Delhi District Court
State vs Ashok Kumar on 28 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH JOHAL, SPECIAL JUDGE
(NDPS), NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
SC No. 58204/16
FIR No: 385/2009
U/s 328/379/411/34 IPC
PS: Narela
STATE
Vs.
1. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Humm Singh
R/o J-631 Jahangirpuri, Delhi(P.O)
2. Rafiq
S/o Sh. Shakur Ali
R/o Gali no. 7, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi(P.O)
3. Shamshad Ali
S/o Mod Shahid Ahmad
R/o House no. 64, Village Badli Delhi
4. Akant Bansal @ Ekant Bansal
S/o Sh. Guru Charan Dass Bansal
R/o WZ-1811 Rani Bagh, Delhi
5. Irshad Ali
S/o Sh. Shahid Ahmed
R/o House No. 64, Village Badli, Delhi
6. Sanjay
S/o Sh. Subedar
R/o Village Takha,
PS Takha, District Ajamgarh UP.
Date of institution : 09.04.2010
Date of arguments : 12.03.2026
Date of judgment : 28.03.2026
SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.1/22
FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment will adjudicate the charges leveled against the accused Ekant Bansal in the FIR number 385/2009 registered at police station Narela under sections 328/379/411/34 and 174A of IPC as judgment dated 30.05.2018 qua remaining persons has already been passed, whereby, accused Shamshad was acquitted of charges U/S 379 IPC, accused Irshad Ali was convicted U/S 379 IPC and he was acquitted for charges U/S 328 IPC, accused Sanjay is acquitted of charge U/S 411 IPC. Accused Ashok Kumar and Rafiq were already declared PO vide orders dated 10.11.2017 & 16.05.2012 respectively and whenever, they both will be apprehended, they would be put to further trial.
2. The brief facts of the present case is that on receipt of an information, a DD number 24B dated 29th November 2009 was registered and in pursuance thereof, Constable Chand Singh along with Constable Ramesh reached at the crime scene. On reaching the said site i.e. Alipur Road, near Hollumby Road, Narela- the two persons were found in intoxicating condition and were continuously vomiting. Thereafter both these police officers picked up the victims and got them admitted in SRHC hospital. Patient/victim Davinder Singh was admitted vide MLC number 3129/09 whereas second victim namely Satender Singh got admitted with MLC number 3128/09.. Since the admitted person were not in fit condition to gave their statement therefore the DD number 48B was kept pending. After recovering from the said condition, the complainant-victim namely Davinder Singh got his statement recorded on 1 st December 2009. As per the statement of the complainant Davinder, He along with his helper Satinder were travelling in a tractor-trolley when they were stopped by two SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.2/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area persons by stating that their car had broken down and these two persons requested for a lift to call a mechanic from Narela Mandi. Four other accused persons were also present along with the car at the said spot. Thereafter, all the accused persons sat in the tractor-trolley. They were carrying two water bottles out of which, one bottle was used by them for drinking water whereas from the other bottle they forcibly made the complainant and his helper to drink water. After sometime, all accused persons started beating the complainant due to which both became unconscious. The accused persons looted the tractor-trolling along with 300 bags of wheat which were loaded on the said vehicle. On the basis of said information, a rukka was sent and present FIR U/s 328/ 379/ 34 IPC was registered. Thereafter, the site plan was prepared at the instance of the victims by the IO and statement U/s 161 CRPC were recorded. On 24 th December 2009, the accused persons of the present FIR were arrested in another FIR with number 629/ 09, U/s 411/34 IPC and during the investigation of the said case, these accused persons gave a disclosure regarding their involvement in the present FIR. After obtaining the permission of the court, the said accused persons were arrested in the present case and their disclosure statements were also recorded. On the basis of said disclosure statements, the robbed tractor was recovered by the police during the investigation and accused Sanjay was arrested with the robbed tractor. Subsequently accused namely Vijay Yadav and Shamshad were also arrested and their disclosure statements were also recorded and they were sent to JC to face the trial.
3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the offenses punishable under SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.3/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area section 328/379/411/34 IPC. After complying with the provisions of section 207 CRPC, the Ld Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the Court of sessions for trial.
4. During the trial stage charges were framed against accused persons namely Ashok Kumar, Irshad Ali, Ekant Bansal, Shamshad and Rafiq under section 328/379/411/34 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. However, during the trial of the said case, accused Rafiq was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 16th May 2012 whereas accused Ashok was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 10 th November 2017 and accused Akant Bansal was declared PO Vide order dated 27 th March 2018. Thereafter, vide Separate judgment dated 30 th May 2018, accused Irshad Ali and Shamshad Ali were convicted whereas accused Sanjay was acquitted from the said charges.
6. Thereafter accused Ekant Bansal was arrested and additional charge U/s 174 A IPC was framed against accused Akant Bansal vide order dated 5 th August 2025.
7. To prove its case, prosecution has examined total 15 witnesses .PW-1 namely Davinder Singh is the complainant of the case whereas PW-4 Satender Singh is also a victim who was the helper of the complainant on the said date of the incident. PW-14 HC Chand Singh is the IO of the case who has supported the case of the prosecution. PW-15 is HC Sandeep Sehwag who gave evidence qua the PO declaration of the present accused SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.4/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area Ekant Bansal and his subsequent arrest. Remaining witnesses are formal in nature and their evidence has been discussed.
8. PW-1 Davinder is one of the victims in the present case as well as the complainant of the present case. He deposed as per the lines of the prosecution case and proved his statement exhibit PW1/A. During his examination, he correctly identified the accused persons namely Akant Bansal and Ashok Kumar. However, he could not identify the remaining accused persons. The Witness resiled from his statement qua the recovery of the tractor and place from where the set tractor was recovered. During his cross examination various suggestions were put to him regarding the recovery of the tractor trolley, the identification of the accused person Sanjay however nothing substantial came out of the cross examination. During his cross examination the present witness could not provide certain details regarding date of his visit to Rohini Jail and Court Complex for the purpose of TIP as well as the number of the vehicle which was allegedly stolen by the accused persons. However, the evidence was recorded after the passage of time due to which certain minor inconsistencies are normal.
9. PW-2 constable Ramesh Rathi is the official who participated in the investigation of the present case along with HC Chand Singh. During his examination, the witness proved the arrest memos of the accused persons as exhibit PW2/A to exhibit PW2/D. He also deposed that he accompanied the HC Chand Singh before registration of the present FIR to near Holambi on receipt of a call regarding snatching of a tractor trolley. He further testified that when they reached near the crime scene, they found two SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.5/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area persons namely Davender and Satender vomiting and unconscious. They got the victims admitted in SRHC hospital and IO recorded his statement.
10.PW-3 HC Chaman Prakash is the duty officer in the present case. He proved the copy of FIR as exhibit PW-3/A, endorsement on the rukka as Ex-PW 3/B.
11.PW-4 Satender is another victim in the present FIR and he also deposed as per the prosecution story. He correctly identified the accused persons namely Ekant Bansal, Rafiq, Ashok Kumar and Irshad Ali by their names. The said witness also identified the tractor-trolley involved in the present FIR which is already exhibited as P-1. The witness was cross examined at length by the counsel of the accused persons but nothing substantial came out of the cross examination.
12.PW-5 Roop Kishore is the owner and Supardar of the vehicle which was stolen in the present case. He proved the supardarinama as Ex PW-5/A and this stolen vehicle as Ex P-1.
13.PW-6 Dr. Rupendra Kumar, CMO SRHC hospital proved the MLC of injured Satender in the handwriting of Dr Ankur Jain and Dr Anju which is EX. PW 6/A.
14.PW-7 HC Suresh Kumar deposed that while working as MHC(M) on 29 th November 2009, HC Chand Singh had deposited 2 sealed parcels having the seal of SRHC hospital Vide dd number 24B. He further deposed that on 15th feb 2010, pulandas were sent to FSL Vide RC number 28/21/10 SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.6/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area through HC Chand Singh. He also deposed that HC Chand Singh deposited the acknowledgment with him. Photocopy of relevant entry in register number 19 is Ex. PW-7/A and copy of RC have been proved as Ex- PW7/B. His cross examination was recorded as "Nil. Opportunity given"
on behalf of the accused Ekant Bansal.
15.PW-8 Nihal Singh, Senior Assistant, RTC proved the fact regarding registration of tractor No. UP81P3379 in the name of Roop Kishor S/o Sh. Vishal Singh. He further proved that make of the tractor was New Holand Tractor Ltd. He proved the registration copy of the tractor as Ex. PW 8/A and copy of register as Ex.PW 8/B. His cross examination was recorded as "Nil. Opportunity given".
16.PW-9 HC Surender Dahiya proved the arrest of accused persons namely Ashok Kumar, Akant Bansal, Irshad Ali, Sikander and Rafiq in case FIR no. 629/09 U/s 25 and 27 Arms Act and U/s 411/34 IPC. He further proved the disclosure statement of accused persons as Ex. PW 9/A1 to Ex. PW 9/A4.
17.PW-10 Ms. Smita Garg, Additional District Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi proved the application for conducting TIP proceedings of accused persons namely Ashok Kumar, Irshad Ali, Ekant Bansal and Rafiq as Ex. PW 10/A and TIP proceedings have been proved as Ex. PW 10/B to Ex. PW 10/G. Copy of TIP proceedings provided to the IO on his request has been proved as Ex. PW 10/G. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused Ekant Bansal. During his cross examination, PW-10 has admitted that accused persons refused to SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.7/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area participate in the judicial TIP on the ground that their photographs were taken by the police and same might have been shown to the witnesses.
18.PW-11 Inspector Jasmohinder Chaudhary, deposed that on 24.12.2009 while he was posted as SI with Special Staff, Outer District, Delhi, HC Rohtash posted with Special staff, Outer District received an information through informer that a gang involved in the robbery of trucks on the highway and having weapons would come from Mangolpuri side and would go towards Hanuman Mandir, Karnal for selling a robbed truck loaded of rice. On the basis of the said information a raiding party was formed and accused persons were apprehended and they made disclosure statements in case FIR no. 629/09 as Ex. PW 9/A-1 to Ex. PW 9/A-4 regarding their involvement in the present case.He was cross examined on behalf of the accused Ekant Bansal. During his cross examination, PW-10 has denied the suggestion of his apprehension on the intervening night of 22/23.12.2009. PW-10 has also denied some formal suggestions put to him during his cross examination by or on behalf of the accused Ekant Bansal.
19.PW-12 Lady Ct. Suman is the DD writer who deposed regarding lodging of DD no. 24B by her regarding snatching of Tractor bearing No. UP-81T-3379 by some persons who had run away and also caused beatings to the driver and helper of the truck. She further proved copy of the DD entry No. 24B as Ex.PW 12/A. She was cross examined on behalf of the accused Ekant Bansal. During her cross examination, PW-12 has admitted that he had not handed over DD No.24B to HC Chand Singh personally. However, he has denied the suggestion SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.8/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area that he had not received any such information or that he had not lodged DD No.24B.
20.PW-13 Ct. Satbir deposed that on 30.09.2010 he joined the investigation of this case along with HC Chand Singh. He further deposed that on that day, he along with HC Chand Singh reached at village Sajna, PS Kher, District Aligharh from where Roop Kishore who was the registered owner of tractor trolla number UP-81T-3379 and Devender Kumar who was complainant in the present case had joined investigation with them. Complainant stated to the IO that he had come to know that his tractor could be found at village Tarwa, PS Tarwa, District Azamgarh, UP. Thereafter he along with IO, Roop Kishore and complainant Devender Kumar went to village Tarwa, Azamgarh and they reached the said village on 03.01.2010. Upon the pointing out of Roop Kishore and Devender Kumar, accused Sanjay was sitting over tractor trolla bearing UP-81T-3379. Accused Sanjay was apprehended and his arrest memo and personal search memo have been proved as Ex. PW 13/A and Ex. PW 13/B. Seizure of tractor along with trolla has been proved vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1DX1. Disclosure statement of accused Sanjay has been proved as Ex. PW 1/DX2. The tractor Trolla has been proved as Ex. P1. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused Ekant Bansal at length. During his cross examination, he deposed that the said Gher/vacant plot was adjacent to the village from where recovery of tractor trolla was effected and it was a gher having four walls. However, he cannot tell as to whom the said gher belong. He further deposed that there was no house adjacent to the said gher and the house was situated at SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.9/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area a distance of 50 to 60 yards from said gher. He further deposed that they had not visited the house of accused Sanjay and they had lodged their departure entry on 30.12.2009 but he does not remember the DD number of the said departure. He admitted that the said DD is not there in the judicial file. He further deposed that on 30.12.2009, they had left Delhi in the evening hours but exact time he does not remember. They had reached village Sajna on 01.01.2010 in the morning hours prior to noon hours. They remained at village Sajna on the intervening night of 01/02-01-2010 at the house of Roop Kishore. They had left village Sajna on 02.01.2010 after noon hours. He further deposed that they were having Scorpio car with them and they had reached at village Tarwa, Azamgarh in the morning hours of 03.01.2010. However, he cannot tell any reason as why they had remained at the house of Roop Kishore on the intervening night as stated above. It was Roop Kishore who led them to the place of recovery at village Tarwa. Roop Kishore had stated to them that they had come to know from his relatives that the tractor trolla has been parked in a gher at village Sajna on 02.01.2010 after about two hours of their reaching at village Sajna. IO had requested few of the residents of the said village for joining investigation but none agreed. IO had not seized any key of said tractor trolla. The said tractor was brought to Delhi by Roop Kishore and Devender. He further deposed that they returned to Delhi alongwith accused in the same Scorpio. The said Scorpio was a private vehicle being driven by private driver. He admitted that the said driver has not been examined by IO as a witness in this case. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from accused Sanjay or that the same were planted upon accused Sanjay or that the tractor trolla was produced by Devender and Roop Kishore to them at village Sajna itself or that they had never SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.10/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area visited village Tarwa, Azamgarh or that they had intentionally no joined any public witness as they had never visited village Tarwa, Azamgarh.
21.PW-14 HC Chand Singh is the initial IO in this case. He deposed as per the lines of the prosecution case and proved rukka prepared by him as Ex. PW 14/A, site plan as Ex. PW 14/B. Arrest memo of accused persons namely, Ashok Kumar, Rafiq, Ekant Bansal and Irshad Ali have been proved as Ex. PW 2/C to Ex. PW 2/D and disclosure statements of accused persons namely Ashok, Irshad Ali, Rafiq and Ekant Bansal as Ex. PW 14/C to Ex. PW 14/F. He further proved the arrest of accused Sanjay on the pointing out of Roop Kishore and complainant Devender Kumar as Ex. PW 13/A and his personal search memo Ex. PW 13/B, disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW 1/DX2. The tractor trolla has been proved as Ex. P1. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused Ekant Bansal at length. During his cross examination, he deposed that he had reached Aligarh (UP) on 02.01.2010, however does not remember the time for leaving Aligarh. The information received by Roop Kishore on 30.12.2009 was brought to the notice of concerned SHO on 30.12.2009 itself. He further deposed that he alongwith Ct. Satbir remained present at Aligarh (UP) for about 3-4 hours on 02.01.2010. He further deposed that he had not filed the written permission granted by senior police officer for going to Aligarh, alongwith the charge sheet of this case. He denied that no written permission whatsoever was granted to him for visiting Aligarh and that is why, no such permission has been annexed with the charge sheet. He further deposed that he alongwith Ct. Satbir, Devender Kumar, Roop Kishore and his driver had gone to Azamgarh (UP) from Aligarh in private Scorpio car belonging SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.11/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area to Roop Kishore. They had reached Village Tarwa, District Azamgarh on 03.01.2010 at about 9.00 am in the morning and remained there for about three hours or so. He further deposed that they did not visit PS Tarwa, he cannot tell the distance between the place where tractor tralla no. UP81T-3379 was recovered and PS Tarwa. Although, there were no residential houses or public shops at or near the place of recovery of said tractor but there were agricultural fields situated near the said place. The house of accused Sanjay was situated at a distance of less than 500 meters from the place of recovery of aforesaid tractor but since they did not visit the house of Ramesh Singh, he cannot tell the distance between his house and the place of recovery of vehicle. He further deposed that as per investigation carried out by him, no connection was found between Ramesh Singh and the incident in question.
22.He has deposed that the seizure memo Ex. PW1/DXI of Tractor Tralla No.UP81T-3379 was prepared by him at Village Tarwa on 03.01.2010. He further admitted that there is mark of erasion appearing at point X on seizure memo Ex. PW1/DX1. The copy of said DD entry has not been filed alongwith charge sheet in this case. He denied that he is not able to tell DD entry number of any such entry made on 04.01.2010 as claimed and he has not filed copy of said DD entry alongwith charge sheet since no such tractor was brought from Village Tarwa to Delhi on 04.01.2010 as claimed. He denied that he was travelling in any bus plying on the route from Banaras to Village Tarwa on 01.01.2010 or that he had met accused Sanjay being conductor of the said bus present therein at that time or that he had made enquiry from Sanjay regarding Vijay Yadav on which he had told him that accused Vijay Yadav was resident of Village Kharyani of District SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.12/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area Azamgarh (UP). He has also denied all the suggestion put to him by counsel for accused.
23.PW-15 HC Sandeep Sehwag is the official who had apprehended the earlier declared proclaimed offender namely Ekant Bansal. He proved Departure Entry bearing GD No.0044A as Ex.PW15/A, Arrest Memo of accused Ekant Bansal as Ex.PW15/B, Personal Search Memo as Ex.PW15/C, Ground of Arrest as Ex.PW15/D and Kalandra prepared by him under Section 35.1(D) BNSS as Ex.PW15/E. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused Ekant Bansal. During his cross examination, PW-15 deposed that they had already dossier of accused Ekant Bansal. He further deposed that he did not know the mobile number of wife of accused to whom the information qua arrest of accused Ekant Bansal was given. He admitted that nothing was recovered from the personal search of the accused Ekant Bansal. He has denied the suggestion that wife of accused was not informed about the arrest. He further denied that accused was not arrested in the manner as deposed by him.
24.After conclusion of all the 15 witnesses the statement of accused were recorded under section 313 CRPC. The accused Ekant Bansal stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case. Infact he further tried to level allegation against the complainant PW1 and PW4 regarding misappropriation of bags of rice by them and to safeguard their interest false story of robbery was created and the present accused person have been wrongly named in the present fir.
SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.13/22FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area
25.Thereafter three witnesses were examined as defense witnesses namely accused Ashok Kumar himself as DW-1, Smt. Kiran as DW-2 and HC Devendra Singh as DW-3.
26.Vide order dated 12th July 2016, DE was closed on behalf of the accused persons.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE QUA SPECIFIC CHARGES THEFT
27.To support the case of the prosecution qua the offence of theft, the prime witness in the matter are PW-1 Davinder, who is the complainant in the present case and PW-4 Satender, who was the helper on the said Tractor Trolley on the date of occurrence of the crime. Both these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution that they were travelling from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi on the said Tractor Trolley and when they were at Alipur Road near new Bridge, the said Tractor Trolley was stopped by two persons on the pretext that their Car had broken down and they need assistance to reach the mechanic at Narela Mandi.
28.Firstly, during the evidence of PW-1 & PW-4, both the witnesses had correctly identified the accused Ekant Bansal as one of the accused persons, who stopped their Tractor Trolley, therefore, the identity of the accused Ekant Bansal is established on the basis of evidence of injured eye witnesses. PW-1 & PW-4 have been cross examined at length but nothing substantive came out from the said cross examination. The evidence of both the witnesses is in corroboration with the prosecution story and this SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.14/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area court is of the considered opinion that testimonies of both the witnesses are credible, trustworthy and reliable. Further, the seizure of Tractor is also exhibited by PW-13 as Ex.PW1/DX1. Further, the evidence of IO PW-14 HC Chand Singh gave evidence qua registration of the FIR along with disclosure of the accused persons. On the basis of discussions above, firstly, certain facts which has been established on the evidence of PWs are qua receipt of the information regarding snatching of the Tractor in DD 24B. Further, the present accused Ekant Bansal was identified by PW-1 &
4.
29.Secondly, the ownership of the said Tractor Trolley was established on the basis of evidence of PW-5 Roop Kishore who while testified as a witness to establish the ownership of the said Tractor. Further, he is also the witness of the recovery of the said Tractor from one of the accused namely Sanjay. The ownership is also proved by PW-8, who is the RTO and he has placed on record the documents pertaining to the ownership of the said tractor.
30.Thirdly, the said tractor was also recovered and seizure of the recovered tractor was proved by PW-13 along with PW-5, which also established the fact that said tractor was stolen and subsequently recovered during investigation.
31.Now to adjudicate the guilt of accused person under Section 378 read with Section 379 IPC. The said provision under Section 378 is hereby reproduced:-
SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.15/22FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area Section 378 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
378. Theft Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Explanation 1.-- A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2.-- A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft.
Explanation 3.-- A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
Explanation 4.-- A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
Explanation 5.-- The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
Illustrations SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.16/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area
32. As per contents of Section 378 IPC, if any person dishonests takes away any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent then as per this provision, the offence of theft is made out. By virtue of the testimony of the examined prosecution witnesses, it is categorically established that the said Tractor was taken away by all six accused persons and one of those accused person Ekant Bansal, who is facing this trial. He was identified by PW-1 & 4 during their testimonies recorded in the court. Further, the said tractor was taken away from the possession of PW-1 PW-4 without consent and by causing them hurt. On the basis of the discussions above, this court is of the considered opinion that offence under Section 378 of IPC is made out against accused Ekant Bansal. Accordingly, accused Ekant Bansal is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 378 read with Section 379 of IPC.
SECTION 328 IPC
33.For adjudicating the guilt of accused Ekant Bansal under Section 328 of IPC, the said provision is hereby reproduced as under:-
Section 328 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence.
--
Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.17/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
34.Certain facts which are required to be proved by the State before - accused can be held guilt under this Section is that firstly it is required to be established that any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, was administered to the victim. Secondly, the said act was done with an intent to commit an offence. If these ingredients are established only then, the person can be held liable for the offence punishable under Section 328 of IPC.
35.In the present case, both the victims were taken to Hospital, whereby, they were admitted in SRHC Hospital. Patient Devinder was admitted vide MCL No.3129/09 whereas, second Satender got admitted with MLC No.3128/09. The said MLCs of both the victim were proved by PW-6 Dr. Rupender Kumar, who identified the signatures of Dr. Ankur Jain & Dr. Anju. The MLC of Satender Singh is exhibited as Ex.PW6/A. Further, as per said MLC, the symptoms were mentioned wherein it is recorded that patient Satender is suffering from unknown case of poison whereas, his condition is stated to be drossy and he is vomiting in between. Further, both the victims were given treatment and viscera samples were sent for medical examination. The State has placed on record the report of the Viscera Sample, which is exhibited as Ex.PX. However, it is categorically mentioned in its report dated 23.05.2012 on the FSL examination of both the exhibites of Viscera sample of victim that no specific substance could be identified due to which, victim was unwell. Further, it is categorically mentioned in the said report that it is not the case of metallic poison, alkaloids, barbitals and tranquilizer, therefore, to conclude, the State has failed to established the substance which were allegedly given to both the SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.18/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area victims. The burden of establishing the case is upon the prosecution. However, the prosecution has failed to establish the said substance, which has caused drowsiness, diarrhea (vomiting) and unconsciousness to both the victims. Since, one of the ingredients of Section 328 IPC could not be established by the prosecution, therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that State has failed to prove the charges under Section 328 IPC against accused Ekant Bansal, hence, he is acquitted from the charges punishable under Section 328 of IPC.
SECTION 174 (A) OF IPC
36.To ascertain the guilt of accused under Section 174(A) of IPC, the said provision is hereby reproduced :-
Section 174(A) in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974.--
Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
37.As per said provision, the State needs to establish that the accused Ekant Bansal failed to appear at the specified place and time as mentioned in the SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.19/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area proclamation initiated qua the accused to be declared as Proclaimed Offender published under Section 82(1) of Cr.PC. Further, the procedure is followed and court declares the said accused person as proclaimed person then he can be punished under Section 174A IPC. To establish its case qua said offence, PW-15 HC Sandeep Sehwag was examined as a witness. As per testimony of the said witness, he left the PS for apprehending the accused Ekant Bansal vide GD No.44A Ex.PW15/A. The said GD was made on the secret information that said accused Ekant Bansal can be arrested from Rohini Court. He further deposed that he along with SI Rajesh and ASI Krishan came at Gate No.4 of Rohini Court where Secret informer pointed out towards one person who was standing outside the gate no.4. he further deposed that accused was apprehended after pointing out by the secret informer. He proved Departure Entry bearing GD No.0044A as Ex.PW15/A, Arrest Memo of accused Ekant Bansal as Ex.PW15/B, Personal Search Memo as Ex.PW15/C, Ground of Arrest as Ex.PW15/D and Kalandra prepared by him under Section 35.1(D) BNSS as Ex.PW15/E and the complete procedure of arrest is followed. The said witness was cross examined whereas, nothing substantive came out from the said cross examination.
38.On the basis of the said testimony, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has strongly argued that accused be held guilty under the said Section.
39.As a matter of fact, it is an admitted position that present accused Ekant Bansal was arrested in the present FIR after their disclosure during the investigation of second FIR bearing no.629/09 under Section 411/34 of IPC and after the arrest in the said FIR, accused Ekant Bansal made his disclosure statement qua the arrest in the present FIR and thereafter, he was arrested. He was continuously appearing in the present matter and from the SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.20/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area date i.e. 08.11.2017 he stopped appearing in the present case and subsequently, he was declared PO vide order dated 27.03.2018 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. Therefore, it is an admitted position that process initiated against the accused Ekant Bansal under Section 82(4) Cr.PC was followed and accused was declared PO, therefore, PW-15 successfully proved all the relevant entries of his subsequent arrest and produced in the present case. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that State has established that proper procedure for declaring the accused as proclaimed offender was followed. Hence, on the basis of the discussions above, the accused Ekant Bansal is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 174(A) of IPC.
40.Conclusion:-
i. On the basis of the discussions above, this court is of the considered opinion that offence under Section 378 of IPC is made out against accused Ekant Bansal, hence, accused Ekant Bansal is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 378 read with Section 379 of IPC; ii. Accused Ekant Bansal is also held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 174(A) of IPC.
iii. Since, the State has failed to prove the charges under Section 328 IPC against accused Ekant Bansal, hence, accused Ekant Bansal @ Akant Bansal is acquitted from the charges punishable under Section 328 of IPC.
41.Bail bond of accused Akant Bansal @ Ekant Bansal stands cancelled. The surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to the surety/counsel for the accused Akant Bansal @ Ekant Bansal and endorsement on the documents, if any, be cancelled. Accused Akant Bansal @ Ekant Bansal is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.25000/- with one surety of the like amount for a period of six months for SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.21/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area his appearance before the High Court of Delhi in the event the prosecution wishes to file an appeal challenging the present order. Ahlmad is directed to page and bookmark the file so as to enable the digitization of the entire record.
Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH JOHAL JOHAL Date: 2026.03.28 17:01:52 +0530 Announced in the open court (Harvinder Singh Johal) on 28.03.2026 ASJ / Special Judge (NDPS) North:Rohini:Delhi SC No.58204/2016 State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page No.22/22 FIR No.385/2009 PS Narela Industrial Area