Delhi District Court
State vs Virender on 26 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE - 05 (SHAHDARA)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No. 847/2016
CNR No.DLSH01-001966-2016
State Versus Virender
S/o Sh. Rajpal
R/o Bhadana Ka Makan,
Adesh Nagar, Banthla, Loni,
Ghaziabad, UP.
Presently at:
R/o House of Usha, Near Sheetla
Mata Mandir, Tigdi Gol Chakkar,
Noida, UP.
........... Accused
FIR No.: 666/15
Police Station: HARSH VIHAR
U/s 394/397/452/34 IPC & Section 174-A Part II IPC
Date of institution of case : 03.03.2016
Date when the case was received by this Court : 20.11.2017
Date of reserving for order : 03.02.2026
Date of passing of Judgment : 26.02.2026
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.12.2015, on receipt of DD No.5B, ASI Gyasuddin alongwith Ct. Lalit reached at the SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No.signed Digitally 1 of 42 by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.02.26 SETHI 17:09:48 +0530 spot i.e. Khasra No.17/05, F-23, Milan Garden, Mandoli Industrial Area, where they met with Aakash Arora. One person in injured condition was lying outside the factory and two other persons were present there in injured condition alongwith one other person. PCR van reached at the spot. One person was sent to GTB hospital through PCR van. Ct. Pawan and Ct. Sudesh reached at the spot. ASI Gyasuddin sent two other injured persons to GTB Hospital through Ct. Pawan and Ct. Sudesh. Ct. Lalit remained at the spot. Thereafter, ASI Gyasuddin had reached GTB hospital and collected the MLC No. B-5705/15 regarding unknown S/o, with alleged history of beaten by public at 12.15 AM. He had also collected MLC No.B-5706/15 of one Babloo S/o Shivdas Pandey with alleged history of physical assault at 12.15 AM at Milan Garden, Delhi and also MLC No. F-9350/15 of Anil S/o Lalta, with alleged history of physical assault at 12.15 AM at Milan Garden, Delhi. After treatment of injured Babloo, his statement was recorded by ASI Gyasuddin. ASI Gyasuddin alongwith complainant Babloo reached at the spot where one car having registration no. UP-14C-7408 was lying overturned in damaged condition behind the factory. The car was of make Maruti 800 having sky blue colour. After verification, it was revealed that the said Maruti 800 car was stolen vide E-FIR no.24131/15 dated 29.12.2015, Gali no.2, West, Rohtash Nagar. ASI Gyasuddin called the Crime team at the spot and the iron rod, danda, two reels of wire alongwith car having original registration no. DL- 6CD-0534 alongwith stereo remote lying near the car were seized by police. On the statement of Babloo, FIR No.666/15 for the offences punishable under section 394/397/411/511/34 IPC was registered. Statement of witnesses was recorded and site plan was prepared. Efforts SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 2 of 42 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.26 SETHI 17:09:55 +0530 were made to search the second absconding accused. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Ct. Pawan had brought the injured unknown to police station whose name was revealed as Virender S/o Rajpal R/o Adesh Nagar, Bhadana ka makaan, Tigori road, Banthla, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP. Accused Virender was arrested in the present case. The second accused namely Nanhe could not be traced. Accused Virender was sent to JC.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused Virender under section 393/394/397/452/34 IPC. Ld. MM after complying with the provisions of section 207 CrPC committed the case to the Sessions court as the offence punishable under section 397 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions court.
CHARGE
3. Charge under section 394/397/452/34 IPC was framed on 06.06.2016 against the accused Virender to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Accused Virender absconded later on and was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 29.10.2024. All the public witnesses were examined. Accordingly, the file was consigned to Record room with directions to prosecution to get the same revived after the appearance of accused Virender before the Court. Thereafter, on 12.12.2024, accused Virender was produced before the court after his fresh arrest vide DD No.25A dated 12.12.2024 and kalandra under section 41.1 (c) CrPC was filed in court. Accordingly, the original case was restored.
SC No. 847/2016State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 3 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:10:04 +0530
4. The supplementary charge-sheet qua offence under section 174-A IPC was filed against accused Virender on 09.01.2025. Charge under section 174A Part-II IPC was framed against accused Virender on 28.01.2025.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 19 witnesses in total.
6. PW-l Babloo deposed that he works in the wire factory of Akash Arora, Milan Garden, Mandoli Industrial Area, Delhi. He further deposed that on 30/31.12.2025, he alongwith his two associates namely Anil and Karun were present in the factory and were awake and the main gate of the factory was locked from inside. They heard the noise as "Khat". They all came to the main gate of the factory and they found that two persons at the gate who had broken open the Kundi of the main gate with the help of iron rod had entered inside the gate. He further deposed that this incident took place at about 12.00 or 12.30 mid-night.
He further deposed that one person was having iron rod in his hand and the other was having danda. He further deposed that accused Virender was having iron rod in his hand. Thereafter, accused Virender gave fist blow on his face, as a result he fell down on the ground. PW1 further deposed that his co-workers Anil and Varun were at some distance from him at that time who also came to him. The other person who was having danda in his hand gave fist blow on the face of Anil. Both of accused persons threatened them to keep quite otherwise they will kill them. Thereafter, the accused, present in the court, (Virender) gave a SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 4 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:10:13 +0530 rod blow on his right hand and asked them to stand on one side. Both the accused including accused, present in the court (Virender), started taking away two reels of aluminum wire from the factory. The person having danda stood at the gate. PW1 and Anil snatched the iron rod from accused present in court. Then, accused scuffled with PW1 and Anil. The other person having danda ran away from the factory leaving danda. PW1 further deposed that he and Anil had beaten the accused Virender with the same rod with which accused had hit PW1 Babloo. Both the aforesaid reels were snatched from accused. Karun made a call to owner of factory namely Akash Arora and PW1 and Anil had raised alarm. At the same time they found a Maruti car behind the said factory in which both the accused persons came there. He further deposed that when the accused, present in the court, was being beaten by them, he was trying to run away towards the said car but he could not succeed in running away and was apprehended. The registration number of said Maruti car was UP 14C-7408. It was a 800 Maruti car of blue colour. They were in anger, therefore, they damaged the said car also. After some time, the owner of factory Sh. Akash Arora also reached there who made a call at 100 No. and PCR reached there. The PCR official took accused Virender to GTB Hospital whereas PW1 was taken to the Police Station Harsh Vihar by the police. His statement was recorded by IO in the PS. His statement is Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, he was taken to GTB Hospital as he sustained injuries in this incident. The aforesaid wire reel were taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. Police prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/C at the instance of PW1. Police also seized the iron rod vide memo Ex.PW1/D. The danda was taken into possession by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. The SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 5 of 42 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.26 SETHI 17:10:22 +0530 said Maruti car along with remote of stereo of the said car were also taken into possession by police vide memos Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G respectively. Accused Virender was arrested by police in this case vide Ex.PW1/H. The MLC is proved as Ex.PW1/I. This witness identified the aforesaid Maruti car, the spot and the wire reels in photographs etc. This witness also identified the case property i.e. iron rod as Ex.P-1. Witness further deposed that he was hit with only iron rod and not with any danda. The other victim was hit with danda. Witness also identified the danda as Ex.P-2. PW1 also identified two plastic reels having aluminum wires as Ex.P-3. (The weighing machine was also obtained from the DGHS dispensary located in court complex and weight of each reel along with wires rolled around was obtained and each reel weighed 11 kg and 500 gm with a variation of 1 gm here or there). PW1 identified the remote as Ex.P4. He also identified the photographs of car as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW4/A (colly.). The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
7. PW2 Pankaj Maheshwari deposed that he is the registered owner of vehicle No. DL-6CD-0534 make maruti 800 colour marine green. He further deposed that he had parked the said vehicle outside his house on 28.12.2015 at about 9:30 p.m and one the next date i.e 29.12.2015 at about 4:00 p.m, his vehicle was missing and stolen by somebody. He lodged an e-FIR bearing No. 024131 dated 29.12.2015 at PS e-Police Station. Thereafter, the photographs of a car make Maruti 800 bearing No. UP-14C-7408 (false number) placed on record were shown to this witness and witness identified the said Maruti car to be the same which belonged to him. Photographs are Ex.PW2/A. Witness had got the said SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 6 of 42 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.26 SETHI 17:10:32 +0530 vehicle released on superdari vide order dated 23.01.2016 and he had sold the same. Witness identified the photographs Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW4/A (colly.) and he had identified his Maruti 800 car from the said photographs. MHC(M) had not produced the panchnama/CD/negatives/superdarinama as per the directions of the court dated 23.01.2016. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
8. PW-3 ASI Rishi Pal deposed that on 31.12.2015, he was working as Duty Officer in PS Harsh Vihar. A rukka was sent by ASI Gyasuddin through Ct. Lalit on receipt of which he registered FIR bearing по. 666/2015 of the present case. FIR is proved as Ex.PW3/A. His endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW3/B. He also gave certificate under section 65B Evidence Act Ex.PW3/C. The further investigation of the case was handed over to ASI Gyasuddin.
9. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that Ct. Lalit came to the PS at 4.20 AM and left after about 30-35 minutes. He deposed that he had also recorded DD No.5B dated 31.12.2015 at about 12.46 AM Ex.PW3/DA. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
10. PW4 HC Sanjay Kumar deposed that on 31.12 2015. he was posted as photographer in Mobile Crime Team, District North-East and on that day, he alongwith the Incharge Mobile Crime Team Unit SI Mukesh Chauhan and SI Madan Lal Fingerprint expert had gone to F- 23, Khasra no. 17/5, Mandoli, Harsh Vihar. The Incharge Crime Team SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 7 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:10:42 +0530 inspected the crime spot and this witness had taken 30 photographs from his official digital camera. The positives of the said photographs are Ex.PW4/A (colly.) (1 to 30). He had also brought the certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW4/B.
11. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused he deposed that the information was received by him at about 2.00 AM from the Control Room. They immediately left for the spot and reached there at about 2:30 am where they met 2-3 persons at the spot. IO ASI Gyasuddin and some other police officials were also present there. He remained there for about half an hour. His statement was recorded at the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot.
12. PW5 Akash Arora deposed that he owned a factory at Khasra no. 17/05, at F-23, Milan Garden, Mandoli Industrial Area and in the factory they do the work of varnish polish on aluminum wires. He further deposed that he had received a telephonic call in the night of 31.12.2015 from one of his employees namely Karun, who told him that some criminals (Badmash) had trespassed and forcibly entered inside the factory and were trying to take away some reels of aluminum wire. At that time, his other employees namely Anil and Bablu were also inside the factory. He immediately called at 100 number and he thereafter, reached his factory. When he reached there, he saw the latch (kunda) of the gate broken and 2 reels of aluminum were lying outside the factory, one iron rod and one danda were also lying outside the factory. He further deposed that accused present in the court was also SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 8 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:10:51 +0530 found lying on the ground in injured condition. When he looked around, he saw one Maruti 800 bearing no. UP14C 7408 was overturned. When he talked to his employees, they told him that two criminals had entered the factory and they were trying to run away with the aluminum reels and that the said criminals were beaten by the same iron rod and danda which was being carried by them when they had entered the factory. They also told him that one of the criminal had managed to escape. Thereafter, the PCR arrived and had taken the injured to the hospital. He further deposed that other police officials had taken his other employees namely Anil and Bablu who were also injured in the incident, to the hospital. IO recorded his statement. This witness had identified the iron rod as Ex.P1 and wooden danda as Ex. P2. He also identified two plastic reels containing aluminum wires duly polished as Ex.P3. This witness had also identified the photographs on record as the photographs of his factory.
13. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused he deposed that he did not remember the telephone number from which he had received information from his employee Karun. He reached at his factory in about 15-20 minutes. He denied the suggestion that he was not the owner of the factory. He further deposed that 3-4 police officials had reached at the factory within 5-10 minutes of his reaching there.
The photographs were taken in his presence. The Crime team had arrived after about one and half hour after the accused and his injured laborers were taken to the hospital. Till the time, he went to the hospital, the photographer had not arrived. He immediately followed his laborers to the hospital and returned again to his factory after leaving SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 9 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.02.26 SETHI 17:11:00 +0530 them in the hospital. He remained in the hospital for about 10-15 minutes and returned to his factory. He further deposed that the Crime team was comprised of 4-5 officials. The photographer had not obtained his signatures. He had not shown the ownership documents to the Crime team. He had not produced the employment details of his employees Anil, Bablu and Karun in the court. He denied the suggestion that they were not his employees and that is why he had not produced their details. He further deposed that when he returned from the hospital, his employee Karun was present in the factory and police had obtained his signatures on his statement. (The statement of witness under section 161 Cr.PC was shown to him and the witness stated that this was his statement given to the police and further deposed that it is correct that it did not bear his signatures). He denied the suggestion that he had not given any statement to the police and the same was recorded by them on their own. He did not know till what time the police remained at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he never visited his factory upon receiving information from his employees. He further denied the suggestion that he had not seen his employees or the accused in injured condition. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the case property at the spot. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being owner of the factory. He denied the suggestion that he was not the owner of aluminum reels. He stated that it is correct that he had not brought any document regarding ownership of the case property. He did not know to whom the seal was handed over by the police.
14. PW6 Karun deposed that on the night of 30/31.12.2015, he was SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 10 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:11:09 +0530 present in the factory of aluminum wires owned by Akash and at that time, Bablu Pandey and Anil, the other employees of the factory were also present with him. He alongwith other employees were working in the factory when they heard a noise at the main gate and somebody broke the latch (kunda) of the main gate which was locked from inside. Two persons entered the factory. He further deposed that the accused present in the court was carrying an iron rod and the other person was carrying a danda with him. He further deposed that the accused first gave a fist blow to Bablu, thereafter, Anil was also given a blow on his face. The accused persons threatened them to keep quite. Accused picked up two aluminum reels one in each hand. PW6 with other employees ran after the accused and apprehended him at the gate. Bablu apprehended the accused first. Bablu snatched the rod from the hands of the accused and Bablu beat the accused with the same iron rod. He and his other co-employee Anil ran after the associates of accused. One car Maruti 800 of blue color bearing no. UP-14C-7408 was parked behind the factory. The associates of the accused ran towards the car and they ran after him. The associates of the accused ran away from spot leaving the car behind. PW6 and other employee returned and beat up the accused. They also overturned the car to prevent it from being carried away by somebody. He had made a call to his owner and the police vehicle also arrived. The police had first taken the accused to the hospital and thereafter, Anil and Bablu were also taken to the hospital. He remained behind at the factory. He further deposed that the owner of the factory also came to the spot and 2-3 persons from the neighborhood also arrived there. Police had met him and made inquiries from him and recorded his statement.SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 11 of 42 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.26 SETHI 17:11:17 +0530
15. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused he deposed that he was working in the factory of Akash since the year 2008. He was paid regular salary in cash but no salary slip or I.D. Card was issued. He further deposed that the incident had taken place on 31.12.2015. He had made call on number 9711133272 to Aakash at about 12.00 midnight. The owner reached the factory at about 12:45 am. He further deposed that police arrived after the arrival of owner.
The owner of the factory had gone to the hospital alongwith Anil and Bablu after about 10-15 minutes of his arrival. Police had taken the statements of Bablu and Anil first. He further deposed that he had taken leave for two days and returned to factory on 03.01.2016 and thereafter, his statement was recorded. Police had taken possession of the case property comprising of two aluminum reels, rod and danda on the same day. He further deposed that in his presence, the case property was not converted and sealed into a pulanda by covering of cloth but all of it was taken by police in his presence. Police had remained at the spot for about 20 minutes and second time also police remained at the spot for 10-15 minutes. He further deposed that in his presence, the photographs were not taken by any official. Police might have done some other writing work outside the factory but as he was frightened he remained in the factory. He denied the suggestion that he was not the employee of Akash Arora. He further denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident or that he was a planted witness. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
16. PW7 Ct. Ashish deposed that on 31.12.2015, he was working as DD Writer in PS Harsh Vihar and HC Rishipal was the duty officer. He SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 12 of 42 SUMEDH Digitally signed by SUMEDH KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.26 SETHI 17:11:30 +0530 further deposed that at about 12:46 am, he recorded DD no. 5B Ex.PW3/DA and the information was conveyed to ASI Gayasudin on phone as per instructions of duty officer. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
17. PW8 Dr. Himanshu deposed that on 15.01.2016, he was posted as SR Ortho in GTB Hospital. He further deposed that record of patient Babloo S/o Sh. Shiv Das was produced before him. He had examined the MLC of the patient and opined the nature of injury as simple on the MLC Ex.PW1/I. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
18. PW9 Dr. Chukka Praveen Kumar deposed that he was deputed by the Medical Superintendent, GTB Hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. Wasim JR as well as Dr. Reena, CMO. He had identified the signature and handwriting of Dr. Wasim JR as well as Dr. Reena as he had seen them signing and writing. MLC Ex.PW1/I bears the signatures of Dr. Wasim JR and signature of Dr. Reena. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
19. PW10 Dr. Abhishek Kumar deposed that on 31.12.2015, he was posted as CMO in GTB Hospital and on that day, at about 02.02 AM, patient Anil S/o Lalta, aged 26 years, male was brought in the hospital by Ct. Pawan with alleged history of physical assault. He further deposed that Dr. Wasim who was working as JR with him, examined the patient and prepared the MLC F-9350/15 (Ex.PW10/A) and he identified the signature of Dr. Wasim at point A. He further deposed SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 13 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:11:39 +0530 that after examination of the patient he was discharged from the hospital. He further deposed that on the same day, at about 01.49 AM, one unknown patient was also admitted in the hospital by HC Mahender of PCR with alleged history of assault (beaten by public) and Dr. Wasim who was working as JR with him examined the patient and prepared his MLC vide MLC No.5705/15 (Ex.PW10/B) and he identified the signature of Dr. Wasim. The patient was referred to Surgery and Neuro-trauma for further management. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
20. PW11 Dr. Amit Gamit deposed that he was posted at GTB Hospital as SR Neuro Surgery. He had been deputed by the MS GTB Hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. Amit, SR Neuro Surgery who had given the opinion regarding nature of injury in the MLC No. F-9362/15 dated 31.12.2015 Mark X, as he had left the services of GTB Hospital. He identified the signatures of Dr. Amit, SR Neuro Surgery on the MLC Mark X as he had seen the signature and handwriting of Dr. Amit SR Neuro Surgery from the record available in the GTB Hospital. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
21. PW12 Anil Kumar deposed that he used to work in the wire factory of Sh. Akash Arora at F-23, Milan Garden, Mandoli Industrial Area, Delhi. He further deposed that it was in the night of 30/31.12.2015, he alongwith Bablu and Karun were present in the factory and the lights of the factory were on and main gate of the factory was locked from inside and at about 12.15 am in the night, the gate of the factory opened with the noise of khat. Two people entered SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 14 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:11:47 +0530 the factory one was having a danda and the other was having iron rod in his hand. He further deposed that both the said persons threatened them and started giving beatings to him with danda and iron rod. Thereafter, the person who was having iron rod in his hand picked up the reels of aluminum wire and started taking away the same. Bablu caught hold the said person and then he and Karun also came to the help of Bablu and grappled with the said person and Bablu snatched the iron rod from the said person and Bablu attacked said person with the said rod and the said person fell down in the gali. He further deposed that the person who was having danda ran away from the spot after leaving the same at the spot. The wire rolls fell on the ground. Thereafter, the person having rod stood up and tried to run away from there but he was apprehended by them. Thereafter, call was made to the owner of the factory. Police came at the spot and injured person who came with rod in his hand was sent to the hospital. He further deposed that the witness himself and Bablu were also sent to GTB Hospital for treatment. This witness had identified the accused Virender in the Court as the same person who entered into the factory with rod and tried to run away with the reels of aluminum wire and gave beatings to them. He also identified the iron rod as Ex.P1, the wooden danda as Ex.P2, two plastic reels containing aluminum wire duly polished as Ex.P3. Ld. Addl. PP for the State also cross examined this witness on some material facts.
22. On cross examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness stated that it is correct that Maruti car 800 bearing no. UP14C-7408 was parked behind the factory and the other person who was having wooden danda tried to escape in the said Maruti Car but they (witness and his SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 15 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:11:57 +0530 other co-employees) had over turned the said Maruti Car and the said person has ran away from the spot. This witness had identified the Maruti car make 800 in the photographs of the Maruti car placed on judicial record as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW4/A (colly.). The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
23. PW13 Ct. Pawan Kumar deposed that on 30/31.12.2015, he was posted as Constable at PS Harsh Vihar and in the intervening night of 30/31.12.2015 from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am, he was on night emergency duty. On receipt of information regarding quarrel at about 1.00 AM, he reached at Khasra No. 17/5, F-23, Milan Garden, Mandoli Industrial Area, Delhi where he found one person lying in injured condition at the gate of the factory and blood was oozing out from his head. He further deposed that PCR Van came there and the said person was taken to GTB Hospital and other person namely Anil was present at the spot and he had taken him to GTB Hospital on his private motorcycle and got his MLC No. F-9350/2015. Thereafter, IO left him at GTB Hospital with the direction to guard the injured who was brought to the hospital by the PCR Van. He further deposed that on 31.12.2015 at about 11.00 AM, he had brought the said person to PS Harsh Vihar and handed over him to the IO. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement in this regard. This witness also identified accused in the Court as the same person who was found lying in injured condition at the gate of the factory and was taken to GTB Hospital and whom he produced before the IO on 31.12.2015. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
SC No. 847/2016State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 16 of 42 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.26 SETHI 17:12:05 +0530
24. PW14 SI Madan Lal deposed that on 31.12.2015, he was working as Finger Print Expert, Mobile Crime Team, N/E District and on receipt of a call vide DD No. 5B at about 12.46 AM, he alongwith Ct. Sanjay photographer and I/C Crime Team went to the place of occurrence at F- 23, Khasra No.17/5, Milan Garden, Harsh Vihar and the crime scene was inspected from 2.30 AM till 3.00 AM. He prepared his report Ex.PW14/A and the same was handed over to the IO. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
25. PW15 Ct. Lalit Kumar deposed that on 31.12.2015, he was posted at PS Harsh Vihar and on that day, on receipt of DD No. 5A at around 12.46 am, he alongwith ASI Gyasuddin reached F-23, Khasra No. 17/05, Milan Garden, Mandoli Industrial Area. They reached there at around 1.00 am. He observed three persons were lying injured opposite the factory of Aakash Arora. The gate of the factory was lying broken and he had also seen two bundles of wire, one iron rod and one wooden danda also lying at the spot. The injured were shifted to GTB Hospital by the PCR. The other two injured persons were also taken to the hospital by Ct. Pawan and Ct. Sudesh. Crime Team was called at the spot. He further deposed that behind the factory of Aakash Arora, he had seen one Maruti Car 800 of blue colour which was having the number plate of UP-14 C-7408 lying overturned and all the glass panes were broken. One stereo was also lying outside the car. IO left him at the spot and himself proceeded to the hospital. After sometime, IO returned to the spot alongwith one Bablu. The site was got photographed by the Crime Team and it was also inspected. The two wire reels each weighing about 12.2 kgs were taken into possession and SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 17 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:12:14 +0530 sealed with the seal of GS. The iron rod which was bent on one side and pointed from the other side and was about 2 feet in length was also taken into possession and duly sealed with the seal of GS. The wooden danda which was about 30 inches in length was also taken into possession and duly sealed with the seal of GS. The stereo remote lying outside the car was also taken into possession and duly sealed with the seal of GS. The chasis and engine number of Maruti Car was checked and the real number of the car was found to be DL-6C D-0534 and the same was found to have been stolen from the area of PS Shahdara and a case e-FIR No.24321/15 was found to be already registered. The car was also taken into possession. IO prepared a tehrir and same was handed over to him. He further deposed that he took the same to the PS and got the present case registered. He returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and tehrir to the IO. Thereafter, they returned to the PS and case property was deposited in the Malkhana. The injured person/accused after the treatment came to the PS whose name was revealed as Virender @ Ajay and accused was sent for treatment in the PCR. Accused was arrested and his arrest memo Ex.PW1/H was prepared. Accused was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW15/A. Accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW15/B. Thereafter, accused had taken the police officials to the place of occurrence and a pointing out memo was prepared vide Ex.PW15/C. The plastic wheels containing the aluminum wire were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. The iron rod was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. The danda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. The Maruti Car was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F and stereo SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 18 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:12:22 +0530 remote was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/J. Witness correctly identified accused Virender in the Court. Witness correctly identified the iron rod as Ex.P1, the wooden danda as Ex.P2, two plastic reels containing aluminium wires as Ex.P3, the stereo remote as Ex.P4. Witness also correctly identified the Maruti car and other recovered case property from the photographs available on judicial record as Ex.PW2A and Ex.PW4A (colly).
26. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused he stated that he went to the spot on his motorcycle but he did not remember its registration number. He further deposed that some public persons were present who were 5-10 in number but they were not known to him. There were three PCR officials present in the PCR. No blood stains were found at the spot. He had entered the factory. He did not know the measurement of the factory. He did not remember the number of documents prepared by the IO. He deposed that he told by idea that the danda was of 30 inches. He further deposed that there were blood stains present on the said danda but he cannot say to whom this blood belonged. Crime Team reached at the spot at about 1.00/1.30 am but he did not remember how many officials they were. He had himself checked the engine and chasis number of the car but he did not remember the same. The chasis and engine number of the vehicle were mentioned in the seizure memo. He denied the suggestion that the car recovered from the spot is not the same as is shown in the photographs. He further stated during the cross examination that IO had asked the public persons to give statement in his presence but none agreed. IO did not record the names and particulars of such persons as they did not SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 19 of 42 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.26 SETHI 17:12:31 +0530 disclose the same. He further deposed that when the accused was taken in the PCR he did not disclose his name. Accused was semi-conscious at that time. He further deposed that he did not know who is the owner of factory. He finally left the spot at about 5.00 am and reached the PS. He took the tehrir at about 2.00 am. He further deposed that statement of Ct. Sudesh and Bablu were recorded in his presence outside the factory. IO did not obtain the details of workers working in the factory, in his presence nor had collected any register or other details. He did not know whether factory owner had reached the spot till the time he was present at the spot. He alongwith IO returned to the spot and deposited the case property in the Malkhana. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not present at the spot and all the proceedings were done by the IO while sitting at the PS. He also denied the suggestion that he had never visited the spot or he was deposing falsely.
27. PW16 Ct. Sudesh Kumar deposed that on the intervening night of 30/31.12.2015, he was posted at PS Harsh Vihar and was on night emergency duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. At about 1.00 am, he reached at F-23 Khasra No. 17/05, Milan Garden Mandoli Industrial Area Delhi. Ct. Pawan had also reached there. He further deposed that the PCR Van had also reached there. He had seen one person lying injured in the gali outside the factory F-23 who was having bleeding injuries on his head. Two other injured persons were also lying at the spot. He had taken the injured whose name was later on came to be known as Bablu, on his private motorcycle to GTB Hospital for his medical treatment. IO recorded his statement.
SC No. 847/2016State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 20 of 42 SUMEDH Digitally by SUMEDH signed KUMAR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2026.02.26 SETHI 17:12:41 +0530
28. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused the witness deposed that he started from the PS immediately on receipt of information and reached the spot at about 1.00 am. He did not remember the number of motorcycle since he had sold it and got a new one. He deposed that he had not entered the factory. Some factory people were present there and no public persons were found as it was already midnight. He did not know the name of other injured. He did not return to the spot from the hospital. He himself had not made my departure entry. In his presence, no statement of any injured was recorded by the IO. IO recorded his statement at the PS. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot or he had not taken injured to the hospital or that he was deposing falsely.
29. PW17 ASI Gyasuddin deposed that on the intervening night of 30/31.12.2015, he was posted at PS Harsh Vihar and on that day, he was on emergency duty alongwith Ct. Lalit from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. He further deposed that on receipt of DD No.5B Ex.PW3/DA, he alongwith Ct. Lalit had gone to F-23 Milan Garden Mandoli Industrial Area, in the factory of Akash Arora. He met Akash Arora at the gate of the factory and he had also seen one injured person lying outside the gate of factory and two other injured persons lying outside the factory. He had seen two wire reels, one danda, one iron rod and one remote also lying at the spot. He had also seen one Maruti 800 car of sky-blue colour overturned behind the factory. The said car was damaged. PCR Van arrived at the spot. Ct. Pawan and Ct. Sudesh also arrived from the PS. The person who was severely injured was sent to the hospital through PCR and two other injured persons name Bablu and Anil were SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 21 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:12:49 +0530 also sent to GTB Hospital through Ct. Pawan and Sudesh. He further deposed that Ct. Lalit was left at the spot to guard the same. He has sent the intimation to Crime Team. From the spot, he left for GTB Hospital where he collected MLC No.5705/15 which was made in the name of some unknown person and also collected MLC No.5706/15 which was in the name of Bablu. He further deposed that Bablu was discharged from the hospital and he accompanied him to the spot. He met the Crime Team at the spot which inspected the spot and had taken photographs. Ct. Pawan and Ct. Sudesh remained at the hospital. He had taken into possession the two plastic reels and the same were measuring about 7" X same were weighing about 12 kgs each. Both the reels were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He had also taken into possession iron rod which was about 2 feet in length, one end was pointed, one end was flat/chapta, and was having a partition in between. Same was converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of GS and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. Similarly, one wooden danda which was about 29" in length and was having a thickness of about one inch was also taken into possession and converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of GS vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. One stereo remote of silver black colour was also converted into a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of GS and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/J. Seal after use was given to Ct. Lalit. The overturned Maruti Car of sky-blue colour which was having a broken number plate of UP-14 C-7408, was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F. PW17 put his endorsement Ex.PW17/A on the statement of Bablu and same was handed over to Ct. Lalit who went to the PS and got the present case SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 22 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.02.26 SETHI 17:12:58 +0530 registered. Copy of FIR is proved as Ex.PW3/A and certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW3/C. He prepared site plan Ex.PW1/C at the pointing out of Bablu. Ct. Lalit returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and tehrir to him. He recorded the statement of witnesses. They returned to the PS with case property and same was deposited with the MHC(M). Ct. Pawan reached the PS alongwith the injured whose name on inquiry was revealed as Virender R/o Loni. Accused was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW15/A. Accused also made disclosure statement Ex.PW15/B. Accused had taken them to the spot and pointing out memo regarding the place of occurrence was prepared which is proved as Ex.PW15/C. Accused also accompanied him in search of co-accused Nanhe but he could not be found. Accused was produced before the Court and remanded to JC. He had also recorded the statement of PW Karun as well as Pankaj Maheshwari, owner of car. He had also received the Crime Team Report which is proved as Ex.PW14/A and recorded the statements of Crime Team witnesses. The photographs of the crime scene and the vehicle are Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW4/A (colly.). He had also collected the previous crime record of the accused Ex.PW17/B and Ex.PW17/C. He also collected the certificate under section 65-B of the Evidence Act in this regard, which is proved as Ex.PW4/B. Accused was examined vide his MLC Ex.PW10/B and Mark X, as he had also received injuries during the incident as the injured persons/witnesses had also beaten the accused. He recorded the statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation, he filed the challan before the concerned court. He further deposed that the recovered Maruti Car was found to have been stolen by SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 23 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:13:06 +0530 the accused and e-FIR No. 24131/15 of PS Shahdara was already registered. Witness has correctly identified the iron rod as Ex.P1, danda as Ex.P2, aluminum wire as Ex.P3 (colly.), one stereo remote as Ex.P4. This witness also identified the Maruti Car from the photographs on record.
30. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, PW17 deposed that call was received by him at about 12.45 am which was regarding apprehension of thief. He further deposed that they went to the spot by a private motorcycle but he did not remember its registration number. He deposed that they reached the spot at about 1.15 am. He remained at the spot for about one hour. He had prepared seizure memo after return from the hospital. Only the recovered articles were lying outside the factory. Crime Team reached the spot at about 2.00/2.30 am after his arrival from the hospital. He further deposed that at the time when unknown person was sent to the hospital, he was unconscious. He reached the hospital at about 1.30/1.45 am. He had recorded the statement of Bablu in the hospital. When he came to the PS, he was walking. He did not know at what time accused was discharged from the hospital. Accused reached the PS at around 11.30/12 noon. SI Madan Lal and Ct. Sanjay of Crime Team were present and they conducted proceedings in the presence of this witness. He had put the FIR number on the pullanda of reels. No FIR number was mentioned on the reels. He measured the danda with the help of 'inch-tape of recksine'. He did not know the name of the factory being run by Akash Arora at the spot. He had seen the ownership documents of the factory but did not seize them. He did not inquire as to since when the factory SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 24 of 42 Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:13:14 +0530 was being run at that place. About 7-8 workers were employed in the factory and none was found to be having any I-card. They were not having attendance register. Car was taken to the PS on the same day. It was not in working condition and was taken by a private crane hired by them but he did not know the name of any such company. He did not record the statement of driver of crane nor had taken his particulars. He deposed that it is correct that some other factories are also present in the surrounding area near the spot. All were closed at that time. He remained at the spot till about 5.30/6.00 am after returning from hospital. He recorded statement of Anil and Akash at the spot and statement of SI Madan Lal, Ct. Sanjay, Ct. Pawan and Ct. Lalit in the PS. He recorded the statement of Pankaj Maheshwari at his house on 28th January. Car of Pankaj Maheshwari was stolen on 29.12.2015. He denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were conducted while sitting at the PS and the signatures of accused were obtained on blank papers and accused was falsely implicated in this case. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the spot and the same have been planted.
31. PW18 HC Deepak Kumar deposed that on 12.12.2024, he was posted at PS Geeta Colony as HC. He came to know that accused Virender was declared PO in the present case vide order dated 29.10.2024. Vide DD No. 25A dated 12.12.2024, he alongwith SI Rajeshwer Rao was in search of accused Virender. When they reached had at Yusufpur, Greater Noida, UP, one secret informer informed them that accused Virender, would come at Tigri Gole Chakkar, Greater Noida, UP. They reached at Tigri Gole Chakkar. The secret informer SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 25 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:13:22 +0530 signaled towards the accused and left. They made inquiries from the person who revealed his name as Virender S/o Rajpal R/o Usha ka makan, Near Sheetla Mata mandir, Tigri Gole Chakkar, Greater Noida, UP. He informed the accused that he was declared PO in case FIR No.666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar vide order dated 29.10.2024. He prepared the Kalandra u/s 35.1(d) BNSS Ex.PW18/A. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/B. He also conducted the personal search of accused vide personal search memo Ex.PW18/C. He got the accused medically examined in SDN Hospital. Thereafter, he produced the accused before the concerned Court. This witness correctly identified the accused in the court.
32. During cross examination of this witness by accused, he denied the suggestion that accused could not appear before court in the present case as he was undergoing custody in some other case. He further denied the suggestion that accused did not have any information of being declared a PO. He denied that accused was falsely arrested and produced before the Court. He stated that it is wrong to suggest that no case is made out against the accused.
33. PW19 SI Rajeshwar Rao deposed that on 12.12.2024, he was posted at PS Geeta Colony as SI and was part of a team constituted to search and arrest the absconders. He came to know that one accused namely Virender was declared PO in the present case vide order dated 29.10.2024. Vide DD No. 25A dated 12.12.2024, he alongwith HC Deepak went in search of accused Virender. When they reached at Yusufpur, Greater Noida, UP, one secret informer informed them that accused Virender, would come at Tigri Gole Chakkar, Greater Noida, SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 26 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:13:30 +0530 UP. Thereafter, they reached at Tigri Gole Chakkar. The secret informer signaled us towards the accused and left the spot. They apprehended him. They made inquiries from accused Virender S/o Rajpal R/o Usha ka makan, Near Sheetla Mata mandir, Tigri Gole Chakkar, Greater Noida, UP. HC Deepak informed the accused that he was declared PO in case FIR No.666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar vide order dated 29.10.2024. HC Deepak prepared Kalandra u/s 35.1(d) BNSS, already Ex.PW18/A. HC Deepak arrested the accused vide arrest memo already Ex.PW18/B. He also conducted the personal search of accused vide personal search memo already Ex.PW18/C. HC Deepak got the accused medical examined in SDN Hospital. Thereafter, they produced the accused before the concerned Court. This witness correctly identified the accused in court.
34. During cross examination of this witness by accused, he denied that accused could not appear before the Court in the present case as he was undergoing custody in some other case. He denied the suggestion that accused did not have any information of being declared a PO. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely arrested and produced before the Court.
35. The accused had admitted the genuineness of e-FIR No.024131 dated 29.12.2015 Ex.C-1. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED
36. Statement of accused Virender under section 313 CrPC was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence and stated that it is a SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 27 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:13:40 +0530 false case and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused had opted not to lead any defence evidence.
37. Arguments have been heard from Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the accused Virender. Material on record perused and submissions considered.
ARGUMENTS
38. It has been argued by ld. APP that the accused stands identified by the witnesses and the medical evidence on record coupled with the deposition of the injured are enough to convict the accused for the offences with which he is charged.
39. It has been argued by ld. Counsel for the accused that:
i) The identity of the vehicle allegedly used by the accused is doubtful for want of production of car and its superdarinama.
ii) PW1 Bablu who is the key witness for the prosecution was not cross examined despite being the main complainant.
iii) There has been no mention of efforts made to arrest the co-
accused despite allegations stating that there was one more person accompanying the accused.
iv) PW5 Akash could not prove that he was the owner of the factory in question.
v) The accused was also injured during the alleged scuffle but his injuries had not been examined by any of the doctors.
vi) The injury suffered by the witnesses is simple in nature and therefore, the aggravated form of the offence with which the accused is SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 28 of 42 Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.02.26 SETHI 17:13:49 +0530 charged is not made out.
vii) For the offence of trespass, no CCTV footage has been procured and no public witnesses have been examined.
viii) For the offence under section 174-A IPC, only arresting witnesses have been examined and no witness relating to declaration of the accused as a proclaimed offender has been examined.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
40. This court finds that, briefly stated, the allegations against the accused are that he alongwith his accomplice, who could not be caught, broke into the factory of PW5 Aakash Arora and hit PW1 Bablu with an iron rod and PW12 Anil with a danda and after threatening them, he tried to take away some wire bundles kept in the factory. However, a scuffle broke out between the accused, his accomplice and the three persons present at the factory after Bablu and Anil snatched the iron rod from the accused. The accomplice of the accused fled from the spot, leaving the danda there. The accused was beaten up with the same rod and a call was made to PW5. The accused tried to run towards the Maruti Car parked behind the factory which he and his accomplice had allegedly used to come to the spot, but was apperehended. The witnesses, out of anger, also damaged the car.
Injuries suffered by the witnesses and the accused:
41. The MLC of injured Bablu Ex.PW1/I shows that the injuries suffered by him were simple in nature. As per his testimony, the accused had hit him with the iron rod on his face. PW1 had also deposed that PW12 Anil was hit on his face by the accomplice of the SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 29 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.02.26 SETHI 17:13:58 +0530 accused with the danda. MLC of the accused Ex.PW10/B also shows certain injuries suffered by him. The same are again explained in the testimony of PW1 and PW12 and are commensurate with the version of the witnesses to the effect that PW1 used the same rod to inflict such injuries upon the accused.
Motive:
42. The motive behind the alleged acts of accused appears to be acquisition of the wire rolls kept in the factory. The same is clearly brought out in the depositions of PW1, PW6 and PW12. Nothing material has come on record to contradict the version of these witnesses. The iron rod allegedly used in the incident was bent on one side and flattened. The said rod allegedly recovered from the spot is seen alongwith a danda and two rolls of wires in the third photograph i.e. Ex.PW4/A (colly.) taken at the scene of crime i.e. the factory. The 'broken kunda' seen in photograph no.20 supports the motive attributed to the accused and the shape of the rod appears to be such as would be useful in breaking the kunda.
Intention:
43. The intention of the accused can again be discerned from the testimony of PW1, PW6 and PW12. His presence at the spot of the incident late at night, the presence of the bent rod and danda on the spot, the two bundles of wires lying on the floor and the injuries caused to the PW1 and PW12 show that the intention of the accused was to break into the factory, beat up the witnesses and get away with the wire rolls after threatening them. Further, the intention to cause grievous SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 30 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:14:06 +0530 injury is also discernible from the fact that PW1 in his deposition has stated that the accused hit him on his face with the iron rod and also hit him on his hand.
Identity and Role of the accused:
44. PW1, PW6 and PW12 have identified the accused as the person who had entered the factory with the iron rod in his hand and hit PW1. The depositions of all these witnesses remains consistent in this regard. In the testimony of PW1, it has been mentioned that the name of the accused present in court 'was known to him as Virender'. However, this point stands clarified from the depositions of PW6 and PW12. It is not as if the accused was known to PW1 from before but it appears that he got to know about the name of the accused around the time of the incident. Irrespective, the identity of the accused stands clearly established from the depositions of PW1, PW6 and PW12 and from his apprehension from the spot. How and when the witnesses got to know about his name is not of much significance when he has been identified as the person who broke into the factory and used the iron rod to hit PW1 as well as tried to carry the two wire rolls away.
45. Having firmly established the centerpiece of the prosecution story, this court finds that the other pieces of the puzzle seamlessly fit in place around this center piece.
Other evidence:
46. First up, the timing of the FIR corresponds to the alleged time of incident. There is no delay in registering of the FIR or receipt of the SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 31 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:14:13 +0530 information.
47. The versions given by the police witnesses match with each other with no material difference being pointed out. The defence has also not been able to bring out any material contradiction or discrepancy with regard to the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence or the wire rolls from the spot. This lends further credibility to the version of the prosecution.
Absence of cross examination of PW1: (Effect thereof)
48. One crucial aspect requiring deliberation is that PW1 who is the main complainant i.e. Bablu has not been cross examined despite opportunity and such opportunity to cross examine the witness stood closed on 02.05.2019. A perusal of the order sheet of the said date shows that the examination of the witness was concluded on that date on the request of the witness himself as he was feeling harassed by coming to the court many times. The proxy counsel for the accused on that date had sought adjournment due to non availability of main counsel. Vide detailed reasoning given in the said order, the ld. Predecessor has rejected the ground for adjournment and even offered to pass over the matter for the appearance of the main counsel but this opportunity was not availed by the ld. Proxy counsel. As a matter of fact, even the accused felt exasperated due to the witness not being cross examined and submitted that he wants the discharge of his counsel and wishes to avail the services of a legal aid counsel. Directions were also given for forwarding the request of the accused to the Secretary DLSA. However, on 15.05.2019, the accused made an SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 32 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:14:20 +0530 entirely different submission that he wishes to continue with his previous counsel. The counsel then verbally made submission that he would move appropriate application under section 311 CrPC. However, no such application was made. It is settled law that cross examination of the complainant is a vital right that accrues to an accused. However, the accused cannot be allowed to fritter away the opportunities for availing this right and then seek to take advantage of the fact that the witness could not be cross examined. Allowing this would tantamount to an abuse of process of the court and would allow an accused to take the benefit of his own wrong. Therefore, in view of the special circumstances that led to the witness being discharged unexamined, this court is of the opinion that the witness not being cross examined ought not to prejudice the case of the prosecution in the present matter.
49. Even otherwise, even if the entire testimony of PW1 was discarded for the mere reason that he was not cross examined, then also the case of the prosecution stands firmly on the testimonies of PW6 and PW12 who have substantially corroborated what PW1 had said. Thus, the lack of cross examination of PW1 cannot in any manner be of any benefit to the accused.
Identity of the vehicle allegedly used by the accused:
50. One of the points raised by the defence is that the identity of the vehicle which the accused allegedly used for coming to the spot of the incident could not be established as neither the vehicle was ever produced physically before the court nor the superdarinama of the same was filed on record. However, in this regard, it is noteworthy that in the SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 33 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:14:30 +0530 examination in chief of PW1 this point has been specifically dealt with and the request for production of the vehicle physically has been specifically denied in the wake of directions given by the Hon'ble Courts higher above from time to time for proving the identity of such articles/vehicles through photographs rather than requiring the retention and production of such vehicles physically. The superdarinama is of no consequence as the photographs of the vehicle i.e. Ex.PW2/A (colly.) and Ex.PW4/A (colly.) were brought on record. In the examination in chief dated 02.05.2019, it has also been specifically recorded that the vehicle stood identified by the witness on 02.11.2016 on seeing the 34 photographs of the car in question.
51. Even otherwise, the car is not a central character in the story of the prosecution. The version of the prosecution stands established with regard to the breaking of the 'kunda' of the factory, the accused hitting the complainant and trying to take away the wire rolls. Irrespective of whether the accused would have committed these acts by reaching the spot in the said car or through any other mode, such mode would not have any bearing on the acts themselves.
52. Be that as it may, the recovery of the remote of the car stereo Ex.P4 from the spot also proves the presence of the car at the spot and completes the chain of the prosecution story.
Apprehension of the co-accused (Effect of failure):
53. One point that was raised by ld. Counsel for the accused pertains to failure on part of the investigating agency to apprehend the other SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 34 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:14:38 +0530 person who was allegedly accompanying the accused. The court sees not reason why this would in anyway benefit the case of the defence. Moreover, the IO, PW17 has specifically stated that he tried to apprehend the co-accused namely Nanhe with the assistance of the present accused but he could not be found. PW1, PW6 and PW12 have also categorically stated that the second person who was armed with danda fled from the spot. There is no inconsistency or contradiction with regard to the involvement of the second person which would raise doubt against the guilt of the present accused in anyway.
PW5 not being the owner of the factory:
54. PW5 was cross examined at length regarding whether he was the owner of the factory in question and was unable to show any documents in this regard. He also could not show any employment details in respect of PW1, PW6 and PW12. This point raised by the defence is of no consequence as ownership of the factory is immaterial for the purposes of the offence with which the accused has been charged. It is noteworthy that the offence of robbery is a form of theft and theft as defined in section 378 IPC is an offence against 'possession' and not ownership. The prosecution witnesses clearly bring out how the accused tried to take the wire rolls out of the possession of the witnesses who were manning the factory. There is nothing on record to counter such possession. Likewise, the offence of trespass as defined in section 441 IPC is also an offence against possession and for this reason, the ownership of the property is immaterial. The employment details of PW1, PW6 and PW12 are also of little relevance as it is not uncommon for people being employed in such factories without proper SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 35 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:14:47 +0530 documentation or records.
Injury suffered by the accused:
55. Another defence raised is that even the accused had suffered injuries and that these injuries were not investigated. In the opinion of the court, this rather goes against the accused as opposed to favoring him in any manner as it only corroborates the version of the witnesses that during the scuffle, PW1 used the same rod that was brought by the accused to hit the accused himself. These injuries are not beyond the prosecution version but rather in consonance with it.
CCTV footage & Public witnesses (Absence thereof):
56. The lack of public witnesses has been consistently turned down as the sole ground for an acquittal when there is other glaring evidence on record against the accused. There will be no useful purpose served by citing multiple authorities on this point. Likewise, absence of CCTV footage is also of little consequence when three witnesses have deposed consistently regarding the incident and identified the accused as being involved in the offences committed.
Injuries suffered by the complainant are simple in nature:
57. The ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant PW1 suffered simple injuries and therefore, the offence punishable under section 397 IPC is not made out. However, the said offence has three alternate requirements that are:
1. Use of deadly weapon, or
2. Causing grievous hurt to any person, or SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 36 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.02.26 SETHI 17:14:54 +0530
3. Attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to any person.
In the present case, while the injuries suffered by the complainant are simple in nature, the act of hitting the complainant in his face and on his hand with the iron rod of the description given above definitely shows an attempt to cause grievous hurt. However, assuming for a moment that there is no attempt to cause grievous hurt, then, this court will have to deliberate upon whether there was 'use of deadly weapon' by the accused during the incident.
Whether the accused 'used' a 'deadly weapon'?
58. The iron rod allegedly used by the accused was bent on one side and pointed from the other side and was about 2 feet in length. With regard to such weapons, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of 'Bijender @ Naushad Vs. State decided on 13.02.2014' that:-
"16. In Adesh Kumar (supra), the charge against the appellant was that he had used a knife for committing robbery. The witness did not tell the court as to what kind of knife was used by the appellant nor did he depose with respect to the size of its blade. In the circumstances it was held that the weapon used by the appellant could not be said to be a deadly weapon. This judgement, in my view, would be per incuriam since the attention of the court was not drawn to the binding decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Phool Kumar (supra). Moreover, in a subsequent decision in Salim Vs. State 1987 (3) Crimes 794, this Court held that to categorise knife or to fix its size for it to be a deadly SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 37 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.02.26 SETHI 17:15:00 +0530 weapon may not be appropriate. It was further held that to say that a knife, to be a deadly weapon should be of a particular size would not be a correct statement. Similar view was taken in State of Maharashtra Vs. Vinayak 1997 Crl.L.J. 3988 where also the High Court held that irrespective of its size any knife is a deadly weapon.
In Md. Aslam (supra), the Court took the view that in order to bring a case under Section 397 of IPC it has to be shown that the accused had used the weapon in respect of achieving the object and mere being found in possession of a deadly weapon is not enough to convict him under the said Section. However, in the present case, the iron rod which the appellant was having in his hand was clearly visible to the complainant and her sister. Moreover, at the time the iron rod was visible to the complainant and her sister, the appellant also asked them to keep quiet and pushed the complainant while fleeing from the spot. In my view, when a weapon in the hands of a person carrying it is visible to the victim of the crime, it does have the intended effect of intimidating the victim and such an act also contain an implicit threat to use the weapon against the victim in case he resists the offender from executing his plan. Therefore, carrying a deadly weapon which is visible to the victim at the time of commission of robbery amounts to its use within the meaning of Section 397 of IPC. In any case, the view taken by the Apex Court in Phool Kumar (supra) does not permit taking a contrary view in this regard.SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 38 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:15:09 +0530
17. Coming to the question as to whether the iron rod can be said to be a deadly weapon or not, admittedly, the expression „deadly weapon‟ has not been defined anywhere in the Code. The natural and grammatical meaning of „deadly weapon‟ would be a weapon which can cause death of a human being.
It has come in the evidence that the iron rod which the appellant was having in his hand had pointed ends on both sides. The length of the iron rod was 53 cms. as noted in the seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. In my view, though every iron rod may not qualify as a deadly weapon, an iron rod which is 53 cms long and has pointed ends on both sides can certainly cause death of a human being, if it is used as a weapon of offence at a vital part of the body such as head of a human being. In Saligram Vs. State of M.P. 1990 Supp(1) SCC 60, one of the appellants before the Apex Court was carrying an iron rod whereas the other one was armed with a sword. The Hon‟ble Apex Court inter alia observed that they were armed with deadly weapons, the implication of the judgement being that iron rod could also be a deadly weapon. In Thoti Manohar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2012) 7 SCC 723, two of the appellants were armed with iron rods whereas one was armed with a billhook when they trespassed into the house of the deceased. It was observed that the weapons they carried were lethal in nature. Therefore, the appellant who used the aforesaid iron rod at the time of commission of robbery has rightly been convicted under Section 397 of the Code."
(Emphasis supplied) SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 39 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:15:19 +0530 Thus, the rod of the description used in the present case can be termed as a deadly weapon especially when used to hit the complainant in his face. The deadly nature of the weapon is also established from the testimony of PW1 to the effect that the accused threatened the witnesses to keep quiet otherwise they would kill the witnesses. This shows the intention on part of the accused to use the rod as a deadly weapon. Thus, the offence punishable under section 397 IPC stands established not only by virtue of attempt to cause grievous hurt but also by virtue of use of the iron rod as a deadly weapon.
Offence punishable under section 174-A IPC:
59. To establish the aforesaid offence, the prosecution has only examined the witnesses who were involved in the arrest of the accused after he was declared proclaimed offender. Ld. Counsel for the accused contended that none of the witnesses who had attempted to execute the warrants or the process under section 82 CrPC against the accused were examined. However, in this regard, the ld. APP has argued that the order dated 29.10.2024 was passed by ld. Predecessor only after being convinced that the accused had absconded and also recorded his satisfaction based on material which was produced before him including the reports on the warrants as well as under section 82 CrPC and recording the statement of the process server. The order dated 29.10.2024 has not been challenged till date. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that examination of the arresting witnesses is sufficient to bring home this charge against the accused as nothing material has been brought forth in their cross examination.SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 40 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:15:26 +0530 Conclusion:
60. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances present on record, this court is of the opinion that accused Virender was involved in the incident of breaking open the kunda of the factory where PW1, PW6 and PW12 were present with the intention and preparation to cause hurt to the occupants of the factory, thereby committing offence punishable under section 452 IPC. After breaking into the factory, the accused caused hurt to PW1 by hitting him with an iron rod on his face and his right hand while he was trying to commit robbery in respect of the wire rolls kept in the factory, thereby committing offence punishable under section 394 IPC. Also, by virtue of use of the iron rod as deadly weapon in the attempt to inflict grievous hurt to PW1 at the time of committing robbery in the factory in respect of the wire rolls, the accused also committed offence punishable under section 397 IPC.
The presence of an accomplice has also been clearly brought out by the prosecution witnesses and it is apparent that both these persons were harboring common intention to commit the aforesaid offences. While the accomplice got away, the accused was caught. Nothing material has come in the statement of the accused to explain the circumstances brought against him by the prosecution or to explain his presence in the factory late at night or how he was apprehended from the spot. It is not the case of the defence that the accused and the witnesses were known to each other or were having previous enmity, resulting in the accused being falsely implicated. Similarly, nothing has been brought on record by the accused to explain why only he would be falsely implicated by the police officials. Thereafter, during the proceedings, the accused stopped appearing and was declared proclaimed offender. He was only SC No. 847/2016 State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 41 of 42 Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
2026.02.26 SETHI 17:15:34 +0530 arrested subsequently, thereby committing offence punishable under Part II of section 174-A IPC.
61. Consequently, accused Virender stands convicted for commission of offences punishable under section 452, 394 and 397 read with section 34 IPC and Part II of section 174-A IPC.
Announced in open Court on the 26th day of February 2026 SUMEDH by Digitally signed SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI KUMAR Date:
SETHI 2026.02.26 17:15:40 +0530 (Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi) Addl. Sessions Judge-05 Shahdara District Karkardooma Courts,Delhi.SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender FIR No. 666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar Page No. 42 of 42