CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 1 of 17

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 18.05.2026

Judgment pronounced on:20.05.2026

+ CRL.A. 260/2018

STATE .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with SI

Jasbir Malik

versus

PRADEEP @ SONU & ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Advocate

(DHCLSC) with Mr. Shubham

Sourav and Mr. Vijit Singh,

Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1 and

2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the

respondent/State in Sessions Case No. 127/2015 on the file of

Additional Sessions Judge-04, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi,

assailing the judgment dated 27.03.2015 as per which all the three

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 2 of 17

accused persons have been acquitted of the offence punishable

under Section 397 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (the IPC). A2 has also been acquitted of the offence

punishable under Section 411 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that on 13.01.2012 at about

09:45 p.m., between Dhaula Kuan petrol pump and Mazar of Pir

Baba, National Highway No. 08, Delhi Cantonment (Cantt.),

Delhi, the three accused persons in furtherance of their common

intention, robbed PW2 of a Sony Ericson mobile phone and

₹1700/-, and while committing robbery caused grievous hurt to

him using a deadly weapon, thereby committing an offence

punishable under Section 397 read with Section 34 IPC. It is

further alleged that the second accused (A2) dishonestly retained

in possession the stolen Sony Ericson mobile phone, INE no.

352068012340726, knowing it to be stolen property and thereby,

committed an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 3 of 17

3. On the basis of Ext. PW2/A FIS/FIR of PW2, given on

13.11.2012, Crime No. 18 of 2012, Delhi Cantt. Police Station,

that is, Ext. PW8/A FIR was registered by PW1, Constable. PW16,

Assistant Sub Inspector, conducted investigation into the crime and

on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report

alleging commission of the offence punishable under the aforesaid

Sections.

4. When all the three accused persons (A1 to A3) were

produced before the trial court, the copies of the prosecution

records were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207

Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 10.05.2012, the matter was committed

under Section 209 Cr.PC to the Sessions Court concerned for trial.

5. On appearance of A1 to A3 and after hearing both

sides, the trial court as per order dated 12.09.2012, framed a

Charge under Section 397 IPC read with 34 IPC, which was read

over and explained to A1 to A3, to which they pleaded not guilty. A

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 4 of 17

separate Charge under Section 411 IPC was also framed against

A2, to which he pleaded not guilty.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 16 were

examined and Ext. PW 2/A-B, Ext. PW 3/A-F, Ext. PW 4/A, Ext.

PW 6/A-C, Ext. PW 7/A-B, Ext. PW8/A, Ext. PW9/A-H, PW

10/A-D, PW 12/A,PW 13/A-C,PW 15/A, PW 16/A-B and Mark A

were marked.

7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A3

were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the

incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the

evidence led by the prosecution. They denied all those

circumstances and maintained their innocence. They submitted that

they have been falsely implicated in the present case.

8. After questioning A1 to A3 under Section. 313(1)(b)

Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the

case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 5 of 17

Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance

of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings,

unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted

in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K.

vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker

2888). Here, A1 to A3 have no case that non-compliance of

Section 232 Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to them.

9. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the

accused persons in support of their case.

10. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary

evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the

impugned judgment dated 27.03.2015, acquitted A1, A2 and A3

under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable under

Section 397 IPC read with 34 IPC. A2 has also been acquitted of

the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. Aggrieved, the

respondent/State has preferred this appeal.

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 6 of 17

11. It was submitted by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and

circumstances of the case, is bad in law as the trial court has failed

to appreciate the materials on record and, therefore, liable to be set

aside.

12. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellants/A1 to A3 that there is no infirmity in the judgment

calling for an interference by this Court.

13. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.

14. The only point that arises for consideration in this

appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned judgment

calling for an interference by this Court.

15. I will first refer to the oral and documentary evidence

relied on by the prosecution in support of the case. Ext. PW2/A,

the FIS/FIR of PW2 recorded on the date of the incident, i.e.,

13.11.2012, reads thus:“I have been working as a driver of Accent

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 7 of 17

car bearing registration no. DL-1RX-6805 with Easy Cab. Today,

through Easy Cab, I picked up passengers from Rani Bagh to

Dhaula Kuan. I dropped the passengers at the Dhaula Kuan petrol

pump. At around 09:30 p.m., three boys standing at the same petrol

pump requested me to take them to the airport, stating that they

would otherwise miss their flight. I let them board the vehicle.

Before ascending the flyover, near Peer Baba, the boy sitting next

to me said he needed to attend the call of nature, so I stopped the

vehicle. The boy sitting next to me got down, came towards my

door, and opened it. The two boys sitting in the back pulled me into

the rear seat, and the boy standing outside sat on the driving seat

and started driving the car himself. One of the two boys sitting in

the back pressed a knife-like object against the right side of my

stomach and directed me to hand over whatever I had. I took out

my Sony Ericsson mobile phone bearing no. 9871324828 and

₹1700/- in cash from my pocket to give to them. While doing so, he

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 8 of 17

moved the knife-like object away from my stomach, struck it

against my right thigh, and told me to hurry up. I handed over my

phone and money to them. They also took my driver’s license,

which was kept on the dashboard. I was asked to get down

approximately 100 meters before the Mohan Nagar Red Light.

They fled from the spot, leaving my car bearing registration no.

DL-1RX-6805, a little further ahead, just before the red light. The

person who was driving the car had a round face, wheatish

complexion, a strongly built body, height approximately 5 feet 6

inches, and age 26 to 27 years. The age of those sitting in the back

was approximately 20 to 22 years. The person who stabbed me

with a knife had a long face, wheatish complexion, thin build, was

wearing a shirt-pant, and a jacket over it. I can identify them if

brought before me. These boys, while threatening me with a knife

placed on the right side of my stomach and right thigh, have

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 9 of 17

robbed me of my mobile phone and money. Legal action should be

taken against them.”

16. PW2, the injured, when examined before the trial,

deposed that on 13.01.2012, he was working as a taxi driver of taxi

no. DL-1RX-6805. He had picked up a passenger from Pitampura,

Rani Bagh and dropped him at Dhaula Kuan. At Dhaula Kuan,

three persons approached him and asked whether he could take

them to the Airport. He informed them that the fare would be ₹20/-

per kilometre. They agreed and boarded his taxi. Two of them

occupied the rear seat while one sat beside him in the front seat.

While passing the flyover near Subroto Park, one of the accused

persons requested him to stop the vehicle, stating that he had to

answer the call of nature. When he stopped the vehicle, the person

seated in front got down, approached him near the driver’s seat and

asked him to sit in the rear seat, where the other two persons were

already seated. He was pulled into the rear seat by the two persons

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 10 of 17

sitting behind. The person, who had been seated in front, took

control of the vehicle and began driving. The two persons, seated

beside him, demanded all valuables in his possession. He pleaded

with them to take whatever he had and requested them not to injure

him. One of the persons stabbed him on his stomach when he

resisted the attempt to pull him out of the driver’s seat, and he was

stabbed in his thigh while he was sitting on the rear seat. His purse,

Sony Ericsson mobile phone model J-230i, silver ring, cash

amounting to ₹1700/-, and driving licence were snatched by them.

After taking the cash and the licence from the purse, they threw the

empty purse back into the vehicle. They also removed the SIM

from his mobile phone and took it with them. They dropped him

near the flyover at the airport and thereafter abandoned his taxi

approximately 200 meters away near a red light. He went to the

taxi stand at the airport and informed the police. He was taken to

the Safdarjung Hospital, where his Ext. PW2/A statement was

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 11 of 17

recorded by the Investigating Officer (PW16). PW2 identified

Pradeep @ Sonu (A1) as the person who had driven the taxi and

Raju Thappa (A2) as the person who had held him on the rear seat

and stabbed him in the stomach and thigh. PW2 was unable to

identify A3 as the latter was sitting behind him. PW2 also

identified the recovered case property, namely, the Sony Ericsson

mobile phone model J-230i.

16.1. PW2, in his cross-examination, initially deposed that he

had never seen the accused persons in the police station and that he

had seen them for the first time when they appeared before the

Court. However, he admitted that when his mobile phone had been

recovered, he was called by the police to the police station and in

the presence of police officials, he identified his mobile phone as

well as two of the accused persons. PW2 also admitted that he was

called to the office of the Special Staff, Sector-16B, Dwarka,

where he had identified the accused persons.

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 12 of 17

17. PW4, Sub Inspector, Delhi Cantonment police station,

deposed that on 13.01.2012, when he was on emergency duty, he

received DD No. 39A, pursuant to which he along with PW1 went

to the parking of Easy Cab Domestic Airport. He found the

Hyundai Accent car of Easy Cab bearing registration no. DL-lRX-

6805 parked there. He saw that there were blood stains on the rear

seat of the car. He came to know from the fellow taxi drivers that

the injured had already been taken to Safdarjung hospital by the

police. He, alongwith PW1, went to Safdarjung hospital, where

PW2 the injured was admitted vide MLC no. 6463/12. He recorded

Ext. PW2/A the statement of PW2. He returned to the spot, that is,

the parking area of Easy Cab at the Domestic Airport. At about

12.30 a.m., Sub Inspector Satish (PW12) and PW1 also reached

the spot. As directed by the Station House Officer, the

investigation of the case was entrusted to PW12, who prepared the

site plan of the place of occurrence.

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 13 of 17

18. PW5, Dr. Shobhna Gupta, Senior Medical Officer,

Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, deposed that Dr. Aijaz Iqbal, who

had prepared the MLC, had left the hospital and his present

whereabouts were not known. PW5 identified the handwriting and

signature of Dr. Aijaz Iqbal on Ext. PW2/B MLC of PW2. PW5

deposed that Dr. Aijaz Iqbal had opined the nature of injuries as

“simple and sharp.”

19. PW9 and PW10, the Metropolitan Magistrates (MM),

Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, were examined to prove the Test

Identification Parade (TIP) proceedings. PW9 deposed that on

24.02.2012, Ext. PW9/A, application had been moved by PW16,

ASI, Vijay Vihar police station for conducting the TIP of Vicky

K.C (A3). A3 declined to participate in the TIP proceedings. On

01.03.2012, Ext. PW9/E application was moved by PW16 for

conducting TIP of A2. A2 also declined to participate in the TIP

proceedings. PW10 deposed that on 25.02.2012, Ext. PW10/A

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 14 of 17

application was moved by PW16 for conducting TIP proceedings

of A1. However, A1 refused to participate in the TIP proceedings.

20. PW16, the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding the

various steps taken by him during the course of the investigation.

PW16 in his cross-examination admitted that no recovery had been

effected by him or in his presence.

21. When an acquittal has been recorded by the trial court,

the appellate court ought not to interfere unless the findings are

perverse, manifestly erroneous, or based on a misappreciation of

material evidence. If the view taken by the trial court is a plausible

and reasonable view on the evidence, the same does not warrant

interference merely because another view is possible. (See

Chandrappa & Ors vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 (4) SCC 415).

22. The prosecution has sought to establish the

involvement of A1 to A3 primarily through the testimony of PW2.

It is settled law that the testimony of an injured witness carries

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 15 of 17

great evidentiary value. However, such testimony must still inspire

confidence and must be corroborated by surrounding

circumstances when material inconsistencies or deficiencies appear

in the prosecution case. In the case on hand, PW2 was unable to

identify A3 as there were no materials on record against him and

therefore, the trial court rightly acquitted him.

23. Now coming to A1 and A2. According to PW2, two of

the accused persons who had robbed and caused injuries to him

were A1 and A2. PW2 admittedly had no prior acquaintance with

A1 and A2. PW2 in his cross-examination categorically admitted

that he had seen A1 and A2 twice in the police station and had

identified them. It was in such circumstances that A1 and A2

declined to take part in the TIP. Therefore, identification of A1 and

A2 by PW2 in the box is quite doubtful.

24. Now, coming to the recovery of the phone of PW2

from A2. The prosecution relies on the testimony of PW13 and

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 16 of 17

PW14. PW13, Sub-Inspector, Delhi Cantonment police station,

deposed that on 20.02.2012 - 21.02.2012, he along with his team

had arrested A1 and A2 along with two other persons in crime no.

42/2012 registered at Delhi Cantonment police station under

Sections 399, 402 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. He

had recorded the disclosure statements of A1 and A2 vide Ext.

PW13/A and Ext. PW13/B. He also deposed that from the

possession of A2, a mobile phone of the make Sony Ericson had

been recovered as per Ext. PW13/C the seizure memo. PW14,

Head Constable, Delhi Cantonment police station, deposed that he

was in the team along with PW13 when A1 and A2 were arrested.

PW13 recorded Ext. PW13/A, PW13/B disclosure statements of

A1 and A2. However, in the cross-examination, PW14 deposed

that nothing had been recovered from A1 and A2 in his presence.

Therefore, the testimony of PW13 and PW14 are inconsistent and

CRL.A. 260/2018 Page 17 of 17

contradictory regarding the alleged recovery of the stolen phone

from the possession of A2.

25. Moreover, the disclosure statements seen marked as

Ext. PW13/A and Ext. PW13/B are totally inadmissible statements

due to the bar contained under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872. In these circumstances, the trial court was right in

finding that there is no satisfactory evidence to find A1 to A3

guilty of the offences charged against them.

26. No ground for interference into the impugned judgment

has been made out.

27. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.

28. Application(s), if any, pending shall stand closed.

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

(JUDGE)

MAY 20, 2026/rs/mj