CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 1 of 18

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 09

th

October, 2025

Pronounced on: 05

th

January, 2026

+ CRL.A. 785/2025, CRL.M.A. 17105/2025 &

CRL.M.(BAIL) 1212/2025

AKASH

S/o Sh.Mahesh Kumar,

R/o Village Biharipur

PS Baghpat, Distt. Baghpat

Uttar Pradesh

Present Address:

H.No.A-37, Gali No.4

Phase-4, Rathore Dharamshala,

Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Utsav Jain, Advocate.

versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Through SHO

Police Station Jyoti Nagar .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with

SI Pankaj Kumar, PS: Jyoti Nagar.

+ CRL.A. 487/2025

KULDEEP

S/o Sh.Rajendra Kumar,

R/o Village Biharipur,

PS Baghpat, Distt. Baghpat

Uttar Pradesh .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Tarun Gautam, Adv. with

Appellant in person.

versus

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 2 of 18

THE STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI

Through SHO

Police Station Jyoti Nagar .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for

State with SI Pankaj Kumar, PS: Jyoti

Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

CRL.M.A. 17105/2025 in CRL.A. 785/2025: Condonation of Delay

1. Appellant/Akash has filed an application under Section 5 Limitation

Act, 1963 read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking condonation of

delay of 78 days in filing the present Appeal No. 785/2025.

2. It is submitted in the Application that the period of sixty days to file

the Appeal expired on 10.03.2025. The delay occurred because the

Appellant/Akash’s mother had engaged a counsel immediately after the

impugned judgment, who gave assurances that the Appeal had been filed

and would be listed soon. However, after five months of receiving no

substantial updates, the family made inquiries and discovered that no Appeal

had been filed by the previous counsel.

3. Subsequently, the present counsel was engaged on 23.05.2025, and

the Appeal was filed immediately thereafter.

4. The Appellant has been in judicial custody since the date of the

impugned judgment, i.e. 13.12.2024, and the explanation offered regarding

the reliance on the previous counsel, appears to be bonafide.

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 3 of 18

5. In the interest of justice and to ensure that the Appellant is not

deprived of his statutory right of Appeal due to procedural delays not

directly attributable to him, the delay of 78 days is hereby, condoned.

6. The Application stands allowed.

CRL.A. 785/2025 & CRL.A. 487/2025:

7. By way of this common judgment, the two Criminal Appeals, namely

Crl. A. 785/2025 filed by Appellant/Akash and Crl. A. 487/2025 filed by

Appellant/Kuldeep, which arise from the Judgement dated 13.12.2024 and

the Order on Sentence dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional

Sessions Judge, in SC No. 184/2017 arising out of FIR No. 111/2017

registered at P.S. Jyoti Nagar. The Appellant Akash was convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code (IPC) and Section 411/34 IPC. Appellant Akash was further

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.

8. Vide the Order on sentence dated 09.01.2025, Appellant/Akash was

sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 7 years with a fine of

Rs. 30,000/- for the offence u/s 392/397 IPC, and Simple Imprisonment (SI)

for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence u/s 411/34 IPC .

Appellant/Kuldeep was sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with a fine of

Rs. 20,000/- for the offence u/s 392/34 IPC and SI for 6 months with a fine

of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence u/s 411/34 IPC.

9. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 31.03.2017, the

Complainant/Uttam Verma/PW-5, an auto driver, was returning to his home

in his auto-rickshaw. At about 1:30 AM, near Durgapuri Chowk, two boys

namely Akash and Kuldeep, signalled him to stop and hired the Auto for

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 4 of 18

Loni Roundabout. When the Auto reached near Hanuman Mandir, Loni

Road, the appellants asked the complainant to stop. Akash alighted and

pointed a country-made pistol (Katta) at the Complainant’s chest and

demanded his belongings. The other boy, Kuldeep, remained seated inside

the Auto and removed the complainant's wallet containing Rs. 2,500/-, PAN

Card, ATM Card, Driving License, Badge, and Aadhaar Card. He also took

the Complainant’s mobile phone of make Redmi Note 3, Black in colour.

The assailants fled towards MIG Flats.

10. The Complainant immediately encountered a police patrolling vehicle

(ERV-61) in which PW-3/ASI Om Prakash and PW-6/Ct. Amit Kumar,

were present. The complainant narrated the incident and they commenced a

search. Around 3:00 AM, the complainant spotted the Appellants on a

motorcycle near T.R. Sahni Motors. A chase ensued and the police

intercepted the motorcycle at Gali No. 7, Ashok Nagar. Appellant Akash

was apprehended at the spot along with the motorcycle No. DL 1SU-2172.

The robbed mobile phone was recovered from Akash’s possession.

Appellant Kuldeep managed to escape from the spot.

11. Akash disclosed the name of the co-accused as Kuldeep.

Subsequently, Kuldeep surrendered before the Trial Court on 12.04.2017.

During police remand, Kuldeep led the police to his house in Village

Biharipur, District Baghpat, from where the robbed purse containing the

Complainant’s documents (PAN Card, ATM Card, Badge, etc.) was

recovered. The weapon of offence was not recovered, as it was allegedly

thrown in a drain.

12. The Appellant/Akash in Crl. A. 785/2025 challenges his conviction

on the grounds that the Ld. Trial Court closed the opportunity to cross-

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 5 of 18

examine the star witness, the Complainant/PW-5, as “Nil”. A new counsel

had appeared on that date i.e. 05.03.2019 and sought time to prepare, which

was denied, causing grave prejudice to the Appellant.

13. Further, the complainant in his statement recorded by the Police,

did not mention the colour of the Appellants’ clothes or identify Akash as

the person holding the pistol in his initial statement. This improvement was

made only in the supplementary statement.

14. Further, no country-made pistol was recovered. The conviction u/s

397 IPC is unsustainable without the recovery of the weapon.

15. It is further contended that there are material contradictions regarding

the location where the police met the Complainant i.e. either at Durgapuri

Chowk or T.R. Sahni Motors. Further, there is a discrepancy in the number

of police officials present on the spot. The Complainant has stated that there

were three and the Police witnesses have stated that they were two.

16. It is also stated that it is improbable that the Complainant could

identify the accused on a moving motorcycle from 70 meters, in the night.

17. The Appellant/Kuldeep (in Crl. A. 487/2025) challenges the order

of conviction on the grounds that the Appellant had not been apprehended

by the Police but he had surrendered himself in the Court on 12.04.2017 and

police interrogated him there. The TIP was conducted on 20.04.2017. It is

submitted that though he was correctly identified, but it is unreliable as the

police might have shown him or his photographs to the Complainant before

the Test Identification Parade (TIP), rendering the identification valueless.

18. Further, PW-6/Ct. Amit initially hesitated and sweated profusely

when asked to identify the accused in the Court, casting doubt on his

testimony.

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 6 of 18

19. It is contended that the recovery was planted. It is highly

unbelievable that the Appellant would keep the allegedly robbed documents

(i.e. DL, ATM Card, etc.) safe at his native home for 15 days, rather than

disposing of them

20. Despite the incident occurring in a public area, no independent public

witnesses were joined in the investigation.

21. Thus, it is prayed that the Appeal be allowed and conviction be set

aside.

22. The Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the

prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

23. It was argued that the Complainant/PW-5 is a natural witness, who

had no prior enmity with the accused. His testimony is corroborated by the

immediate arrest of Appellant Akash and the recovery of the robbed mobile

phone from his possession, within hours of the incident.

24. Regarding the denial of cross-examination for Akash, the State argued

that the appellant had ample opportunity, and the tactic was a delay strategy.

25. Regarding Kuldeep, the State relied on the recovery of specific

personal documents of the complainant from Kuldeep’s house, which could

not have been planted. The TIP was conducted lawfully and the accused was

correctly identified.

26. The State contended that minor contradictions regarding distance or

number of police personnel do not go to the root of the matter, given the

passage of time between the incident and the recording of evidence.

27. This Court has heard the learned counsels for both the appellants and

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 7 of 18

28. The Trial Court Record, including the testimonies of PW-3/ASI Om

Prakash, PW-5/Complainant, PW-6/Ct. Amit Kumar, and PW-9/IO SI Ram

Singh, along with the impugned judgment and sentencing order has been

perused.

29. The Charge Sheet was filed under S. 392/397/411/34 of IPC. The Ld.

ASJ vide impugned Order dated 16.02.2018 framed Charges under S.392/34

of IPC against both the accused persons and under S. 397 IPC specifically

against accused/Akash.

30. The Prosecution had examined 9 witnesses, main being the PW-3/ASI

Om Prakash, PW-5/Complainant, PW-6/Ct. Amit Kumar, and PW-9/IO SI

Ram Singh .

31. The case of the Prosecution rests on the testimony of PW-5/Uttam

Verma, the victim. He consistently narrated the incident as stated in his

Complaint dated 31.03.2017 Ex.PW5/A in regard of robbery. He deposed on

31.03.2017, around 01:30 am, two men boarded his auto at Durga Puri

Chowk. Near Hanuman Mandir, they forced him to stop; one man (identified

as Akash) aimed a pistol at his chest, while the other (Kuldeep) robbed him

of his mobile phone, a black Redmi Note-3, and a wallet containing

Rs.2,500/- and various personal documents. He also identified Akash in

court as the person with the pistol and identified Kuldeep during a judicial

Test Identification Parade (TIP).

32. Multiple witnesses corroborated the immediate aftermath of the

robbery and the arrest of the first accused.

33. PW-3/ASI Om Prakash and PW-6/Ct. Amit Kumar were on

patrolling duty in an ERV when the complainant approached them. While

searching the area, the complainant spotted the suspects on a motorcycle.

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 8 of 18

34. After a brief chase, the police intercepted the motorcycle. While one

suspect escaped, they overpowered the rider, Akash. A casual search of

Akash yielded the complainant's Redmi Note-3 mobile phone. The

motorcycle (Passion Pro, DL 1SU 2172) was also seized.

35. PW-8/Ct. Monu and PW-9/SI Ram Singh confirmed that Akash was

brought to the Police Station with the recovered property and subsequently

interrogated.

36. The investigation into the second suspect, Kuldeep, involved PW-

1/ASI Jaivir Singh and PW-9/SI Ram Singh testified that Kuldeep

surrendered in court on 12.04.2017, where he was formally arrested and his

confessional statement recorded.

37. On 27.04.2017, PW-7/Ct. Rohit Kumar joined PW-9/SI Ram Singh

in taking Kuldeep to his village in Baghpat, UP. Kuldeep led them to his

house and produced a wallet from an almirah.

38. The wallet contained the Complainant’s PAN card, ATM card,

Aadhar card, and Auto Badge.

39. Witnesses noted that while Kuldeep disclosed he had thrown the

country-made pistol (katta) into a drain in Ashok Nagar, the weapon was

never recovered.

40. PW-2/ASI Begraj Singh testified to marking the case file, extending

judicial remand, and filing the Chargesheet.

41. PW-4/ASI Rattan Lal confirmed he was the Duty Officer who

recorded FIR No. 111/17 based on the rukka presented by ASI Ram Singh.

42. The Appellant/Akash in his Statement under S.313 dated 10.11.2022

admitted the genuineness of the TIP proceedings. Further in his statement

dated 13.11.2024, has denied being present with Kuldeep at the time of

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 9 of 18

incident and that he never fled away as he was going for some personal

work from Loni Gole Chakkar to his home at Durga Puri and is not involved

in the incident. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and

that he is innocent.

43. The Appellant/Kuldeep in his Statement under S.313 has denied

being present with Akash at the time of incident and that he never fled away

as he was not involved in the incident. He further deposed that he had

surrendered in the Court and no document was prepared at his instance or in

his presence. Further, it is deposed by him that he has filed an application

for surrender and also, neither any TIP was conducted nor did he make any

disclosure statement.

Submissions Heard and Record Perused

44. In an incident dated 31.03.2017 at around 01:30 AM where the

accused persons allegedly pulled out a katta and stole money, mobile and

documents from the Complainant. The Court found both guilty under

S.392/411 IPC and the Appellant/Akash for offence under S. 397 IPC.

45. To appreciate the grounds of appeal raised by Appellants and assess

the case of the prosecution, it is imperative to refer to the essential

ingredients of the Sections 392/397/411 IPC and also appreciate the

evidence led by the Prosecution in support of its case.

Offences under Sections 392, 397 & 411 IPC

46. Section 392 IPC punishes the offence of Robbery. The offence itself

is defined under Section 390 IPC.

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 10 of 18

47. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the Appellants

beyond a reasonable doubt, as the entire case rests upon contradictory

testimonies, improbable recoveries, and highly suspect circumstances. The

evidence on record, when scrutinized, reveals a narrative that is inconsistent

and lacks the necessary corroboration to sustain a conviction.

48. The most material witness to prove the case of the prosecution is

PW5/Sh. Uttam Verma (Complainant). He deposed that he is an auto driver

and on 31.03.2017, at about 1.30 A.M., while he was going towards his

house in his Auto Rickshaw from Shahdara, Delhi, he was signalled to stop

by two boys at near Durga Puri Chowk, who asked him to take them to Loni

Round About (i.e. Loni Gole Chakkar). They both boarded the auto and

when they reached near Hanuman Mandir, MIG Flats, Loni Road, they

asked him to stop the auto. One boy de-boarded the auto and aimed a

country-made pistol at him and asked him to hand-over, whatever he had

with him. However, second boy, who was sitting on the back seat of the

auto, took his purse which contained Rs.2,500/- cash, PAN Card, ATM card

of PNB, AADHAR Card, License and Badge along with his mobile phone

Redmi Note 3 MI (black colour) having SIM No.7982151960. Thereafter,

both boys, after robbing him, ran towards MIG Flats.

49. He further described that the boy, who had aimed at him with the

pistol, was wearing a red colour shirt with blue jeans and other boy, who had

taken the articles, was wearing check pattern shirt of white and black colour

with blue jeans. On his Complaint, Ex.PW-5/A, the FIR, Ex.PW-4/A, was

registered.

50. PW-5/Sh. Uttam Verma further deposed that he thereafter, reached at

Durga Puri Chowk, near Jyoti Nursing Home, where a Police Gypsy was

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 11 of 18

standing. He narrated the entire incident to the Police, who took him along

the Gypcy in search of the robbers. They reached near MIG Flats, where

robbers had ran away after the incident, but could not be found. They also

searched them in nearby streets but got no success. Thereafter, they reached

in front of T.R. Sahni Motors, where one another police gypsy was standing,

who were also briefed about the incident and search of the robbers. At about

02:30-03:00 AM, he spotted the robbers on the motorcycle and immediately

told the Police about them and one of the accused, who name was later

found to be Akash, along with the motorcycle Passion Pro black colour was

apprehended at Gali No.7, Chappal Market, Ashok Nagar. On his search,

Redmi Note-3 mobile phone was recovered. Other robber Kuldeep managed

to escape.

51. Appellant / Accused Akash was interrogated by Police, who disclosed

the name of co-accused robber as Kuldeep and told that Kuldeep had run

away with looted articles and country made-katta. Police seized the

motorcycle vide memo Ex.PW-3/A, his mobile phone vide memo Ex.PW-

3/B and Appellant Akash was arrested vide memo Ex.PW-5/B and

personally searched vide memo Ex.PW-5/C.

52. Witness was duly examined on behalf of the Appellant. Certain

incredulous facts have emerged in the testimony of PW-5. According to him,

the incident happened at 01:30 AM and the Appellants ran towards MIG

Flats. Pertinently, he has admitted that he did not raise any alarm, despite his

own admission, in his cross-examination that the Police Gypsy was standing

at a distance of 500 meters. There also is a contradiction as he has deposed

that he had met the Gypsy at Durga Puri Chowk, near Jyoti Nursing Home.

This fact, aside from not being disclosed in the Complaint Ex.PW-5/A, is

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 12 of 18

also not palatable, in view of the fact that there is no indication about the

distance where Durga Puri Chowk is located from the place, where the

incident happened.

53. The other factor, which is of significance, is that as per his testimony,

the two Police officials from Gypsy sat in his auto, while one Police official

drew the Gypsy and they all searched for the robbers in the area till 02:30-

03:00 AM.

54. Pertinently, in his cross-examination, he states that while search was

being made by the first Police Gypsy, they met another Gypsy at about

02:45-03:00 AM near T.R. Sahni Motors, which also had three Police

officials. Police officials of first Gypsy, who were travelling with him in his

auto, were later on dropped at the place, where such Gypsy was stationed.

Pertinently, according to him, there was first Gypsy, which he met at about

01:30 AM and thereafter, they met second Gypsy, these aspects are not

mentioned in the Complaint Ex.PW-5/A.

55. According to PW-5 Sh. Uttam Verma (Complainant), he spotted the

motorcycle from a distance of about 70 meters, on which two persons were

travelling. Motorcycle along with one accused Akash was apprehended on

the spot, while co-accused Kuldeep managed to escape. It is difficult to

comprehend as to why two Appellants, who had motorcycle, would have

hired an auto in the first place. Moreover, there is no evidence, which has

been brought on record by the prosecution, to explain that as to how two

Appellants came in possession of motorcycle, on which they were allegedly

travelling at the time of their apprehension.

56. Another interesting fact, which emerges is that according to the

Complainant, Accused Akash had shown the pistol while mobile and purse

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 13 of 18

along with other articles were robbed by co-accused Kuldeep. Interestingly,

mobile got recovered from Akash, on his apprehension. If the mobile had

been taken away by Kuldeep, it is not comprehendible as to why the mobile

was in possession of Akash, while purse and other articles continued to be in

possession of Kuldeep. It is also not comprehendible as to why and where

the alleged country made pistol came into possession of Kuldeep. The entire

evidence of apprehension of two Appellants, at about 03:00 AM, is also

incredulous.

57. It does not appear to appeal reason that after robbing the Complainant

at about 01:30 AM, they would continue to roam around the same area, to be

conveniently apprehended by the Police at 03:00 AM. Involvement of two

Gypsies in search of robbers is again not comprehendible, especially, when

admittedly no call was made by the PCR to concerned Police Station, on

getting the information of alleged robbery from the Complainant.

Complainant may have been robbed by two persons, but the involvement of

present two Appellants in the alleged robbery is highly unbelievable.

58. The other supporting witness examined by prosecution is PW-3 ASI

Om Prakash, who deposed that on intervening night 30-31.03.2017, he along

with PW-6 Constable Amit Kumar (DHG) was on duty from 08:00 PM to

08:00 AM on vehicle ERV-61. While patrolling at around 01:40 AM, when

they reached near T. R. Sahni Motors on Wazirabad Road, one TSR driver

Uttam Verma approached them and informed that he had been robbed by

two persons at about 01:30 AM, who had hired his auto to go towards Loni

Gol Chakkar. They, on being informed that the two robbers had gone

towards MIG Flat after robber, all went in search of the robbers. At about

03:00 AM, one motorcycle was noticed by the Complainant on Wazirabad

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 14 of 18

Road and he indentified those two riders as the robbers. They followed the

motorcycle. On seeing PCR, two persons on motorcycle increased the speed

and took a turn from under the Meet Nagar Fly Over towards Ashok Nagar.

Police intercepted the motorcycle and accused Akash was overpowered,

while other accused Kuldeep managed to escape. Mobile phone of the

Complainant was recovered from Akash. Motorcycle was subsequently,

found to be a stolen property.

59. According to PW-3 ASI Om Prakash, they in the PCR along with the

Complainant had made constant search from 01:40 AM till 03:00 AM, when

the Appellant Akash was apprehended. He does not mention about any

second Police Gypsy.

60. Significantly, PW-6 Constable Amit Kumar (DHG) though was with

PW-3 ASI Om Prakash and the Complainant, when the Appellants were

allegedly apprehended. But interestingly, he in his testimony deposed that

both the Appellants were apprehended, though he thereafter, corrected him

by saying that one of the two accused was apprehended. Pertinently, the

witness identified accused Akash and Kuldeep, reflecting that he could not

corroborate the apprehension of Appellant Ashok on the spot. His cross-

examination was deferred and he was again examined on 13.09.2021.

Pertinently, in his re-examination, he deposed exactly on similar lines as of

PW-3 and also correctly identified the Appellant Ashok.

61. Testimony of PW-6 Constable Amit Kumar (DHG) is therefore, in the

light of contradictions, does not inspire confidence about the apprehension

or identification of the two Appellants.

62. As per the case of prosecution, Appellant Kuldeep managed to escape,

while the Appellant Akash, who was apprehended by Police was brought to

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 15 of 18

the Police Station along with the Motorcycle and the investigations were

conducted by PW-9 SI Ram Singh. He deposed that he interrogated the

Appellant Akash, who was brought to the Police Station, who made

complete disclosure about the entire incident of robbing the Complainant.

He had obtained the police custody remand of the Appellant Akash, who

along with the Police team led to Biharipur, Baghpat, U.P. in search of co-

accused Kuldeep, but he was not found there. Thereafter, they returned to

the Police station.

63. Subsequently, on 12.04.2017, Appellant Kuldeep moved an

Application in regard to his surrender and for Bail. He was interrogated and

arrested vide memo Ex.PW-1/A and his disclosure statement Ex.PW-1/C

was recorded.

64. As per PW-9 SI Ram Singh, the TIP Application was filed on

20.04.2017 and Kuldeep was sent to judicial custody. The TIP of the

Appellant Kuldeep was conducted at Rohini Jail on 20.04.2017, where he

was correctly identified by the Complainant.

65. Relevant facts which emerge are that Kuldeep was not apprehended

on the spot. The incident had occurred at about 01:30 AM, while Appellant

was seen by the Complainant at about 03:00 AM from a distance of about 70

meters and he was able to escape. Pertinently, incident happened on

31.03.2017, while Kuldeep surrender on 12.04.2017. His TIP was conducted

on 20.04.2017. Though the Complainant may have identified the Appellant

Kuldeep, but it cannot be relied upon safely as there is every likelihood of he

or his photograph having been shown to the Complainant.

66. The very fact that the incident happened in the midnight and

identification of the Appellants was done after about a month does not

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 16 of 18

inspire any confidence, rather it points out to the implication of the

Appellants.

67. Another interesting aspect is that as per PW-9 SI Ram Singh,

Appellant Kuldeep, pursuing to his disclosure statement Ex.PW-1/C

recorded on 12.04.2017, he led the Police on 26.04.2017 to Biharipur,

Baghpat, U.P., he took out a purse (rexine) from the Almirah of his house. It

was checked and found to contain Aadhaar Card, Driving Licence, ATM

Card of Punjab National Bank, Driver Badge and other documents all

belonging to the victim. They were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-7/A.

68. It is again difficult to accept that Kuldeep would have retained the

purse along with the documents and kept them in almirah in his house,

despite the fact that the purse and documents had no value or significance

for him. No rational person, who has allegedly robbed a person, would keep

the tell tale evidence of the purse and documents hidden in his house for the

police to recover them conveniently and to implicate him. Identify of the

Kuldeep and alleged recovery of the purse and documents from his

possession does not appeal to reason.

69. Also, there is a material contradiction regarding the colour of the

allegedly recovered mobile phone. The seizure memo (Ex. PW-3/B)

describes the phone as “Silver”, whereas PW-5 identified it in court as

“Black”. This again creates a doubt about the identity of the alleged stolen

article from the Appellant/Akash.

70. Further, the recovery of the Complainant’s purse and documents from

Kuldeep’s house in Baghpat, UP, occurred 15 days after the incident. It is

highly unbelievable that a robber would keep non-monetary documents like

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 17 of 18

an ATM card, PAN card, and driving license in his home for over two

weeks rather than disposing of them immediately.

71. The absence of any independent public witnesses, despite the incident

occurring in a public area, further weakens the Prosecution’s case.

72. When the material contradictions between the star witness and the

police officials are viewed alongside the suspect demeanor of PW-6 and the

discrepancies in the case property, it becomes clear that the circumstances

are highly suspect.

73. Consequently, the offences under Sections 392 and 411 IPC cannot

be said to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt against either of

the accused persons.

74. Appellant/Akash was convicted u/s 397 IPC, which mandates a

minimum sentence of 7 years. The case of the prosecution is that Akash

pointed a “Katta” (country-made pistol) at the chest of the Complainant.

75. To sustain a conviction u/s 397 IPC, the Prosecution must prove that

the offender “used” a “deadly weapon”. While non-recovery of the weapon

is not always fatal, there must be cogent evidence regarding the nature of the

weapon.

76. In the present case, the alleged weapon was never recovered. The only

evidence is the visual description by the Complainant in the dead of night at

about 1:30 AM. Without the weapon being seized and examined, or without

any injury caused to the victim that could substantiate the nature of the

weapon, it is difficult to conclusively hold that the object used was indeed a

“deadly weapon” capable of causing death or grievous hurt.

77. The benefit of this doubt regarding the specific nature of the weapon

must go to the accused.

CRL.A. 785/2025 & 487/2025 Page 18 of 18

78. While the act of robbery is proved by the threat used, the specific

aggravation required for Section 397, i.e. the use of a deadly weapon, is not

established beyond reasonable doubt due to non-recovery and lack of

corroborative injury.

79. Consequently, the conviction of Appellant/Akash under Section 397

is set aside.

Conclusion:

80. From the aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that the prosecution has

failed to establish the identity of the two persons, who had robbed the

Complainant in the night of 31.03.2017.

81. The alleged recovery of the stolen property also is not proved beyond

reasonable doubts.

82. The Appellants are therefore, entitled to be acquitted.

Order:

83. The Appeals are allowed.

84. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Judgement of conviction dated

13.12.2024 in FIR No. 111/2017 and the Order on Sentence dated

09.01.2025 is accordingly set aside.

85. The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

JANUARY 05, 2026/RS