainant was thrown on the road and accused persons tried to run away from the spot with the motorcycle however, one person namely Neeraj Maggo came in between, stopped the motorcycle and then apprehended the accused persons with the FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 6 of 20 Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:49:58 +0530 help of a Constable and other public persons. In his cross examination by Ld. APP by the State, he also stated that a PAN Card and DL was recovered from accused Dharmender, and seized by the IO vide Ex. PW3/B. He correctly identified the PAN card and the DL, and the same is Ex. P1. He was recalled and cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons. In his cross examination, he stated that he had not seen anything qua the incident. Thereafter, the said witness was again re-called, after framing of charge for the commission of offence u/s 474 IPC. In the said cross-examination, he deposed that a purse had been recovered from both the accused persons and the contents of the said purse were not opened/revealed in his presence by the police officials.
8. PW-4/Sh. Ravi Kumar deposed in his testimony that in the year 2008, he was called at the police station, Inderpuri and he was shown one person at the PS who had got prepared a driving license as well as PAN card with his name and address. PW4 deposed that he had never seen the said person (i.e., accused Dharmender) before. However, he stated that the name, father's name and address, which is mentioned on the PAN Card and DL belong to him, i.e., PW4. He also produced his original election ID, copy of which was retained on record, as Ex.
P3 (OSR). A perusal of Ex. P3 (OSR) shows that the same is issued in the name of Ravi Kumar S/o Mohar Singh R/o B-59/2, Block B Molarband Village, New Delhi. He was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
9. PW5/Arvind Kumar deposed in his testimony that he had been authorized by ARTO, Firozabad, UP to appear before the court with the relevant record. He deposed that as per the record available in ARTO office, Firozabad, the driving license no. UP83/2006/0004994 is issued in the name of Dr. Ram Avtar S/o Sh. POP Singh having permanent address Rukanpur-02, H.No. 2085B, Manipuri Chauraha, Shikohabad, Firojabad, U.P. The photocopy of relevant page of license register is Ex. PW5/A and the extract of the driving license is Ex.
FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 7 of 20
Digitally
signed by
Twinkle
Twinkle Chawla
Chawla Date:
2026.04.16
15:50:04
+0530
PW5/B. He was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
10. PW6/ Ajay Kumar Samal deposed in his testimony that he had been authorized to depose on behalf of Burari Transport Authority Delhi. He stated that the original records such as Driving License Application form, Address proof and photographs of the applicant namely Ravi Kumar had already been destroyed by way of weeding out, pursuant to standing circular No. F.22/05/98 TPT (O&M)/5572- 99 dated 04.10.1999. He produced the computer generated record of the driving license bearing No. C03032005447427 issued by Shaikh Sarai Transport Authority, Ex. PW6/A (Colly). As per Ex. PW6/A, driving license no. C03032005447427 was issued in the name of Ravi Kumar S/o Mohar Singh R/o B-59/2 Molarband Badarpur, New Delhi and the same was issued on 26.10.1995 and was renewed on 28.03.2005, with expiry date 27.03.2008. The certificate u/s 65 B IEA is Ex. PW6/B. He was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
11. PW7/ HC Mahavir deposed that he was on patrolling duty on 08.08.2008 and at around 08:40 pm, when he reached at roadways/DTC bus stands situated at Ratanpuri Chowk, he noticed that a crowd had gathered there. The complainant Madhur handed over to him two persons namely Ravi Kumar @ Dharmender and Vijay Bharti (both accused persons were correctly identified by PW7 in court). Thereafter, IO/SI Amra Pal, came to the spot and recorded statement of complainant. IO handed over the original rukka to Ct. Jai Bhagwan for registration of the FIR. The site plan was prepared at the instance of the Complainant by the IO. It was informed by the Complainant that the accused persons had been trying to take away/snatch his motorcycle from him. The registration no. of the motorcycle was DL 4SBJ 5654 make Bajaj. IO seized the motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. Both the accused persons were interrogated and arrested, vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/A and Ex.
FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 8 of 20 Digitally signed by TwinkleTwinkle Chawla Date: Chawla 2026.04.16 15:50:12 +0530 PW7/C respectively. From the possession of the accused Dharmender @ Ravi, one PAN Card and Driving License was recovered and same were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B. The witness identified the Driving License no. 4994/F.Z.D. 2006 dated 18.12.2006 in the name of Sh. Ravi Kumar and one PAN Card no. ASXPK2534L in the name of Ravi Kumar as the documents recovered from the possession of the accused Dharmender @ Ravi, i.e., Ex. P7 (colly).
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons. Thereafter, the said witness was again re-called, after framing of charge for the commission of offence u/s 474 IPC. In the said cross-examination, he deposed that the recovered documents, i.e., DL and PAN Card were not mentioned in the personal search memo of the Accused, however, the same were mentioned in the seizure memo. Further, he deposed that he was not aware if any public witness was joined during the recovery proceedings. He however deposed that the spot was a public space and public persons were available, however, they were not made witnesses. He further deposed that no purse was recovered from Accused Dharmender and thereafter, again deposed that he does not remember if any purse was recovered.
12. PW8/ Ct. Akhilendra Kumar deposed that on 10.08.2008, he along with the Inspector Surender took accused Dharmender for investigation as he had disclosed in his disclosure statement, Ex. PW8/A regarding recovery of receipt of Ration Card and Election I- Card. Thereafter, accused took them to house no. WZ-166, Dashghara, Inderpuri, New Delhi and handed over two receipts of Ration card and Election I-Card, both in the name of Dharmender to the IO. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/C. Both the acknowledgment/receipt of Ration card and election I card are Ex. P1 and P2.
On 13.08.2008, Ct. Rajeev verified parcha-12 of the accused Dharmender and handed over copy of Ration Card of accused FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 9 of 20 Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:50:18 +0530 Dharmender which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/D. Copy of the Ration card and voter ID card are Mark A and B. Both the accused persons were present in court and correctly identified by the witness.
He was duly cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused.
13. PW-9/HC Rajiv Kumar deposed that he had verified the parcha
-12 in relation to accused Dharmender and also collected the Ration Card and Election Card from father of the accused, i.e., Mark A and Mark B. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
14. PW-10/ASI Darshan Kumar (Retd.) proved the registration of FIR, Ex. PW10/D, endorsement on rukka Ex. PW10/A and DD no. 29 Ex. PW10/C. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
15. PW-11/IO/Inspector Surender Singh deposed that on 09.08.2008, he was posted as Inspector/Law and Order in PS Inderpuri and the present case was marked to him for further investigation. In the case, accused Dharmender was in PC upto 11.08.2008. PW/11 went through the case file and found that two DL and one PAN Card had been recovered from the possession of the accused by the previous IO in the name of Ravi Kumar, S/o Sh. Mohar Singh, R/o B-59, Molarbandh, Badarpur, New Delhi. He along with staff after taking accused from the the lock up proceeded for investigation of the case and reached the WZ-166B, Dashghara Village, 2nd floor where one acknowledgment of application of Ration Card (Ex. P1) and one receipt (Ex. P2) were produced by the accused from his rented house and the same were seized vide seizure memo, Ex. PW8/ and Ex. PW8/C. PW-11 issued request letters to (i) Director Geneal of Income Tax for verification of Pan Card bearing no. ASXPK2534L (Ex. PW11/A, in response to which report was received from Additional Director of Income Tax on 23.09.2008), (ii) Officer FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 10 of 20 Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:50:24 +0530 in-charge Transport Authority, Sheikh Sarai to verify the Driving License bearing no. CO3032005447427 (Ex. PW11/B, in response to which report was received from Transport Department NCT of Delhi on 01.09.2008), (iii) Officer in-charge Transport Authority Firojabad UP to verify the Driving License Number 4994/F.ZD/2006, (Ex. PW11/C, response to which was received on 11.08.2008), (iv) Officer in-charge Transport Authority Firojabad UP to verify the Driving License Number 4994/F.ZD/2006, (Ex. PW11/D, response to which was received on 24.09.2008), and (v) Food Safety Officer, Circle no. 67, Inderpuri to verify the acknowledgment number 00060461 (Ex. PW11/E, response to which was received on 28.08.2008).
PW-11 further deposed that during investigation, on 10.08.2008, Sh. Ravi Kumar S/o Sh. Mohar Singh, R/o B-59/2, Molarbadh also visited PS Inderpuri along with his uncle Lala Ram and produced photocopy of election Identity Card and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/F. He recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. During investigation, Ct. Rajeev had handed over photocopy of election Identity Card of Rajpal, S/o Sh. Dhani Ram who is father of accused Dharmender along with photocopy of ration card, which were seized by way of seizure memo, Ex. PW8/D. During investigation, he had also recorded the statement of FSO, Inderpuri, AERO, Rajender Nagar and record clerk, Sheikh Sarai Authority.
Complainant Madhur also joined the investigation and produced the photocopy of RC of his motorcycle, and the copy of DL and RC is Mark X1 and Mark X2. After collecting the reports and statement of witnesses, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in the court. Accused Dharmender was present in the court and correctly identified by the witness.
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons. In his cross examination, he admitted that despite availability of the wife and brother of the accused Dharmender at the time of Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:50:31 +0530 FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 11 of 20 seizure of acknowledgment and receipt, they were not witnesses to the seizure memo.
16. PW12/Sanjay Jain, Deputy Secretary Art Culture and Languages, Govt. of NCT of Delhi deposed that in the year 2008 he was posted as Assistant Electoral Registration Officer in Assembly Constituency no. 39. He proved his report Ex. PW12/A, wherein it is noted that a person namely Dharmender Yadav S/o Rajpal Singh R/o WZ-166 B, Dashgarha, had applied for addition of his name in the electoral role and the same was rejected, and he was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
17. PW13/ASI Kishan Singh deposed that he had verified the Parcha no. 12 of accused Vijay Bharti. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
18. PW-14/ASI Jai Bhagwan deposed that on 08.08.2008, on receiving DD no. 29A, he along with SI Amarpal went to Ratanpuri Chowk near Bus stand. On reaching there, Ct. Mahavir, Neeraj Maggo, Nitin Sharma and complainant Madhur met them.
Complainant Madhur narrated that two persons were trying to rob his motorcycle (registration no. DL 4SBJ 5654) who were apprehended at the spot with the help of public persons. Thereafter, SI Amarpal recorded the statement of complainant and handed over the tehrir for registration of FIR to PW14. He returned back to the spot after registration of FIR along with the copy of FIR and original tehrir. On inquiry, the two accused persons disclosed their names as Ravi Kumar and Vijay Bharti Raj. Later on, it was revealed that the real name of accused Ravi Kumar is Dharmender. On personal search of accused Dharmender, one PAN Card, DL and NCR were recovered from his possession and in all the documents, his name was mentioned as Ravi Kumar but was bearing the photograph of accused Dharmender.
IO seized the case property (i.e. the Motorcycle of complainant and documents of accused Dharmender), vide Ex.PW1/A and Ex. PW3/B. The accused persons were arrested and their personal search FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 12 of 20 Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:50:38 +0530 was conducted. The case property was deposited in Malkhana. He correctly identified the accused persons in Court.
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons. Thereafter, the said witness was again re-called, after framing of charge for the commission of offence u/s 474 IPC. In the said cross- examination, he deposed that he had signed on the seizure memo of the DL and the PAN Card. However, he did not remember if the said documents were recovered in his presence or not. He deposed that at the said time, from the public persons, Neeraj Maggo and Nitin were present, however, he did not remember if their signatures were taken on the seizure memo or not. He further deposed that the place of incident was a public place and few public persons were present. However, no public person was made to join the recovery proceedings. He deposed that the said public persons were all travellers. He also deposed that a purse was recovered from the possession of the accused Dharmender, from which the forged DL and PAN Card were recovered.
19. PW15/SI Amarpal has deposed on the same lines as PW14, and the same being reproduced for the sake of brevity. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. Thereafter, the said witness was again re-called, after framing of charge for the commission of offence u/s 474 IPC. In the said cross-examination, he deposed that one purse was recovered from the possession of Accused Dharmender, however, he does not remember what was lying in the said purse.
PW16/Pankaj Sood, SDM, Election, South East Distict Delhi, deposed that in 2008 he was posted as FSO at Circle 67 ITI, PUSA and proved the report Ex. PW16/A. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
20. PW17/SI (Retd.) Nanak Chand deposed in his testimony that on 23.09.2008, Inspector Surender Singh handed over one request letter to him regarding verification of driving license no.
FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 13 of 20Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:50:44 +0530 4994/F.ZD/2006 issued to the office Incharge, Transport authority, Firozabad UP.
On 24.09.2008, he reached Transport Authority, Firozabad, U.P and obtained the reply/report from the licensing authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Firozabad on the said letter itself. Thereafter, he returned back and handed over the request letter along with the reply to Inspector Surender Singh.
The request letter issued by Inspector Surender Singh is Ex. PW11/D and the reply by the transport authority, Firozabad, UP is at point B on Ex. PW11/D. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
21. PW18/Retd. SI Om Prakash deposed that on 30.08.2008, he was posted at PS Karol Bagh as Duty Officer. On that day, one person namely Ravi Kumar S/o Mohar Singh R/o Badarpur made NCR Report pertaining to missing of a driving license no. P03032005447427. Thereafter, he handed over the NCR to the aforesaid person and the NCR report is Ex. PW18/A. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused person.
22. Thereafter, the PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
23. All the incriminating evidence was put to the Accused persons and their statements under Section 313 CrPC were recorded on 01.05.2024, in which they opted to lead Defence Evidence. In their defence, accused examined one Sh. Hari Babu, as DW-1, who deposed that he did not remember the date, month & year of the incident, however, it was 16 years old and that he was helper of the bus at that time in Rajender Nagar, Rattan Puri, Delhi; and at about 08:30 PM to 09:00 PM two police officials stood at Rajender Nagar Bus stop and took the accused persons from the spot. He questioned to police officials why they are taking to the accused persons with them, upon FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 14 of 20 Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:50:50 +0530 this police officials did not answer anything. He was also cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. In his cross examination he deposed that he did not remember the date of the incident as well as the bus route. He further deposed that he did not know if the accused persons were apprehended at the behest of the Complainant. ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
24. Ld. APP for the State has argued that all essential ingredients of the offences are met and hence, the accused persons should be convicted in the present case.
25. Ld. Counsel for the Accused persons has argued that there are several loopholes in the case of the prosecution, in asmuchas the public witnesses have turned hostile on several accounts and the case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
26. It is a settled principle of law that it is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is also well settled that suspicion however strong can never take the place of proof. There is a long distance between the fact that accused 'may have committed the offence' and 'must have committed the offence', which is to be proved by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ranjtsingh Brahamjeet Singh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(2005) 5 SCC 294. Hence, the prosecution is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
27. The Accused persons have been charged with offences u/s 394/34 IPC. For proving this offence, the prosecution was required to establish that the Accused persons had caused hurt to the Complainant and committed robbery of the motorcycle belonging to the Complainant.
28. For the offence punishable u/s 394/34 IPC, the prosecution had sought to rely upon the ocular testimony of three eye-witnesses, namely, Complainant/Madhur; Eye-Witness/Neeraj Maggo and Eye-
FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 15 of 20
Digitally
signed by
Twinkle
Twinkle Chawla
Chawla Date:
2026.04.16
15:50:58
+0530
Witness/Nitin Sharma. It is a matter of record that eye-witness Nitin Sharma could not be examined and was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 09.06.2016, as he remained unserved. PW3 /Complainant and PW1/Neeraj Maggo have been examined. PW3/Complainant had initially in his examination in chief deposed that both the accused persons were sitting on his motorcycle and tried to snatch the keys of his motorcycle and thereafter, started beating him, when he asked them to get down from his motor-cycle. However, in his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, he has stated that Accused Dharmender snatched his helmet and started beating him and both accused persons had thrown PW3 on the road and tried to ran away from the spot alongwith his motorcycle. He further deposed in the said cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, at the said time, one person namely Neeraj Maggo came in between and stopped the motorcycle by placing his car in front of the motorcycle and stopped the accused persons. However, PW1/Neeraj has deposed that he had not stopped the motorcycle and that the Accused persons were not taking away the motorcycle. He has also deposed that it appeared that some quarrel was taking place between the complainant and the accused persons over a motorcycle. Further, PW3/Complainant in his further cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the Accused persons had deposed that he had not seen anything.
29. Accordingly, while from the testimony of PW1 and PW3, it appears that there was some dispute between the Complainant and the Accused persons and that the said persons were present on the spot alongwith a motorcycle, when PW1 came, it is not proved that the accused persons had robbed the motor-cycle of the Complainant and in doing so, had beaten the Complainant. It is trite law that evidence is to be weighed and not counted and hence, it is the quality and not the quantity of the evidence which is to be considered and conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of an eye-witness, however, the said testimony must be cogent, credible and trustworthy (Reliance FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 16 of 20 Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:51:04 +0530 based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine SC 826). In the present case, the Complainant/PW-3 himself has deposed varying versions of the incident in his examination in chief, cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State and cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the Accused persons. Further, his version of events is also at variance from the details deposed by the other eye-witness/PW-1. As such, since none of the witnesses have deposed consistent and clear particulars of the incident which took place, it cannot be stated that their testimony and identification of the accused persons inspires confidence, to the extent of proving the commission of the offence of robbery without any corroboration. Further, in the seizure memo of the motorcycle, i.e., Ex-PW1/A it is not stated that from whose possession the motorcycle was seized and it is only stated that motorcycle was seized from the bus stand Rattan Puri. There is no CCTV footage of the incident. There is no other public witness who could offer ocular evidence of the incident in question. As such, the robbery of motorcycle belonging to the complainant by the accused persons is not proved.
30. Accused Dharmender has also been charged with the commission of offences punishable u/s 468/471/474 IPC. For the offence punishable u/s 468 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that a false document was prepared by the Accused; and for the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that a forged document has been used by the accused as a genuine document. Further, for the offence punishable u/s 474 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the Accused was found in possession of a forged document, with an intention to use the same as genuine.
31. In the present case, it has been submitted that one DL bearing No. 4994/F.Z.D./2006 and one PAN card bearing No. ASXPK2534L were recovered from the possession of the Accused Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar on 08.08.2008, and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex-PW3/B. The said seizure memo, Ex-PW3/B (and FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 17 of 20 Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:51:11 +0530 Ex-PW15/E) has been prepared by the IO and bears the signatures of Ct. Mahavir, Ct. Jay Bhagwan and complainant Madhur. Complainant Madhur/PW3 has deposed in his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State that the PAN card and DL were recovered from seized in his presence by the IO and he has also identified the DL and the PAN card, which was recovered at the said time, i.e., Ex P1. In his cross examination, no substantial testimony to contradict the said recovery has been brought on record. Although in his further cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons on 16.03.2026, he has stated that only a purse was recovered from the possession of accused Dharmender, it is noted that as per the case of prosecution the said documents were found in his purse itself and that in his initial testimony recorded on 20.01.2016, he had identified the DL and PAN Card as well. Further, the cross examination on 16.03.2026 took place almost 16 years after the incident and as such lapse in memory on account of time cannot be ruled out. Further, minor inconsistencies in the testimony on account of lapse of time cannot be considered to be fatal to the case of prosecution (reliance placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhatisgarh , 2025 INSC 47).
32. Further, PW7/HC Mahavir and PW14/ASI Jay Bhagwan have also deposed that the PAN card and DL were recovered from the possession of Accused Dharmender and the said documents were in the name of Ravi Kumar and bore the photograph of Accused Dharmender. Even in their cross examination they had maintained the fact of recovery of the DL and the PAN Card. The fact, that the said documents were seized pursuant to a seizure memo, Ex PW-15/E and not in the personal search memo, Ex. PW7/B is a procedural irregularity and does not disprove the fact of recovery. It is as settled principle of law that the minor lapses in investigation do not strike at the heart of the case of the prosecution, if otherwise the concrete facts are proved. (Reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 18 of 20 Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:51:17 +0530 Court in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998) 4 SCC 517). Hence, the recovery of the said documents from Accused Dharmender is proved. Further, PW2/Lala Ram has deposed that on the PAN card of his nephew namely Ravi Kumar, the photograph of Accused Dharmender was affixed and he correctly identified Accused Dharmender in court. He also deposed that the said PAN card was shown to him by the police officials at the PS. Further, PW4 / Ravi Kumar brought on record his election card bearing no. DL/03/036/273728, which is Ex-P3, as per which he proved that he is Ravi Kumar, S/o Mohar Singh, R/o 59/2, Mularband, Badarpur, New Delhi. He further deposed that he had never seen the Accused Dharmender in his life and he identified that on the documents Ex-P1 (i.e., the DL and the PAN card), while his name, father's name and address is mentioned, the said documents bear the photograph of Accused Dharmender (who was correctly identified by the witness in court, as the person whose picture is on documents Ex-P1). Additionally, PW5 deposed that the DL bearing No. 4994/F.Z.D./2006 was infact never issued in the name of Ravi Kumar and was issued in the name of Dr. Ram Avtar, S/o Sh. Pop Singh, having address at Rukanpur-02, H. No. 2085B, Main Puri Chauraha, Shikhohabad, Firojabad, UP, the said report was shown as Ex-PW5/B and Ex- PW5/A. Further, PW-11 deposed that during investigation, he had gone to the house of the Accused Dharmender and seized the acknowledgment of ration card and one receipt, which was thereafter sent for verification. Further, PW-12 deposed that vide Ex-PW12/A, the person Dharmender Yadav, S/o Rajpal Singh, R/o WZ-166B, Dashghara had applied for addition of name in the electoral roll and PW-16 deposed that he had filed the report Ex-PW16/A, as per which one Sh. Dharmender Yadav, S/o Rajpal Yadav R/o WZ-166B, Dashghara had applied for ration card. Further, PW-11 also deposed that he had sent a request letter to the Director General of Income Tax to verify the PAN card bearing No. ASXPK2534L, and in reply the FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 19 of 20 Digitally signed by Twinkle Twinkle Chawla Chawla Date:
2026.04.16 15:51:24 +0530 said PAN card was verified. As such, it has come on record that the Accused Dharmender applied for a PAN card in the name of another person Ravi Kumar and that he was in possession of a forged DL, in as much as not only was the DL fake, but the same was also containing the identity details of another person. Accordingly, it is proved that the accused Dharmender was in possession of a forged DL and PAN Card, which he possessed knowing it to be forged and intending to use the same as genuine and hence, the ingredients of the offence u/s 474 IPC are duly proved. However, in the present case the prosecution has not brought on record the fact that the accused Dharmender was the one who had forged the said document or that he had actually used the said documents. In the present case, no specimen signatures of the accused were taken to match the signatures found present on the DL. In these circumstances, the ingredients of offences punishable u/s 468 and 471 IPC are not fulfilled.
33. Resultantly, Accused Dharmender and Vijay Bharti Raj @ Sonu are acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 394/34 IPC and Accused Dharmender is convicted of the offence punishable u/s 474 IPC and is acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 468/471 IPC.
Announced in open court on 16.04.2026 in the presence of the Accused.
The judgment contains 20 pages and each page have been signed by Digitally signed
the undersigned. Twinkle
by Twinkle
Chawla
Chawla Date:
2026.04.16
15:49:12 +0530
(Twinkle Chawla)
JMFC-04/PHC/ND
16.04.2026
FIR No. 102/2008 State v. Dharmender Yadav @ Ravi Kumar & Anr. Page 20 of 20