Jiya Lal vs State

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 16.10.2026
Pronounced on: 27.10.2026
Uploaded on: 27.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC011272612012
+ CRL.A. 908/2012
JIYA LAL .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Arti Bansal, Ms. Shruti
Goel, Advs. with appellant in
person.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP
with Insp. Sanjay Dahiya, PS
Punjabi Bagh & SI Ajay, PS
Jahangir Puri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is a criminal appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) impugning the Judgment dated
th th
29 March, 2012 and the Order on Sentence dated 08 June, 2012
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, North-West
District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (Trial Court), in Sessions Case No.
25/2011, arising out of FIR No. 561/2004 registered at Police Station
Jahangir Puri.
CRL.A. 908/2012 Page 1 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
16:52

th
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04 August, 2004, at
around 4 AM, complainant Moti Lal (PW-1) was going to Azadpur
Subzi Mandi on a two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DDK-
611 and Kishan Lal (PW-4), a clerk of Hansa Nand, was the pillion
rider on the said scooter and was carrying a bag containing cash of Rs.
3 lacs. At about 4:10 AM, when they reached near the gate of Fruit
Mandi, PW-1 heard the sound of firing of bullet. PW-4 shouted “mere
ko goli maar dee hai, muje bachaon” . PW-1 immediately stopped the
scooter and tried to manage PW-4. In the meanwhile, two boys came
there and snatched the bag from PW-4. One of them, even fired at
PW-1, but he somehow managed to save himself. Upon PW-1 raising
alarm, those boys fled away.
3. PW-1 then immediately informed Hansa Nand and and they
both took the injured Kishan Lal to the hospital. The police was
informed. SI Sanjay Kumar (PW-14) along with Constable Subhash
and Constable Paramvir (PW-6) came at the spot at the Out Gate of
Azadpur Mandi. The statement of Moti Lal was recorded (Ex.
PW1/A). On the said statement, a Rukka (Ex. 14/A) was prepared
which was sent to the police station and FIR no. 561/2004 (Ex.
PW3/A) was registered under Sections 307/394/397/34 IPC.
th
4. On 11 August, 2004, based upon a secret information, co-
accused Haridwar @ Chacha, Babloo Pasi and Subhash @ Satya
Prakash were arresested in case FIR no. 683/2004 under sections
307/186/353/34 IPC. Upon their personal search, a desi katta
alongwith one live cartridge and one used cartridge were recovered
CRL.A. 908/2012 Page 2 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
16:52

from co-accused Haridwar @ Chacha. A Buttondar knife was
recovered from accused Subhash @ Satya Prakash. On interrogation
they gave disclosure statements stating about their involvement in the
case FIR no. 561/2004. In the said disclosure statement, they disclosed
that after committing the robbery, they went to the jhuggi of the
present appellant Jiya Lal where they distributed the looted money. On
the basis of their disclosure statement, appellant Jiya Lal was arrested
th
from his jhuggi at Wazirpur Industrial Area on 17 August, 2004.
5. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under
Sections 307/394/395/397/412/120-B/34 IPC and Sections 25/27/
54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the appellant and the co-accused
persons. Charges were framed against them under Sections
394/395/397/120-B/34 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt by use of
deadly weapon while committing robbery and under Sections
307/120-B/34 IPC for attempting to murder Kishan Lal. Additional
charge under Section 216-A IPC was framed against the appellant Jiya
Lal for harbouring the other three co-accused persons.
6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 18
witnesses including the two star witnesses Moti Lal (PW-1) and
Kishan Lal (PW-4).
7. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the
appellant denied all the incriminating evidence appearing on record
against him. He refused to lead any evidence in his defence.
8. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court vide Judgment
th
dated 29 March, 2012 convicted the appellant and the other three
CRL.A. 908/2012 Page 3 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
16:52

accused persons under Sections 394/395/120-B/34 IPC and under
Sections 307/120-B/34 IPC. The appellant Jiya Lal was additionally
convicted under Section 216-A IPC. Vide Order on Sentence dated
th
08 June, 2012, the appellant and the co-accused persons were
sentenced as under:
“5. Considering the totality of facts and
circumstances, the convicts namely Subhash
@ Satya Prakash, Haridwar @ Chacha and
Babloo Pasi @ Bhola and Jiya Lal are
sentenced with 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment
u/s 394/34 IPC r/w 120-B IPC; 7 years
Rigorous imprisonment u/s 307/34 IPC r/w
120-B IPC; 7 years Rigorous imprisonment u/s
395/34 IPC r/w 120-B IPC. Convicts Babloo
Pasi @ Bhola and Subhash @ Satya Prakash
are further sentenced with 7 years Rigorous
imprisonment u/s 397 IPC. Convict Jiya Lal is
further sentenced with 3 years Rigorous
Imprisonment u/s 216-A IPC. All the convicts
are fined a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each in default
of payment of which they shall undergo 3
months SI. All the sentences shall run
concurrently.”
9. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant Jiya Lal has preferred the
present appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned
Judgment of conviction and Order on Sentence are unsustainable as
the prosecution has failed to establish the appellant's involvement by
placing reliable evidence. It was contended that the appellant was not
named in the FIR and that his name surfaced during the investigation
for the first time in the disclosure statement of co-accused persons.
CRL.A. 908/2012 Page 4 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
16:52

11. It was argued that the role attributed to the appellant Jiya Lal
was limited to the extent that he was keeping watch from a distance,
without any specific overt act demonstrating his participation in the
robbery, assault or conspiracy. No recovery was effected from his
possession or at his instance, and no incriminating material was
produced to corroborate the allegation against him.
12. Learned counsel further contended that the testimony of PW-1
Moti Lal does not support the prosecution case inasmuch as PW-1 did
not identify him.
13. It was further submitted that identification of the appellant by
PW-4 Kishan Lal in Court is unreliable, in the circumstances of the
present case, to establish the appellant's identity beyond reasonable
doubt. The appellant was stranger to PW-4, no prior test identification
parade was conducted, and the role attributed to him was that of
keeping watch from a distance. It was also argued that the prosecution
has failed to establish any specific act on the appellant's part or any
independent circumstance demonstrating his participation in the
alleged crime. It was thus submitted that prosecution has failed to
prove its case against the appellant beyond doubt and therefore, the
appeal is liable to be accepted.
14. Per contra , learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the
State submitted that the learned Trial Court passed the Judgment of
conviction and Order on Sentence after due appreciation of evidence
on record. It was submitted that the prosecution has been able to duly
CRL.A. 908/2012 Page 5 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
16:52

establish the occurrence of the robbery, use of firearm and knives, and
the infliction of injuries upon Kishan Lal.
15. Learned APP contended that the testimony of PW-4 being the
injured witness is most material to the prosecution case and his
identification of the appellant Jiya Lal in Court could not be
disregarded merely because the appellant had not been named in the
FIR. It was argued that the evidence of an injured witness stands on a
high pedestal and carries considerable evidentiary value and therefore
must be given due weightage.
16. It was further submitted that prosecution case cannot be thrown
aside merely because no recovery has been affected from the
appellant. It was argued that appellant had received Rs. 5,000/- as his
share but the same could not be recovered from his possession as he
had spent the said money and therefore, under the circumstances, the
absence of recovery of his share of robbed cash is not fatal to the
prosecution case. According to the learned APP, the prosecution has
been able to prove the case against the appellant Jiya Lal beyond
doubt and thus prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.
17. The court has considered the submissions made by both the
sides and has gone through the records of the case.
18. PW-1 Moti Lal is the complainant, who was driving the scooter
on which PW-4 was travelling as a pillion rider. His testimony lends
supports to the prosecution case regarding the occurrence and the
presence of PW-4 at the place of occurrence. However, PW-1 stated
that upon hearing the gunshot he bent down to protect himself and
CRL.A. 908/2012 Page 6 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
16:52

thus was unable to identify the person who fired the shot, snatched the
bag or used the knives.
19. Even though PW-1 was cross-examined by the learned APP
after being declared hostile, such cross-examination has been of no
help in establishing the identity of the appellant or in attributing any
specific act to him.
20. PW-4 Kishan Lal, an injured witness, identified the appellant in
Court. He deposed that at about 4:10AM, while they were at a short
distance from the gate of Fruit Mandi, co-accused Haridwar @ Chacha
stopped his scooter by parking a scooter in front of him and at that
time another small boy was sitting on the scooter. He instantly asked
PW-1 to call Seth whose money he was carrying and before PW-1
could cover a distance of 20 feet, co-accused Babloo Pasi fired at him
and the bullet passed through his body. Co-accused Subhash @ Satya
Prakash placed a knife on handle of the scooter, while
appellant/accused Jiya Lal kept observing at some distance. He further
deposed that all the four accused persons except co-accused Haridwar
@ Chacha scuffled with him and snatched away his bag having cash
of Rs. 3 lacs. According to him, it was a gang of 7-8 persons who had
robbed him of the aforesaid amount.
21. Admittedly, appellant is not named in the FIR as one of the
assailants. It is nowhere mentioned that one of the assailants was
keeping the watch at the time of the occurrence. In fact, as per the FIR
only two of the assailant were actively involved in the occurrence,
even though it is also stated that there were some more boys with them
CRL.A. 908/2012 Page 7 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
16:52

at the time of the occurrence. Admittedly, PW-1 Moti Lal was not able
to identify any of the assailants in Court. Admittedly, as per the
testimony of PW-1 he did not see the persons taking away the bag
carried by Kishan Lal. His cross-examination by the learned APP has
been of no help in establishing the identity of the appellant.
22. PW-4 Kishan Lal, the injured witness identified the appellant in
Court. While he himself being the injured lends assurance of his
presence at the time of occurrence, it does by itself establish the
identity of the appellant. It is neither the stand of the prosecution nor
the PW-4 that appellant was known to PW-4 prior to the occurrence.
In fact, in his examination-in-chief, PW-1 himself stated that he came
to know about the names of the accused persons on that day itself in
Court when the Court asked their names from him during his
testimony. Admittedly, appellant was not arrested from the place of
th
incident. He was arrested on 17 August, 2004 that is, after 13 days of
the occurrence on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-
accused. No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted.
23. It is well settled that dock identification without a prior TIP has
little or no evidentiary value where the witness has no prior familiarity
with the accused. In Nazim & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand ,
2025 INSC 1184 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while relying on its
previous judgment in P. Sasikumar Vs. State , (2024) 8 SCC 600 ,
observed that TIP is only part of the investigative process and that the
substantive evidence is dock identification. However, where the
CRL.A. 908/2012 Page 8 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
16:52

accused is a stranger to the witness and no TIP is held, the Courts
must exercise extreme caution in accepting such identification.
24. In the present case, the appellant was not named in the FIR, and
his involvement emerged during the investigation through the
disclosure statements attributed to the co-accused. He was arrested on
th
17 August, 2004 nearly two weeks after the occurrence. No test
identification parade was conducted to test the capacity of PW-4 to
identify him as one of the persons present during the incident. Further,
the role attributed to the appellant was that of keeping watch at some
distance, rather than that of a principal assailant directly involved in
firing or snatching of the bag. No explanation whatsoever has been
given by the prosecution as to why TIP was not conducted in this case
before a Magistrate as it ought to have been done. These
circumstances do not render PW-4’s identification for the first time in
Court without TIP to be admissible.
25. There is another reason why the testimony of PW-4 does not
inspire confidence is that his testimony is self contradictory inasmuch
as, in examination-in-chief, he deposed that it was co-accused
Haridwar @ Chacha who had stopped his scooter by parking his
scooter in front of him. The role attributed by him to the appellant was
that he was keeping a watch from a distance. But in cross-
examination, he stated that it was the appellant who had stopped his
scooter by parking a scooter in front of his scooter. That being so, the
testimony of PW-4 is not trustworthy qua the present appellant with
regard to his role.
CRL.A. 908/2012 Page 9 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
16:52

26. The prosecution also relies on disclosure statements of the co-
accused wherein they stated that after commission of the robbery they
had assembled at the jhuggi of the appellant for the division of the
robbed cash and appellant Jiya Lal received Rs. 5,000/-. However, no
such amount or other incriminating article was recovered from the
appellant or at his instance, and no independent evidence establishes
the factum of the assembly of the appellant and the co-accused at his
jhuggi or regarding the sharing of the robbed cash.
27. A disclosure statement made before the police is inadmissible in
evidence except to the extent as permissible under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the present case, the disclosure
statement made by the co-accused has not lead to the discovery of any
fact and therefore, the same is inadmissible in evidence.
28. There is also no evidence to prove that the appellant shared any
common intention with the co-accused. Likewise, the conviction under
Section 120B IPC, requires proof of an agreement to commit an illegal
act, which may be inferred from the circumstances but cannot rest on
conjectures. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Monika Kiran Suryawanshi
& Ors., 2026 INSC 685 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that to
secure a conviction under Section 120-B of the IPC, the prosecution
must establish meeting of mind and an agreement to commit an illegal
act. Once a conspiracy is proved, the act committed by one of the
conspirator becomes the act of the other. However, the foundational
pre-requisite i.e. the agreement itself must be proved through direct or
circumstantial evidence. In the present case, no reliable evidence
CRL.A. 908/2012 Page 10 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
16:52

independently establishes the appellant’s participation, coordination
with the assailants, or prior agreement to commit the alleged offences.
29. The conviction of the appellant under Section 216-A IPC is also
unsustainable. There is absolutely no evidence except the disclosure
statement to establish that the appellant subsequently harboured or
concealed the co-accused within the meaning of that Section. The
prosecution has thus failed to prove through the reliable evidence the
essential ingredients of the offence.
30. Considered cumulatively, the evidence at best establishes the
occurrence and the injuries suffered by PW-4 but does not connect the
appellant with the alleged crime. The appellant’s involvement in
commission of the offence remains doubtful. The co-accused’s
disclosure statements are inadmissible in evidence, and the ingredients
of conspiracy and harbouring have not been established.
31. The conviction is founded only on the basis of suspicion and as
is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sujit
Biswas Vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 suspicion, however
strong, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution must
establish its case beyond doubt.
32. In the considered view of the Court the prosecution has
miserably failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The appellant is therefore, entitled to acquittal.
th
33. The appeal is allowed. The Judgment of conviction dated 29
th
March, 2012 and the Order on Sentence dated 08 June, 2012 passed
by the learned Trial Court insofar as they relate to the appellant Jiya
CRL.A. 908/2012 Page 11 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
16:52

Lal are set aside The appellant is acquitted of all the charges framed
against him.
34. The bail bond of the appellant shall remain valid for a period of
six weeks.
35. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court and
Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.
36. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms alongwith
pending application(s), if any.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
OCTOBER 16, 2026/ AK
CRL.A. 908/2012 Page 12 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:27.10.2026
16:52