State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Monu @ Kamal & Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 29.10.2026
Date of Decision: 03.11.2026
Uploaded on: 03.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010598262018
+ CRL.A. 197/2018
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP, Mr.
Rohit, Adv. for the State.
versus
MONU @ KAMAL & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for R-1
and R-2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 13.02.2018 passed
by this court in Crl. L.P. No. 420/2015 , whereby the State was granted leave
to appeal against the judgment dated 06.01.2015 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), West District, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 22/2012, arising out of FIR No.
236/2011 registered at Police Station Janak Puri, Delhi. Pursuant thereto,
the present appeal came to be registered as Crl. A. No. 197/2018 .
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court acquitted
respondent No. 1, Monu @ Kamal, and respondent No. 2, Pawan Kumar,
of the offences punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 411 read with
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 1 of 22
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the
“IPC”), by extending to them the benefit of doubt.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 22.07.2011, at
about 7:15 PM, the complainant, Aman Rahi (PW-1), along with his father,
Sanjeev Rahi (PW-10), and his friends, Nikhil (PW-2) and Rajat Kumar
(PW-8), was proceeding on foot towards District Centre, Janak Puri, Delhi.
When they reached near the C-2B red light, adjacent to the MCD Office,
Janak Puri, two persons, one wearing a red and black shirt and the other
wearing a yellow T-shirt, allegedly approached them.
4. As per the prosecution, Sanjeev Rahi (PW-10), who was
accompanying the complainant and his friends, had fallen behind while
attending a telephone call. In the meantime, the person wearing the red and
black shirt allegedly brandished a knife and threatened the complainant and
his friends to hand over their belongings. It is alleged that the person
wearing the yellow T-shirt forcibly removed a sum of Rs.1,500/- and a
Nokia mobile phone from the possession of Nikhil (PW-2), whereas the
person wearing the red and black shirt removed Rs.100/- and another Nokia
mobile phone from the possession of Rajat Kumar (PW-8).
5. It is further alleged that immediately after committing the robbery,
both persons attempted to flee from the spot, whereupon the complainant
and his friends raised an alarm of “Chor Chor” and started chasing them.
Upon hearing the alarm, Sanjeev Rahi (PW-10) allegedly joined the pursuit.
During the chase, one of the persons, stated to be wearing the yellow T-
shirt, allegedly stumbled and fell on the road, resulting in an injury to his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 2 of 22
mouth and the breaking of a tooth.
6. According to the prosecution, police personnel who were passing
through the area joined in apprehending both persons. Upon enquiry, the
person wearing the yellow T-shirt disclosed his name as Monu @ Kamal,
respondent No. 1 herein, whereas the person wearing the red and black shirt
disclosed his name as Pawan Kumar, respondent No. 2 herein.
7. It is alleged that upon conducting their personal searches, a Nokia
mobile phone and cash amounting to Rs.1,500/- belonging to Nikhil (PW-
2) were recovered from respondent No. 1, Monu @ Kamal. Similarly,
another Nokia mobile phone, Rs.100/- in cash and a knife were allegedly
recovered from respondent No. 2, Pawan Kumar. The recovered articles
were identified by the respective complainants and taken into possession
by the investigating agency.
8. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, Aman Rahi (PW-
1), FIR No. 236/2011 was registered at Police Station Janak Puri for the
offences punishable under Sections 392, 397, 411 and 34 IPC. Investigation
was thereafter undertaken, during which the respondents were arrested, the
alleged stolen articles and knife were seized, and the statements of the
witnesses were recorded.
9. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. After compliance with the
provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions, the offence under Section 397 IPC being exclusively triable by a
Court of Sessions.
10. Vide order dated 01.10.2012, the learned Trial Court framed charges
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 3 of 22
against both respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 392
and 397 read with Section 34 IPC, as well as Section 411 IPC. Both
respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined eleven
witnesses. The material witnesses included the complainant, Aman Rahi
(PW-1); Nikhil (PW-2) and Rajat Kumar (PW-8), from whose possession
the cash and mobile phones were allegedly robbed; Ct. Yashpal (PW-3) and
HC Ashok Kumar (PW-4), who were associated with the apprehension of
the respondents and the alleged recovery; Sanjeev Rahi (PW-10), the father
of the complainant; and ASI Babu Lal (PW-11), the Investigating Officer.
The testimonies of the witnesses as recorded by the learned Trial Court is
reproduced hereinunder:
“4. Aman Rari the complainant was examined as
PW1. He fully supported the prosecution case and
identified both the accused persons as well as the
case property. During examination in chief he stated
that while running accused Pawan fell down on the
ground as his foot hit with some object on the road.
During cross examination he stated that it was
accused Monu who fell down and one tooth was
broken. He also deposed that from the possession of
Pawan one mobile phone make Nokia and Rs.1500/-
were recovered along with one knife and from the
possession of accused Monu @ Kamal one mobile
phone make Nokia and Rs.100/- were recovered. He
also stated that neither he nor his friends went to the
PS Janak Puri and that he along with his friends
signed the memos at 7.30pm on the spot. However,
he stated that his father went to the PS and returned
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 4 of 22
home after about one and a half hour. During
further cross-examination he stated that the memos
Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/J were prepared in the PS.
5. Other witness Nikhil was examined as PW2. He
also corroborated the testimony of PW1 and
supported the prosecution case. During cross-
examination he stated that the memos Ex.PW1/B to
J were prepared on the spot. He also stated that all
the witnesses signed the memos simultaneously.
6. Ct. Yashpal was examined as PW3. He deposed
that on 22.07.2011 while he was returning with HC
Ashok Kumar after attending a call assigned to HC
Ashok and reached near C-2B, MCD Office
JanakPuri they heard some children crying Chor
Chor. They also noticed the children chasing two
persons. They over powered those two persons.
Those two persons during interrogation disclosed
their names as Monu @ Kamal and Pawan. The
children told that those two persons robbed them of
their mobile phones and cash on the point of knife.
HC Ashok took the formal search of Monu @ Kamal
wherein one mobile phone make Nokia and cash
amount of Rs. 1500/- were recovered from left side
pocket of his pants which were identified by Nikhil
as belonging to him. In the formal search of accused
Pawan one mobile phone make Nokia, Rs.100/- and
one knife were recovered. Rajat identified the
mobile phone and currency notes as his. The
children also identified that it is the same knife
which was shown to them by accused persons at the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 5 of 22
time of robbery. HC Ashok passed on the
information to police station Janak Puri. ASI Babu
Lal reached the spot. Both the accused along with
recovered articles handed over to ASI Babu Lal. ASI
Babu Lal prepared he sketch of the knife which is
Ex.PW1/C. The knife was thereafter put in a cloth
parcel sealed with the seal of DL and was seized
vide memo Ex.PW1/B. The case property recovered
was also put in the cloth parcel and seized vide
memo Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E. Seal after use was
handed over to HC Ashok Kumar. IO recorded the
statement of Aman Rari and prepared the rukka
which was sent to PS through HC Ashok. Case was
got registered. Both the accused persons were
arrested. The witness has identified the case
property as well as both the accused. During cross
examination he stated that Monu was taken to DDU
hospital along with Pawan at 8.30 pm. He along
with HC Ashok was on motorcycle belonging to this
witness. The accused persons were taken to the PS
by calling QRT Gypsy. Complainant Aman Rari, his
father and his friend Rajat were also taken to PS.
They remained in the PS up to 10.00 pm. He stated
that Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/J were prepared in the
PS.
7. HC Ashok was examined as PW-4. He deposed
that he along with ASI Babu Lal was on emergency
duty and were coming back to PS after attending a
call. At about 7.15 pm when they reaching over red
light C-B2 near MCD Office, Janakpuri, they heard
the cries of children. They were calling Chor Chor
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 6 of 22
and chasing two boys. In the meanwhile, Ct. Yash
Pal also reached there. They over powered those
two boys with the help of public persons. Those
children, and the father of one of the child identified
both the accused. They disclosed there names as
Monu @ Kamal and Pawan Kumar. In the formal
search of Monu @ Kamal, cash amount of Rs.1500/-
and one Mobile phone were recovered, Nikhil
identified that the mobile phone and the amount
belongs to him. In the formal search of Pawan, one
mobile phone, one currency note of Rs.100/- and
one knife were recovered. The mobile phone and
currency note was identified by Rajat as belonging
to him. The children also identified the knife as the
same which was shown to them by accused Pawan.
The knife was put in a parcel of cloth sealed with the
seal of DL and was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He
corroborated the testimony of PW-3 on other
aspects and identified the case property. During
cross-examination, he stated that he along with ASI
Babu Lal were coming after attending the call which
was marked to ASI Babu Lal. He stated that Ct. Yash
Pal met them on the way. He stated that only the
accused were taken to the PS and not the
complainant. IO called extra staff from PS to take
the accused.
8. ASI Ravinder was examined as PW-5. He was
working as duty officer and he registered the FIR
after receiving the rukka at about 9.30 pm. He stated
that he handed over the copy of FIR to HC Ashok at
about 10.30 pm.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 7 of 22
9. Ct. Rinku was examined as PW-6. He took
accused Monu to DDU Hospital for medical
examination to DDU hospital at about 12.30 pm.
10. HC Amar Singh was examined as PW-7. He was
working as MHC(M) at PS Janakpuri. He proved
the entries in register no.19 running into two pages
as Ex. PW7/A.
11. Sh. Rajat Kumar was examined as PW-8. He has
supported the prosecution to the extent that they
were robbed and that one of the accused was
apprehended. According to him accused Pawan was
apprehended on the spot and the other accused was
apprehended later on. He was cross-examined by
the Ld. APP wherein he denied the suggestion that
accused Monu was apprehended on the spot or that
from the possession of accused Monu Mobile phone
and Rs.500/- were recovered belonging to his friend
Nikhil. He also denied the suggestion that knife was
recovered from the possession of Pawan. During the
cross examination he stated that father of Aman was
not there and he reached there only after the
incident. He further stated that police reached at the
spot after 15-20 minutes of the incident. Thereafter,
police took them to the police station and prepared
documents and obtained the signatures. He stated
that both the accused ran in different directions and
first of all accused Pawan was apprehended and
about 15-20 minutes thereafter accused Monu was
apprehended. The search of the accused persons
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 8 of 22
were taken in police station.
12. Dr. Kumar Narender Mohan was examined as
PW-09. He proved the MLC of accused Monu Ex.
PW9/A prepared by Dr. Heloiese Stanley.
13. Sh. Sanjeev Rari was examined as PW-10. He
deposed that he was not present at the time of
incident but was present at Uttam Nagar and on
receipt of telephone of his mother that 2-3 boys had
robbed money and mobile phone he reached police
station Janakpuri where he found that one of the
accused was apprehended by the police. At his
instance, second accused was arrested in the area
of Sagarpur Market. He stated that in his presence
no recovery was effected from the possession of
accused persons. According to him, none of those
accused are present in the court. He was cross
examined by Ld. APP but no material supporting the
prosecution case came on the record.
14. ASI Babu Lal IO of the case was examined as
PW-11. He deposed that on 22.07.2011 he was
returning after attending a call with HC Ashok
Kmar and Ct. Yashpal when they reached near C-2,
Red Light they saw that 2-3 boys were running while
raising alarm "Chor Chor, Pakdo Pakdo" and they
were following two boys. He also stated that they
also chased those two boys and one of those two
boys fell down after hitting some object on the road.
He was overpowered and he disclosed his name
'Monu'. The other boy was also overpowered by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 9 of 22
them whose name was revealed as Pawan and the
recovery was got effected. Both the accused were
arrested. He proved the investigation carried out by
him. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was
closed.”
12. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the
respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied
the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and claimed false
implication. The defence examined three witnesses, namely, Suraj Singh
(DW-1), Monu @ Kamal (DW-2) and Pawan Kumar (DW-3). The relevant
testimonies as recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“16. Accused persons examined Sh. Suraj Singh as
DW-1. He stated that on 22.7.2011, he and Monu
were present at Vijay Enclave, Bus Stand. A police
vehicle and a private vehicle came there. In the
private vehicle accused Pawan and one police
person and two and three more persons were there.
They caught hold of Monu and started beating him.
They gave blows on his face due to which one of the
teeth was broken. Monu started bleeding from his
mouth and thereafter, Monu was taken away by the
police official. During cross-examination he stated
that those two vehicles reached there at about 5:00
or 5:15 p.m. He did not call on 100 number and also
did not make any complaint in this regard.”
13. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and
hearing the submissions advanced by the parties, the learned Trial Court,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 10 of 22
vide judgment dated 06.01.2015, acquitted both respondents of the charges
framed against them. The learned Trial Court observed that material
inconsistencies existed in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
particularly concerning the apprehension of the respondents, the alleged
recoveries and the manner in which the investigation was conducted.
Consequently, the learned Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed
to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment, the appellant-State
has challenged the same before this Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-STATE
15. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the
“APP”) appearing on behalf of the appellant–State submits that the learned
Trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents without properly
appreciating the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. It is
submitted that both respondents had robbed the complainant and his
companions of their mobile phones and cash, and upon an alarm of “Chor
Chor” being raised, they were apprehended by the police personnel who
were patrolling in the vicinity. The robbed articles were allegedly recovered
from their possession in the presence of PW-2 and PW-8.
16. Learned APP further submits that the testimony of the complainant,
Aman Rahi (PW-1), fully supports the prosecution case. It is contended that
PW-1 had specifically identified both respondents before the learned Trial
Court and had supported the prosecution version concerning the
occurrence, apprehension of the respondents and recovery of the robbed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 11 of 22
articles. According to learned APP, the learned Trial Court failed to accord
due weight to his testimony while recording the judgment of acquittal.
17. It is further submitted that the alleged recoveries were effected in the
presence of PW-2 and PW-8, and not PW-10, Sanjeev Rahi. Learned APP
contends that the prosecution never claimed that the recovered articles were
seized in the presence of PW-10. Therefore, the fact that PW-10 did not
support the prosecution case concerning the apprehension of the
respondents and recovery of the articles cannot, by itself, discredit the
testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-8.
18. Learned APP accordingly submits that the evidence of the material
prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1, read with the alleged recoveries,
was sufficient to establish the involvement of both respondents in the
commission of the offences. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 06.01.2015 be set aside and the petition seeking
leave to appeal be allowed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
19. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
contends that the prosecution failed to establish the involvement of the
respondents in the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt, particularly
in view of the material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses concerning the apprehension of the respondents and the alleged
recovery of the robbed articles.
20. Learned counsel places particular reliance upon the testimony of
PW-10, Sanjeev Rahi, the father of the complainant. It is submitted that
although the prosecution case proceeds on the premise that PW-10 was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 12 of 22
accompanying the complainant and his friends at the time of the alleged
occurrence, PW-10 categorically deposed that he was present at Uttam
Nagar and came to know about the incident upon receiving a telephone call
from his mother. He further stated that upon reaching Police Station Janak
Puri, he found that one of the accused had already been apprehended,
whereas the other was subsequently arrested from the area of Sagarpur
Market. It is pointed out that PW-10 neither witnessed any recovery from
the respondents nor identified them before the learned Trial Court.
21. It is further submitted that the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses are inconsistent regarding the manner and place of apprehension
of the respondents. While the prosecution alleges that both respondents
were apprehended at the spot immediately after the occurrence, the
testimony of PW-10 indicates that the second respondent was apprehended
subsequently from a different location. Learned counsel submits that these
contradictions strike at the foundation of the prosecution case and cast
serious doubt upon the alleged recoveries.
22. Learned counsel also draws attention to the discrepancies in the
testimony of PW-1, Aman Rahi, regarding the place where his statement
was recorded and the documents relating to the investigation were prepared.
It is contended that the prosecution witnesses have given inconsistent
versions as to whether the proceedings were conducted at the spot or at the
police station. Reliance is also placed upon the defence evidence,
particularly the testimony of DW-1, concerning the circumstances in which
respondent No. 1 was allegedly apprehended.
23. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the inconsistencies in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 13 of 22
prosecution evidence, coupled with the failure of PW-10 to support the
prosecution version regarding the apprehension and identification of the
respondents, create substantial doubt about their involvement in the alleged
occurrence.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
24. This Court has heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused
the material on record.
25. The question which arises for consideration is whether the learned
Trial Court erred in appreciating the prosecution evidence while acquitting
the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 411
read with Section 34 IPC, and whether the findings recorded in the
impugned judgment warrant interference by this Court.
26. Before examining the evidence, it would be apposite to refer to the
settled principles governing interference with a judgment of acquittal. In
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that although an appellate court possesses the power
to reappreciate the evidence, an order of acquittal strengthens the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Where two reasonable
conclusions are possible on the evidence, the appellate court ought not to
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
27. Similarly, in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that an acquittal cannot be reversed
merely upon a different appreciation of the evidence. Interference is
warranted where the findings of the Trial Court suffer from illegality,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 14 of 22
perversity or a material error in the appreciation of the evidence.
28. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court proceeds to examine
whether the findings returned by the learned Trial Court are supported by
the evidence on record. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the
testimonies of PW-1 Aman Rahi, PW-2 Nikhil and PW-8 Rajat Kumar,
who were allegedly present at the time of the occurrence, together with the
testimonies of the police officials concerning the apprehension of the
respondents and recovery of the alleged stolen articles.
29. Learned APP has principally relied upon the testimony of PW-1
Aman Rahi, contending that he identified both respondents and supported
the prosecution version. A perusal of his examination-in-chief reveals that
PW-1 attributed the act of showing a knife to respondent No. 2, Pawan
Kumar, and the removal of Rs.1,500/- and a Nokia mobile phone from PW-
2 Nikhil to respondent No. 1, Monu @ Kamal. He further deposed that both
respondents attempted to flee and were apprehended following the alarm
raised by him and his companions.
30. However, certain material discrepancies emerge from his testimony
regarding the circumstances in which the respondents were apprehended
and the articles allegedly recovered. During his examination-in-chief, PW-
1 initially stated that respondent No. 2, Pawan Kumar, had fallen while
running. In his cross-examination, he stated that it was respondent No. 1,
Monu @ Kamal, who had fallen and sustained the dental injury. Further,
during his examination on 05.01.2013, PW-1 initially attributed recovery
of Rs.1,500/- and a Nokia mobile phone to respondent No. 2, Pawan
Kumar, whereas the prosecution case attributes the said recovery to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 15 of 22
respondent No. 1. Although he subsequently referred to the recoveries in
accordance with the seizure memos, the initial variation forms part of the
evidence which the learned Trial Court was required to consider.
31. More importantly, PW-1 gave inconsistent accounts regarding the
preparation of the investigation documents. While he initially stated that
the documents were signed at the spot, he subsequently deposed during
cross-examination that the seizure memos and other documents were
prepared at the police station.
32. PW-2 Nikhil also supported the prosecution case and identified both
respondents. He deposed that respondent No. 1 had removed Rs.1,500/- and
his Nokia mobile phone, whereas respondent No. 2 had removed a mobile
phone and Rs.100/- belonging to PW-8 Rajat Kumar. He further stated that
the robbed articles were recovered following the apprehension of both
respondents.
33. However, during his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that the seizure
memos and other investigation documents were prepared at the spot and
that the witnesses had signed them simultaneously. This version differs
materially from the testimony of PW-1, who stated during cross-
examination that the documents were prepared at the police station.
34. The testimony of PW-8 Rajat Kumar assumes particular significance.
While PW-8 supported the occurrence of the alleged robbery and identified
respondent No. 2 as the person who had removed his mobile phone and
Rs.100/-, he did not support the prosecution case regarding the
apprehension of both respondents at the spot. He specifically stated that
respondent No. 2, Pawan Kumar, was apprehended at the spot, whereas
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 16 of 22
respondent No. 1, Monu @ Kamal, was apprehended subsequently.
35. PW-8 was cross-examined by the learned APP, during which he
denied the suggestion that respondent No. 1 had been apprehended at the
spot and that Rs.1,500/- and the mobile phone belonging to PW-2 had been
recovered from his possession. He also denied the suggestion concerning
recovery of the knife from respondent No. 2. Although PW-8 identified
respondent No. 1 as a participant in the alleged robbery, he did not support
the prosecution version concerning his apprehension and the recovery
attributed to him.
36. Further, during cross-examination by learned defence counsel, PW-
8 stated that the police had arrived approximately fifteen to twenty minutes
after the occurrence and that the documents were signed at the police
station. He also stated that the personal searches of the respondents were
conducted at the police station. His account thus differs from the
prosecution version of immediate apprehension and recovery at the spot.
37. The aforesaid discrepancies are not confined to minor variations in
recollection. They concern the manner in which the respondents were
allegedly apprehended and the place where the recoveries and consequent
documentation took place. The prosecution case proceeds on the premise
that both respondents were apprehended at the spot and that the articles
were recovered from their possession immediately thereafter. The
testimony of PW-8, however, materially differs from this version.
38. The evidence of PW-10 Sanjeev Rahi, the father of the complainant,
also requires consideration. According to the prosecution case, PW-10 was
accompanying the complainant and his friends and had fallen behind while
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 17 of 22
attending a telephone call. However, when examined before the learned
Trial Court, PW-10 stated that he was present at Uttam Nagar at the relevant
time and came to know about the incident upon receiving a telephone call
from his mother.
39. PW-10 further deposed that he thereafter reached Police Station
Janak Puri, where one accused had already been apprehended, whereas the
other was subsequently arrested from the area of Sagarpur Market. He
categorically stated that no recovery was effected from the respondents in
his presence. He also failed to identify the respondents before the learned
Trial Court. Despite being cross-examined by the learned APP, he did not
support the prosecution version regarding his presence at the spot, the
apprehension of both respondents there or the alleged recoveries.
40. The contention of learned APP that the prosecution did not rely upon
PW-10 as a witness to the recovery does not satisfactorily address the
contradictions in his testimony. PW-10 was specifically projected as a
person accompanying the complainant at the time of the incident and as
having joined the pursuit of the respondents. His evidence contradicts that
version regarding his presence at the place of occurrence. More
importantly, his account of the subsequent apprehension of an accused from
Sagarpur Market is consistent, to that extent, with the testimony of PW-8
that both respondents were not apprehended together at the spot. Thus, the
discrepancy is not merely about the absence of PW-10 from the recovery
proceedings but concerns the manner of apprehension itself.
41. The testimonies of the police officials also reveal material
inconsistencies concerning their presence and participation in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 18 of 22
investigation. PW-3 Ct. Yashpal deposed that he was returning with HC
Ashok Kumar after attending a call when they heard the alarm raised by the
complainant and his companions. According to him, ASI Babu Lal
subsequently reached the spot after information was conveyed to the police
station.
42. PW-4 HC Ashok Kumar, however, stated that he was returning with
ASI Babu Lal after attending a call and that Ct. Yashpal joined them
thereafter. On the other hand, PW-11 ASI Babu Lal, the Investigating
Officer, deposed that he was accompanied by both HC Ashok Kumar and
Ct. Yashpal when they came across the incident. These accounts do not
present a consistent version concerning the presence of the police officials
at the time of apprehension.
43. There are also differences concerning the place where the
investigation proceedings were conducted. PW-3 stated during cross-
examination that the documents were prepared at the police station. PW-
11, however, maintained that the documents were prepared at the spot and
that the complainant and his companions had not been taken to the police
station. This stands at variance with the testimony of PW-8, who stated that
the searches and documentation were carried out at the police station, as
well as the relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW-1.
44. The alleged recovery of the stolen articles and knife is an important
circumstance relied upon by the prosecution. However, the material
witnesses have not given a consistent account of the manner and place of
recovery. PW-1 gave differing accounts concerning the articles recovered
from the respective respondents, PW-8 did not support the alleged recovery
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 19 of 22
from respondent No. 1 or the recovery of the knife from respondent No. 2,
and the witnesses differed as to whether the searches and documentation
were undertaken at the spot or at the police station. These discrepancies
assume significance because the alleged recovery is relied upon to
corroborate the identity and involvement of the respondents.
45. The defence also examined DW-1 Suraj Singh, who stated that
respondent No. 1, Monu @ Kamal, was apprehended by police personnel
from the area of Vijay Enclave and assaulted, resulting in injury to his
mouth and the breaking of a tooth. Respondent No. 1 also entered the
witness box as DW-2 and denied the prosecution version concerning his
apprehension. The medical evidence, proved through PW-9 Dr. Kumar
Narender Mohan, records the loss of the upper left central incisor of
respondent No. 1. While the medical record does not establish the
circumstances in which the injury was sustained, the defence version
concerning his apprehension away from the alleged place of occurrence
cannot be viewed in isolation from the inconsistencies appearing in the
prosecution evidence.
46. This Court is conscious that minor discrepancies in the testimonies
of witnesses, particularly concerning peripheral details, do not necessarily
render the prosecution case unreliable. However, the present case involves
material inconsistencies concerning the identity of the person apprehended
at the spot, the circumstances of apprehension, the alleged recoveries and
the preparation of contemporaneous investigation documents. These
matters are directly connected with the prosecution's account of the
occurrence and the involvement of the respondents.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 20 of 22
47. The learned Trial Court, while extending the benefit of doubt to the
respondents, considered the aforesaid contradictions and found that the
prosecution had failed to present a consistent and reliable account of the
apprehension of the respondents and the recoveries allegedly effected from
them.
48. Upon an independent appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds
that the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court are borne out from the
material on record. The learned Trial Court has not discarded the
prosecution case merely on account of insignificant variations. Rather, it
has identified inconsistencies concerning the material circumstances
connecting the respondents with the alleged offences. The fact that PW-1
and PW-2 supported the prosecution case and identified the respondents
was considered in the context of the remaining evidence. The
inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW-8, PW-10 and the investigating
witnesses furnish a reasonable basis for the doubt expressed by the learned
Trial Court.
49. Insofar as the offence under Section 397 IPC is concerned, the
prosecution specifically attributed the use of a knife to respondent No. 2,
Pawan Kumar. However, the alleged recovery of the knife was not
consistently supported by the material witnesses. Having regard to the
discrepancies concerning the apprehension of the respondents and the
recovery proceedings, this Court finds no sufficient ground to disturb the
finding of acquittal in respect of the said offence. Likewise, the inconsistent
evidence concerning the alleged recovery of the stolen articles does not
warrant interference with the acquittal under Section 411 IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 21 of 22
50. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) has reiterated that
where the view taken by the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, the
appellate court ought not to reverse an acquittal merely because a different
view of the evidence may also be possible. In the present case, the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court are based upon the material
contradictions in the prosecution evidence. The State has not demonstrated
that the impugned judgment suffers from perversity, illegality or a material
misreading of evidence warranting interference.
CONCLUSION
51. Accordingly, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court adopted a
reasonably possible view of the evidence in extending the benefit of doubt
to both respondents. No ground is made out for setting aside the judgment
of acquittal dated 06.01.2015.
52. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is dismissed.
The judgment of acquittal dated 06.01.2015 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), West District, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 22/2012, arising out of FIR No.
236/2011 registered at Police Station Janak Puri, is upheld.
53. All pending applications, if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
54. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the learned Trial Court for
necessary information and compliance.
MADHU JAIN
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 03, 2026/ PSB
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHARTI
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:55:37
CRL.A. 197/2018 Page 22 of 22