Delhi District Court
State vs Vinay Kumar@Smarty on 15 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
SC No. 132/2022
CNR No. DL-SE01-001017-2022
State
Through : Sh. A.T. Ansari, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor
Vs.
Vinay Kumar @ Smarty
S/o Shri Raj Kumar
R/o H.No. C-14, Plot No. 9,
Air India Apartment, Sector-3,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
Through : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Ld. Legal Aid Defence Counsel
FIR No. 313/2021
PS: Chitranjan Park
U/s : 392/34 r/w Section 397 IPC
and Section 387/34 IPC &
25 of Arms Act, 1959
Instituted on : 23.12.2021
Committed on : 11.01.2022
Reserved on : 02.04.2026
Pronounced on : 15.04.2026
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 1/43
JUDGMENT
1). Accused has been sent to face trial for offences punishable under
section 392/34 IPC r/w Section 397 IPC, 387/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act.
1.1 It is alleged that on 25.10.2021 at about 11:45 AM, at Hotel OYO,
South Continental, B-273, C.R. Park, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction
of Police Station C.R. Park, the accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty, along
with his two associates (since declared as Children in Conflict with Law),
committed robbery in Room No. 201 of the said hotel.
1.2 It is further alleged that the accused persons robbed the
complainant Prashant Gupta of the original documents of the hotel and also
took away Rs. 8,000/- from the purse of the complainant and his brother
Sushant by pointing a pistol and knife at them, thereby instilling fear of
death. It is further alleged that accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty pointed a
deadly weapon, namely a pistol, at Sushant and forcibly obtained the
signatures of the complainant and his brother on certain papers brought by
him. After committing the robbery, the accused persons allegedly
threatened the complainant and his brother with dire consequences and
demanded a sum of Rs. 4 crores, putting them in fear for their lives.
1.3 It is further the case of the prosecution that on 27.10.2021, in the area
of AG Block, near CSC Market, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi, within the
jurisdiction of PS Shalimar Bagh, accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty got
recovered two black coloured Air/Splinter Guns from his stolen scooty
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 2/43
bearing registration No. DL-11 SL-3405. It is alleged that the said weapons
were in his conscious possession without any valid permit or licence,
thereby contravening the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959.
Brief Facts:
2. On 25.10.2021, upon receipt of DD No. 47A, SI Tejender, along with
Ct. Ashok, met the complainant Prashant Gupta at the Police Station and
thereafter proceeded to the place of incident i.e. B-273, Hotel OYO South
Continental, C.R. Park, New Delhi, along with the complainant and his
brother Sushant Gupta. The crime team was called at the spot, the scene of
crime was photographed, and the CCTV footage of the hotel was checked,
wherein the accused persons were allegedly seen. Thereafter, the statement
of the complainant was recorded.
2.1 In his statement, the complainant stated that he is the owner of Hotel
OYO South Continental and had published an advertisement in the
newspaper Hindustan Times for sale of the said hotel. After seeing the
advertisement, one person namely Vinay contacted him and informed that
his uncle Mittal was interested in purchasing the hotel. On 22.10.2021, the
complainant met them and handed over copies of the registry documents of
the hotel.
2.2 The complainant further stated that on 25.10.2021, accused Vinay
called him and informed that his uncle wished to inspect the property and
the original registry documents. The complainant asked him to meet at the
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 3/43
hotel at about 11:30 AM. At Room No. 201 of the hotel, accused Vinay
stated that his uncle had also arrived and stepped out to bring him. After
some time, he returned along with two boys, who allegedly tied the hands
and legs of the complainant and his brother, whereupon one boy placed a
knife on the neck of Sushant and the other placed a pistol on the
complainant.
2.3 It was further alleged that accused Vinay forcibly obtained the
signatures of the complainant and his brother on certain papers, removed
the original property documents from the complainant’s bag and threatened
them to arrange Rs. 4 crores by 6:00 PM, failing which they would be
killed. Thereafter, Sushant Gupta made a call at 100 number. The
investigation commenced and accused was arrested during course of
investigation.
2.4 After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet
under Section 173 CrPC against the accused for offences punishable
under Sections 384/392/397/411/34 IPC.
3. Upon completion of investigation and after necessary formalities,
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
3.1 Vide order dated 05.07.2022, charge under Section 392/34 IPC read
with Section 397 IPC, 387/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act was framed against the
accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty to which he pleaded not guilty and
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 4/43
claimed trial.
4. During course of trial, accused admitted following documents in
terms of section 294 of CrPC:-
(a) FSL report of Cyber Forensic Division dated 26.05.2023
prepared by Sh. Vikas Kumar, JR (F/ACE (CED)) Ex.
PW11/P1.
(b) Certificate u/s. 65B of IEA of Shri Vikas Kumar, JR (F/ACE
(CED)) Ex. PA.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
5. In support of its allegations, prosecution produced 13
witnesses. A summary of the witnesses produced and their connection with
the incident is as follows :
Witness Witness Name Purpose
No.
PW1 Sh. Sushant Gupta Brother of the complainant
/eyewitness of the incident.
PW2 Dr. Prashant Gupta Complainant / Eyewitness of the
incident.
PW3 SI Vijay Singh He is the duty officer, who made
endorsement Ex.PW3/B on the
rukka and registered the FIR
Ex.PW3/A.
PW4 ASI Braham Prakash He is the photographer from mobile
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 5/43
crime team, who took photographs
of the scene of crime and proved the
said photographs as Ex. PW4/A.
PW5 Mr. Alok Kumar Mehta, PW-5, the concerned Forensic
Sr. Scientific Officer, Science Laboratory expert, deposed
RFSL, Chanakya Puri, that he had examined the questioned
signatures appearing on the
property documents along with the
specimen signatures of the accused.
He proved his detailed report as Ex.
PW5/C.
PW-5 opined that certain
similarities were observed in the
execution of various characters and
in their inconspicuous details.
However, he categorically stated
that no definite opinion could be
expressed regarding the common
authorship of the questioned and
specimen signatures. In other
words, the examination remained
inconclusive and the authorship of
the disputed signatures could
neither be confirmed nor ruled out
on scientific basis.
PW6 HC Ashok Kumar He was the Channel Operator, who
received the call regarding the
robbery and forwarded the
information to concerned police
station. He proved the PCR form as
Ex.PW6/A and E-form event ID as
Ex. PW6/B.
PW7 SI Ajay PW-7 was the Incharge of the
Mobile Crime Team, who deposed
that on receipt of information, he
along with ASI Braham Prakash
(Photographer) and HC Soran Singh
(Fingerprint Proficient) reached the
scene of crime and inspected the
spot. He proved the Crime Team
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 6/43
Inspection Report as Ex. PW7/A.
PW8 Ms. Anubha Lal, She proved the FSL report Ex.
Chemical Examiner PW8/A regarding two air pistols
(Ballistics), recovered at the instance of
accused. As per said report, the
pistols were found in working
condition and same are fire arm as
per extant Act and Rules.
PW9 Sh. Ankit Chauhan, He proved Sanction under section
39 of Arms Act Ex. PW9/A.
PW10 Sh. Umang Singh He was the receptionist at Hotel
South Continental and stated about
visiting of accused alongwith two
boys in the hotel and went to the
room no. 201 with Prashant and
Sushant on the date of offence.
PW11 SI Sunder Pal He filed the FSL report Ex. PW5/A,
reports from Ballistics Division
Ex.PW8/A, Sanction u/s 39 Arms
Act Ex.PW9/A and FSL report of
DVR of CCTV footage Ex.
PW11/P1 by way of supplementary
charge-sheet.
PW12 SI Tejender Nandal He is the Investigating Officer (IO)
of the case and deposed about the
investigation carried out by him.
PW13 HC Sudhir Kumar He is the Nodal Officer, posted at
CPCR and proved the PCR form as
Ex. PW13/P1.
6. MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD: The testimony of material
witnesses is being discussed hereinunder, whereas brief of remaining
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 7/43
testimonies has already been given in the preceding paragraph.
7) PW1 Sushant Gupta is the brother of the complainant and one of the
eye-witnesses cited by prosecution. His testimony is reads as under :
“I am residing at the above said address with my family and
elder brother Prashant Gupta. I am having manufacturing business of lab
testing equipments in the factory by the name of D&G Technology at
Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I. I and my elder brother Prashant Gupta
also having a business of consultancy advisory in the name of
Consecration Advisory at Okhla.
Prior to 25.10.2021, we had given advertisement in the
newspaper regarding our intention to sell our property i.e. OYO South
Continental Hotel, B-273, C.R. Park. In response to this advertisement,
Mr. Vinay Kumar introduced himself as a buyer and shown interest in
purchasing the property. He had 2 / 3 rounds of meeting and discussion
with my brother Prashant Gupta in this regard and discussed in detail
about the property and its ownership.
On 25.10.2021, I and my elder brother Prashant had reached in
our office at Okhla at around 10 a.m. In between 10:30 – 11 AM a
telephonic call was received on the phone of my brother Prashant from
Vinay. Mr. Vinay said that the buyer will come with advance and told
to bring us the original papers of the said property. We had told him to
reach at around 11:30 a.m. at around OYO South Continental Hotel at
B-273, C. R Park. We had rented the said premises to Prakash Chandra
who was running the hotel under the name of OYO South Continental
and having tie-ups with OYO. A meeting was to be held in the said hotel
in respect of sale of said property i.e. OYO South Continental Hotel. On
which, I and my brother Prashant reached at about 11:30 a.m. at our
OYO South Continental Hotel where Vinay was already present at the
reception. Vinay had asked me to arrange some private place as deal was
to be conducted in a conducive atmosphere. I asked the Manager of the
Hotel to provide one room to us. On which, he provided us Room No.
201 of the said hotel. Thereafter, I alongwith my brother Prashant and
Vinay had gone in the Room No. 201. Thereafter, Vinay had received a
telephonic call by stating that the buyer Mittal had come outside the hotelFIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 8/43
and he is going down to accompany Mittal to the room.
After 10 minutes, Vinay alongwith two young boys had
entered in the room who were wearing caps and carrying knives in their
hands. As far as I remember both of the boys were wearing caps.
Out of those boys, one had put knife on my neck and told not to
shout otherwise he will kill me and threatened that they had received
supari to kill me. I told them that we are not having enmity with anyone.
They had tied my hands and hands of my brother with a rope and laid
down on bed on downward face. Vinay was having pistol in his hand
when he entered into the room. He had pointed the pistol on me and my
brother. One boy was having pistol and a knife in his hand. The rope was
removed from hand of my brother Prashant. We were carrying original
papers of the property and same were kept in the room. Accused Vinay
was having Agreement to Sell and Receipts in his bag and he had taken
the signatures of my brother Prashant Gupta on the said paper forcefully
and threatening to sign his original signature otherwise he will kill him.
Thereafter, hand of my brother Prashant Gupta was tied again.
Thereafter, rope of my hand was removed and asked me to sign
forcefully on the documents as a witness. Thereafter, accused Vinay had
taken our original papers of the property and the documents /papers
brought by him on which signatures of my brother and my signatures
were forcefully obtained by Vinay. He had kept the said documents in his
bag. At the time of above said initial threatening by accused Vinay, he
had demanded Rs. 4 crores from us otherwise he will kill us if the
amount was not given to him. Thereafter, they had tied my hands as
above. Vinay demanded to give Rs. 4 crores from us and he told that he
will tell us about the time and place as to where and when the said
amount was to be given by us at 6 p.m. Before leaving the room,
accused Vinay had opened two layers of the tied rope of my hand and
asked us not to come downstairs till 5 to 10 minutes. Thereafter, I had
opened the rope of my hands and then, I opened the rope tied on my
brother’s hands. Thereafter, we waited for 5 / 10 minutes and thereafter,
we came downstairs and found that Vinay and two boys had left the
hotel. Thereafter, we returned to our house in our vehicle. After reaching
at home, we had told about the incident to the family members and
relatives. At about 1 p.m., I had made a call from my mobile No.
9873001516 on 112. Thereafter, I and brother Prashant Gupta had
separately gone to PS C. R. Park. There we met the police officials andFIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 9/43
narrated the fact of incident. Thereafter, police officials had
accompanied us at the spot of incident and police had conducted some
proceedings at the spot of incident. My statement was recorded by the
police. Accused Vinay is present in Court today and correctly identified
by witness.
The Agreement to Sell & Purchase / Bayana dated 23.10.2021
in the name of Prashant Gupta and Vinay Kumar running into four pages
including E-Stamp is Ex.PW1/A which bears my signature at point A on
the fourth page at the column of witness.
The Receipt dated 25.10.2021 in respect of receiving of Rs.
2,50,00,000/- by Prashant Gupta (seller) against the said property is
Ex.PW1/B which bears my signature at point A at the column of witness.
The Agreement to Sell & Purchase / Bayana dated 23.10.2021
in the name of Prashant Gupta and Vinay Kumar running into four pages
including E-Stamp is Ex.PW1/C which bears my signature at point A on
the fourth page at the column of witness.
The Receipt dated 25.10.2021 in respect of receiving of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- by Prashant Gupta (seller) against the said property is
Ex.PW1/D which bears my signature at point A at the column of witness.
The Agreement to Sell & Purchase dated 24.10.2021 in the
name of Prashant Gupta and Vinay Kumar running into four pages
including E-Stamp is Ex.PW1/E which bears my signature at point A on
the fourth page at the column of witness.
The Receipt in respect of receiving of Rs.2,50,00,000/- by
Prashant Gupta (seller) against the said property is Ex.PW1/F which
bears my signature at point A at the column of witness. The column of
date is left blank in the said receipt.
The above said documents were brought by the accused on
which accused had forcefully taken the signatures of my brother
Prashant Gupta and forcefully asked to sign me at the point of witness
on the said documents.
My brother Prashant Gupta had moved an application before
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 10/43
the concerned Court for releasing of original documents of the property
and currency notes to him. The original documents and currency notes
were released to us.
On 14.06.2022, the said property was sold by my brother
Prashant Gupta to Smt. Sunita Chabra against the Sale Deed executed in
respect of above said property.
The original Sale Deed in the name of my brother Prashant
Gupta was submitted in the office of Sub-Registrar at the time of
execution of above said Sale Deed vide which my brother had sold the
property to Ms. Sunita Chabra vide Sale Deed Ex.PW1/G (certified copy
seen and returned).
Today, I have brought the certified copies of Sale Deeds in
the name of Ms. Varsha Hoon and Prashant Gupta in respect of the above
said property. Same are taken on record which are exhibited as
Ex.PW1/H (certified copy seen and returned) and Ex.PW1/I (certified
copy seen and returned).
I can identify the accused Vinay and his two associates (both
JCL)in the footage.
(At this stage, MHC(M) had produced one sealed parcel no. 1
bearing the seal of FSL CFD Delhi bearing the particular of the case. The
parcel is opened and from it one DVR with cable found in a unsealed
cloth parcel. The DVR is make CP PLUS. The footage played in the
computer screen and is shown to the witness).
I have seen the footage and I identify the accused Vinay and the
two other offenders who are not present in Court (both accused are JCL).
In the footage me and my brother are also visible at the reception of the
hotel and this DVR was installed at the hotel. The DVR and footage
are Ex. MO-1.
The accused persons obtained my signature and the signature
of my brother forcibly on the gun point upon the documents pertaining
to sale and purchase of our hotel which were already written. The
accused persons snatched our pocket money which was about Rs
7000/- to Rs. 8000/-.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 11/43
He identified the pistols, used by accused as Ex.MO-1 and
Ex.MO-2.
(emphasis supplied)
7.1 During his cross-examination, he deposed that he is unable to recollect
any person by name of Sushil Kumar Modi, he admitted that his brother
had got issued an advertisement regarding the sale of the hotel in question,
he denied the suggestion that Sushil Modi had assured them that he would
arrange a loan against the said hotel from MSME Depatment and that he
had provided the property documents of the hotel and cash Rs. 8000/- to
him for that purpose, he denied the suggestion that the said Modi had also
told him and his brother that the said loan will incur 02% to 04% expenses
of the income amount and that they had paid Rs. 4 lakh in advance to said
Sushil Modi as commission for arranging the said loan,
7.2 Witness deposed that he was carrying mobile phone at the time of
incident, that he did not reveal the incident to the person available at the
reception nor he made a call to the police, he volunteered to deposed that
they straightway went to their home and from there they made call to their
relatives as well as to the police, that he had not made any call to any person
by name of Sushil Modi prior to the present incident, that he does not know
if accused Viay Kumar @ smarty and the said person Sushil Modi had
visited the hotel prior to the incident.
7.3 PW1 further deposed that he had not made any call to the accused
after the present incident, accused had not made any call to him prior to
coming to hotel.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 12/43
8) PW2 Dr. Prashant Gupta is the complainant and the other eye-witness
examined by the prosecution. He deposed as as under :
“I am residing at the above said address with my family and
younger brother Sushant Gupta. I am having manufacturing business of
lab testing equipments in the factory by the name of DNG Technology
at Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I. I and my younger brother Sushant
Gupta also having a business of consultancy advisory in the name of
Consecration Advisory at Okhla.
I am owner of property No. B-273, C R Park, New Delhi. I had
given said property on rent to Prakash Chand who was running the hotel
in the name of OYO South Continental after tie-up with OYOs. I had to
sell the said property for which I had given an advertisement in
Hindustan newspaper regarding the sale of the said property. After
advertisement, I had received a call from prospective buyers. I had
received a telephonic call on 17/18 and 19.10.2021 from a mobile phone
number whose number I do not remember today. However, I had
mentioned the mobile number given to the police. The caller had
introduced himself as Vinay Kumar. He had taken the detailed
description of my property and shown his interest in the purchase of said
property. I told him that I want to sell the said property. He asked me
to meet him at the above said hotel in respect of the said deal. As far as
I remember a meeting was fixed for 20.10.2021 or 21.10.2021.
Thereafter, I met Vinay and he visited the above said property. He had
seen my complete property from ground floor to upper floors of the said
property. On the next day, Vinay had asked me to provide the
cancelled photocopy documents of the said property. I had given the
photocopy of the documents of the said property after marking crossing
upon it at the above said hotel. When I asked accused Vinay who
wants to buy the said property on which he told that his uncle namely
Mittal from Ashok Vihar was interested in the purchase of my
property.
On 23.10.2021 and 24.10.2021, accused Vinay had told that he
wants to cross-check the authenticity of the documents and his uncle
Mittal will be available on 25.10.2021 with advance / Bayana regarding
the deal of said property. He had also asked me to bring the original
documents of the property on 25.10.2021. The time for the meeting atFIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 13/43
the hotel was fixed 11:30 a.m. for 25.10.2021.
On 25.10.2021, I received a call of accused Vinay from his
mobile phone on my mobile phone that he had reached at the hotel and
I informed him that I will also be reaching at the hotel after 11:30 a.m. I
alongwith my brother Sushant were in our office at Okhla. Thereafter,
we reached at the Hotel OYO South Continental at around 11:40 a.m.
where we found accused Vinay was present at the reception of the hotel.
I asked the Manager of the Hotel as to which room is available on which
he told that Room No. 201 is vacant. Thereafter, I alongwith my brother
Sushant Gupta and Vinay had gone to Room No. 201 of the Hotel and
entered in the said room. After sitting in the room, I asked accused Vinay
as to where is the buyer. Meanwhile, he pretended to receiving a call on
his phone and told me that Mittal had come downstairs and he is going
to receive him. Thereafter, accused Vinay left the room. After sometime,
accused Vinay came alongwith two young boys in the room. I was
sitting on the bed and Sushant was sitting on the chair. Accused Vinay
after entering in the room reached before Sushant and put pistol on his
head. Out of the two boys, one boy put knife on my neck and another
boy put knife upon the neck of my brother and accused Vinay was freely
moving in the room. Accused Vinay told me that he had taken the supari
to kill us and his job is to kill us in 10 minutes and thereafter he will
leave. On which, I asked him as to who would take the supari for killing
us as there was no enmity with anyone at the personal level or business
level.
Accused Vinay had demanded ransom (phiroti) of Rs. 4 crores
till the evening. Thereafter, my hands and hands of my brother were tied
with rope by the accused persons. Accused Vinay had taken some
documents from his bag and kept on the table and asked me to sign on
the said documents. Thereafter, he had opened the rope from my hand
and asked me to sign on the documents brought by him. He threatened
me to sign the original and genuine signature on the documents
otherwise he will kill me. On this, he had obtained my signature
forcefully on the said documents i.e. Agreement to Sell and Receipts.
When I asked from accused Vinay about the amount while signing the
Receipts, he asked me to just sign the same. We were having the original
documents of the above said property. Accused Vinay had kept my
original documents of the property and the documents brought by him
in his bag.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 14/43
Thereafter, my hands were tied with the rope by the accused
Vinay. The rope of the hands of Sushant was opened and accused Vinay
asked him to sign on the said documents which were brought by him at
a point of witness forcefully. My brother Sushant Gupta had signed on
the said documents as a witness. Thereafter, the hands of Sushant Gupta
was again tied with a rope by the accused Vinay. Accused Vinay had laid
us on the bed face downwards while my hands were tied on my back.
Thereafter, accused Vinay had robbed our wallets from our back
pockets. He opened the wallet and found Rs. 4,000/- in my wallet and
Rs. 4,000/- in the wallet of my brother Sushant Gupta and then he kept
the said amount with him. Accused Vinay told me that I used to keep
such a little amount in wallet.
The accused Vinay had asked us that he will call at around 6
p.m. and will tell as to where and when the amount of Rs. 4 crores was
to be given to him by us. He had threatened that if the amount of Rs. 4
crores was not given to him, then he will kill us. He had also threatened
us not to approach police in this regard.
Thereafter, accused Vinay had taken out a bottle containing
acid from his bag and threatened to pour upon us. I tried to convince the
accused Vinay that I have no money that is why I am selling the property
and to give some time to pay the ransom amount to him on which he did
not agree and told that he will call me in the evening as to when and
where the ransom money was to be given to him.
The accused Vinay had cut some layers of the rope from
the hands of my brother Sushant Gupta and told us not to follow him
down while leaving the room and asked us to come down after 10
minutes as their associates are present outside the hotel and they will
shoot us. My brother had somehow opened the rope of his hand and
thereafter, he opened rope from my hands.
Thereafter, we came downstairs and sat in the car and
came back to our house. I had told to the family members and relatives
about the incident which was happened with us. Sushant had made a call
112 from his mobile phone. Thereafter, I and my brother Sushant Gutpa
had reached at PS C.R. Park. Some of the relatives to whom I had
informed about the incident also reached at the PS. My statement
Ex.PW2/A was recorded by the police, which bears my signature atFIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 15/43
point A.”
The police inspected the spot and prepared the site plan at my
instance which is Ex. PW2/B which bears my signature at point A. The
police seized the DVR make CP Plus from the Oyo hotel through seizure
memo Ex. PW2/C which bears my signature at point A. the police had
also seized the pieces of rock by which we were tied from the place of
occurrence through seizure memo Ex.PW2/D which bears my signature
at point A. The advertisement regarding the selling of property which I
had given in English Newspaper published on 21.08.2021 and it bears
my advertisement at point A in the paper cutting Mark PW 2/1.
I can identify the papers regarding the sale of property upon
which the accused taken the signature of mine and my brother forceibly
on the point of gun. My brother had signed the papers as witness. I have
seen the said papers i.e. agreement to sale and purchase vide Ex.
PW1/A. It bears my signature at points A on each page and signature of
my brother at points A now it is given point A1. The receipt vide Ex.
PW1/B which bears my signature at point B and the signature of my
brother at point A. the second agreement to sale vide Ex.PW1/C which
bears my signature at points B on each page and the signature of my
brother at point A. The receipt vide Ex. PW1/D which bears my
signature at point B and the signature of my brother at point A. The
agreement to sell vide Ex. PW1/E which bears my signatures at points
B on each page and signature of my brother at point A. The receipt vide
Ex. PW1/F which bears my signature at point B and the signature of my
brother at point A.
All these documents were signed by me and my brother under
threat and on the point of gun at the instance of accused. No any
payment of consideration was made in respect of the said papers
regarding the selling of property.
(emphasis supplied)
8.1 During his cross-examination, he admitted that on 19.10.2021, he had
telephonic conversation with one Sushil Modi (financer) regarding some
loan, he further admitted that on 19.10.2021 Sushil Modi and accused
Vinay came to Continental Hotel after the telephonic conversation, he
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 16/43
further admitted that the said conversation was with respect to selling of
Continental Hotel by Sushil Modi for about of 7-8 Crores.
8.2 PW2 denied the suggestion that when the deal of the Continental
Hotel got settled, Sushil Modi offered him to get a loan through MSME, he
denied that it was further agreed that file charge would be 2% of the loan
amount, that when conversation took place between them it was agreed @
8 crore, that however, accused Vinay told them that his uncle will finalize
the deal, that accused Vinay introduced Sushil as MSME loan provider
agent and he further told me that “Sushil mujhe MSME se loan provide
karwayga ”
8.3 PW2 admitted that during occurrence, the accused Vinay
went out from the room once and then he again entered the room, that he
admitted the suggestion that if a person had entered in the room (wherein
incident took place), he would have been captured in the camera, that he did
not make call to Sushil after reaching in the Police Station, that he did not
talk to Sushil after the incident, that he admitted that Sushil came to his
Hotel but he does not remember the date, that the accused Vinay also
accompanied Sushil to his Hotel, that he denied the suggestion that the
accused Vinay alongwith Sushil came to see his property for the purpose of
loan, that he admitted that he talked Sushil regarding MSME loan, that he
denied the suggestion that Sushil would take some commission in lieu of
sanctioning the loan8.4 PW2 volunteered that the talks could not culminate upto the
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 17/43
such stage, that he admitted that it “2-4 percent kharche ki baat hue thi”,
that he denied the suggestion that Rs. 14 lacs was fixed, that he volunteered
that nothing was fixed in the name of commission, that only once a meeting
took place between him and Sushil, that he met Sushil only once in his life,
he denied the suggestion that he had given Rs. 4 lacs as part of commission
to Sushil Modi of total advance of Rs. 14 lacs,8.5 PW2 further denied the suggestion that after two days i.e.
25.10.2021 of giving Rs. 4 lacs to Sushil, accused Vinay came to him for
taking the remaining amount of commission i.e. Rs. 10 lacs, that he denied
the suggestion that he had cancelled the deal with the accused as he found
some other buyer of the property, that he denied the suggestion that the
accused persons, seen entering the property, had actually come to collect
the commission of Rs. 10 lacs. He denied the suggestion that he had given
beatings to the accused at the relevant time and then threw him out of the
Hotel, that he does not remember if he had any telephonic conversation
with Sushil Modi after the incident, that Sushil Modi never came to PS
in his presence, he denied the suggestion that the entire case is false and
fabricated just to seek a return of Rs. 4 lacs advanced to Sushil Modi for
arranging a loan MSME department.
9) PW-10 Sh. Umang Singh is the concerned receptionist and the material
witness examined by the prosecution. He deposed as as under :
“I am working as receptionist in South Plaza Hotel, Chattarpur for
last 2 years. Before that I was working as receptionist in Hotel South
Continental, at B-273, CR Park.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 18/43
On 25.10.2021, Prashant Sir who is the owner of Hotel South
Continental, called me telephonically and informed me that “mere kuch
guest aa rahe hai unko room no. 201 in baithana “. At about 11/11:30
AM, one uncle along with 2 boys came to Continental Hotel and asked
me that “Prashant Sir ne appko bataya hoga” thereafter, I told them that
” haa bataya tha” thereafter, I sent the said uncle to room no. 201.
thereafter, the said uncle went to room no. 201 and after 5 minutes he
returned back to the reception. Thereafter, Prashant and his brother
Sushant reached at Continental Hotel.
Thereafter, the said Uncle along with one boy who came with
said uncle went to the room no. 201 along with Prashant Sir and his
brother Sushant. However, the second boy who came with the uncle
remained at the reception. After 5-10 minutes the first boy who went to
room no. 201 with uncle came back to the reception and took the second
boy to room no. 201. After 30 minutes said uncle along with two boys
left the hotel. After 5-10 minutes Prashant Sir and his brother Sushant
came to reception and both of them were seems terrified. Thereafter,
after 5-10 minutes Prashant Sir called the police and police reached at
the spot. I came to know later on that the above said three persons who
went to the Room no. 201 with Prashant Sir and Sushant, they had tied
the hands of the Prashant Sir. I do not know rest of the incident.
I can identify the three assailants who came to the Continental
Hotel on that day.
At this stage, witness has pointed out towards the accused
Vinay Kumar and states that he is the same uncle who came to
Continental Hotel along with 2 boys on that day and went to the room
no 201 with Prashant Sir and Sushant. (Witness has correctly identified
the accused ).”
(emphasis supplied)
9.1 During his cross-examination, he deposed that accused never came
to Hotel Continental after his joining in the said Hotel apart from the date
of incident, that he does not remember if any person namely Sushil Modi
came to the Hotel Continental 2-3 days prior to the date of incident or not.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 19/43
He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the behest of
Prashant Sir being my Ex-employer.
10. PW-12 IO SI Tejender Nandal deposed as under:-
“On 25.10.2021, I was posted at PS CR Park. On that day, I
received DD No. 47 A. The true copy of which is Ex. PW12/P1. Upon
receiving the said DD, the complainant and his brother Sushant reached
in the PS by that time. I took the complainant namely Prashant Gupta
and Sushant to the place of occurrence i.e. hotel OYO Continental i.e.
B-12, C R Park. Upon reaching there, I called the crime team at the
spot.
I checked the CCTV footage of the hotel in which the alleged
accused persons were seen. Thereafter, I recorded the statement of
complainant Prashant Gupta which is already Ex. PW2/A. I also made
inquiry from Sushant. Thereafter, I made my rukka Ex. PW12/P2 which
bears my signature at point A. I sent the rukka appended to the statement
of complainant to PS through Ct. Ashok. I made the video from my
mobile phone from the CCTV Camera where in the accused were seen.
I seized the exhibits at the spot i.e. cotton rope/ cord from the spot which
was used by the accused persons in tying of the victims. I sealed the said
rope in a parcel and seized through seizure memo Ex. PW2/D which
bears my signature at point B. I had also seized the DVR make CP Plus
and adaptor that I sealed in a parcel with the seal of TSN and then seized
through seizure memo Ex. PW2/C which bears my signature at point
B.Ct. Ashok brought the copy of FIR with rukka at the spot and
then I put the FIR number on the above seizure memos and obtained the
signature of Ct. Ashok on both the seizure memos. I prepared the site
plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of complainant. The same
is Ex. PW2/B which bears my signature at point B. I examined the
manager of the hotel and the Sushant and recorded their statements with
Ct. Ashok. Thereafter, we returned to PS.I sent letter to the mobile service provider to collect the CDR of
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 20/43
mobile number of accused through which he contacted the complainant.
I obtained the CDR of mobile number 7701854154. after analyse the
CDR the said number was found to be registered in the name of Piyush
Verma S/o Vinay Kumar, the accused. On 26.10.2021 we reached at the
address given in the CAF and there Piyush Verma met us . On asking
the said Piyush that the said mobile number was registered in his name
and the same was being used by his father i.e. Vinay Kumar, the
accused. I had shown the accused in the video to Piyush which I had
made from my mobile phone and he identified his father Vinay Kumar.
On inquiry Piyush told that accused Vinay Kumar had left the house on
25.10.2021 and he had not returned since then. I instructed my staff to
look after the surrounding of the accused in civil dress and as and when
he came there they would inform me.
We were continued doing the investigation and on the next day
i.e. on 27.10.2021, when we were returning from the house of accused
then on the way near Dwarka District Court then one secret informer
met me and he told that the alleged Vinay Kumar would come in Dwarka
Court in afternoon. Then we reached at Dwarka Court along with the
secret informer. I asked some public person to join us but none could
prepare to join and went away without disclosing their names and
addresses.
We were waiting for the accused at the main gate of Dwarka
Court and at about 04:15 PM then one person came out and to whom the
secret informer pointed out as the accused Vinay Kumar wanted in this
case and then the informer went away. We apprehended the said Vinay
Kumar, now accused present in court today. (Correctly identified by the
witness).
On inquiry, his name revealed as Vinay Kumar, the father of
Piyush. On inquiry he did not admit his involvement in this case then I
then conducted his cursory search. I made search of his bag and it was
found containing original documents of the hotel OYO Continental i.e.
Sale deed etc including the chain of ownership of said hotel. The
documents which he had prepared in his name for purchasing the hotel
also recovered from his bag. Rs. 8000/- cash also recovered from the
pocket of his wearing pant. The clothes that he was wearing at the time
of occurrence and shown in the CCTV Footage were also recovered
from his bag. I had seized the aforesaid documents cash and the originalFIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 21/43
agreement to sell/ purchase and receipt property documents through
seizure memos Ex. PW12/P3, Ex. PW12/P4 and Ex. PW12/P5
respectively all bears my signature at point A.The clothes of accused were sealed in a parcel with the seal of
TSN and then seized through seizure memo Ex. PW12/P6 which bears
my signature at point A. I arrested the accused in this case and prepared
his arrest memo Ex. PW12/P7 which bears my signature at point A. The
personal search of accused was also conducted and prepared the memo
thereof which is Ex. PW12/P8 which bears my signature at point A. One
mobile phone of accused was recovered in his personal search. I
interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.
PW12/P9 which bears my signature at point A.During the interrogation the accused Vinay Kumar disclosed
that he had stolen a scooty from the area of PS Prashat Vihar and the
same was parked at his shop in the area of Shalimar Bagh and the
weapons which were used in the commission of the offence were lying
in the said scooty. He could, get recovered he same. He further disclosed
that the two boys of his associate in this case were also living in the area
of Shalimar Bagh and he could get them arrested from there.
In pursuant of the disclosure statement the accused Vinay led us
at his shop at Shalimar Bagh A G Block on the corner of CSC Market.
Upon reaching there, he pointed out one scooty bearing registration
number DL 11SL 3405 in front of his shop. I checked the dikki of the
scooty and found two air/splinter gun and two knives of different size. I
prepared the sketches of the two guns which are Ex.PW12/P10 and
EX.PW12/P11 both bears my signature at point A. I also prepared the
sketches of both knives which are Ex. PW12/P12 and Ex. PW12/P13
which bears my signature at point A. I then seized both the guns through
separate seizure memos Ex. PW12/P14 and Ex. PW12/P15 both bears
my signature at point A. I had also seized both the knives through
separate seizure memos Ex. PW12/P16 and Ex. PW12/P17 both bears
my signature at point A. Before seizure, I had sealed both the guns and
knives in a separate parcel whit the seal of TSN. All the aforesaid memos
bearing the signature of accused Vinay Kumar at point B. I also seized
the scooty through seizure memo Ex. PW12/P18 which bears my
signature at point A and the signature of accused at point B. I prepared
the site plan of the place of recovery of scooty with weapon. The sameFIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 22/43
is Ex. PW12/P19 which bears my signature at point A and and the
signature of accused at point B.A park situated nearby the place of recovery of scooty. Accused
Vinay Kumar pointed out two boys as his associate in this case who were
sitting in the park. We apprehended both the said boys whose names
were revealed as K and F. Both were revealed to be JCL. The
apprehension memo of both the JCL were prepared by SI Sanjeev
Kumar CWPO. The copy of apprehension memos are Mark A and B.
Both the JCL were got recovered their wearing clothes that were worn
by them at the time of occurrence from their respective houses. The copy
of seizure memo of JCL K is Mark C which bears my signature at point
A and the copy of seizure memo of JCL F is Mark D which bears my
signature at point A. I prepared the site plan of the place of the recovery
of clothes situated in a one lane. The site plan is Ex. PW12/P20 which
bears my signature at point A.I took the accused along with the JCL to the place of
occurrence and they had pointed out the same as the place where they
had committed the present offence. In the meantime the complainant
reached at the spot and he had identified the accused and both the JCL
as the same persons who had committed offence against him. I had
recorded the statement of complainant in this regard. In this process the
next date came that is 28.10.2021 and thus we took the accused to Court
and produced him before the concerned Magistrate. Both the JCL were
produced before JJB. The accused was remanded to JC by the
Magistrate. I recorded the statement of witnesses. I may state that I had
also seized the original bank account opening form of accused Vinay
Kumar through seizure memo Ex PW12/P21 which bears my signature
at point A. the original form is already Ex. PW5/A colly.
On 23.12.2021 I had obtained the specimen signature of
accused Vinay Kumar on 5 sheets. The same are Ex. PW5/B Colly
attested by the Magistrate at points A. Thereafter, I had sent the
specimen signature with the documents in question and the weapons to
FSL. Some report of FSL was received later on which was filed with the
supplementary charge-sheet by some other IO. I had recorded the
statement of witnesses and after completion of the investigation I
prepared the charge sheet and put in court. I can identify the case
property if shown to me.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 23/43
He correctly identified the case property as under:-
(i) Splinter guns recovered from the dikki of accused Ex. MO-1
and Ex.MO-2 (bearing FSL Mark F1 and F2 respectively).
(ii) One cord (sutli) Ex. MO-3.
(iii) Knife recovered from the dikki, Ex. MO-4.
(iv) Knife recovered from the dikki, Ex. MO-5.
(v) Clothes i.e. one blue jeans shirt and one shirt having white
base and navy blue strips of accused wearing at the time of
occurrence Ex.- MO-6 (colly).”
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC:
11. Examined under section 313 of CrPC, the accused either
pleaded ignorance about the incriminating evidence or denied the same as
incorrect. He claimed to be falsely implicated.
12. Accused examined two witnesses in his defence.
13. DW-1 is accused Vinay who examined himself in terms of
Section 315 CrPC and deposed as under :
“In the month of May 2021, I was running in Judicial Custody,
however, after being granted parol I was released from jail. Thereafter,
I started helping my father who used to run a garment shop.
Sumit Modi had been my neighbour. He talked to me and
assured me that he would arrange loan of Rs. 10 lakhs for me if I
wish to do the business on large scale. I was running a Trust namely
Charitra Nirman Sevadas Trust.
On the assurance of Sumit Modi I gave hims Rs. 20,000/- and
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 24/43
also provided him the document of the said trust. He assured me that
he would get the loan arranged within one and half months from
MSME. Sumit Modi had also been dealing in the sale of property.
There was an advertisement of sale of three properties. Sumit told me
to obtain the details of those properties. I contacted the owner of the
property i.e. Hotel OYO, B-273, CR Park and a meeting was fixed by
him on coming Sunday i.e. on 17.10.2021. On that day, Sumit Modi
and owner of that property Sh. Prashant Gupta reached the said hotel.
Prashant Gupta got his property inspected from the basement to the top
floor. He put the demand of Rs. 7.5 Crores for sale of that property.
Sumit Modi purposed to buy the property for Rs. 5.5 Cr to Rs 5.4 Cr as
due to Covid period. However, Sh. Prashant Gupta, owner of the house
refused to sell the property for that consideration.
Thereafter, Sumit Modi had also assured Sh. Prashant Gupta
that he can arrange loan of Rs. 7 Cr -8 Cr from MSME, if he is not able
to sell the property on that consideration. It was also agreed that 02 %
commission would be required to be paid to MSME and Sumit Modi
would charge 1% commission for his services.
Next day, on 18.10.2021 I collected the photocopy of the
documents of that property from his property at Okhla and gave the
documents to Sushil Modi for further documentation. I also gave Rs.
8000/- for documentation to Sumit Modi which was given to me by
Prashant Gupta.
On 20.10.2021, Sumit Modi told me that he had received Rs. 4
lakhs from Sh. Prashant Gupta out of 8 lakhs. Objected to by Ld. Addl.
PP for State being hearsay.
On 23.10.2021, Sh. Prashant Gupta told Sumit Modi that he
did not want to take loan and that he had got NRI customer to purchase
the property in question for Rs. 8 Cr. Then Sumit Modi told him that
his loan was ready and he need to pay only remaining amount of Rs. 4
lakhs for that purpose.
On 24.10.2021, on the asking of Sunil Modi I visited the house
of Sh. Prashant Gupta at GK I to get signature of his wife on the
documents but she was not available at her house and I left the
document there.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 25/43
On 25.10.2021, Sumit modi told me to reach the hotel at 10:00
AM and also bring the paper from the house of Sh. Prashant Gupta. I
reached the hotel at about 10:00 am- 10:15 AM. At about 11:00 AM
Sh. Prashant Gupta and Sushant Gupta also came at the said hotel. That
after we went to room no. 201. After entering the room Sh. Prashant
Gupta talked to Sumit Modi and during that conversation they had an
altercation regarding loan of property. Sh. Prashant Gupta returned the
paper to me stating that “hum loan ke paper sign nahi kar rahe hai inko
wapis le jaao aur mere paise wapis karwado”.
On 25.10.2021, at about 04:00 PM police came to my shop
and lifted from me there, took me to the house of Sumit Modi to find
him out but he was not present at his house. Thereafter, I was brought
to PS and was arrested.”
14. DW2 is Sumit Modi and his testimony reads as under :
“In the year 2021, I along with my family was residing at
premises no. AH-92, Shalimar, New Delhi. Some time in June/July, in
the year 2021 accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty present in the Court,
his brother and his father had opened a garment shop at DDA Market,
known as AG Market, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
My wife had also purchased some garment from the shop. On
the asking of the brother of the accused, I told them I along with my
wife was also in the business of supplying readymade ladies suit.
During that period accused told me that he had a buyer for
purchasing ready made ladies suit and assured me to arrange our
meeting with him at Safdarjung Enclave.
On that pretext, accused took me to a hotel telling me that he
had some urgent meeting in some hotel. After reaching that hotel I was
made to sit at the receptions, thereafter accused went to a room on the
ground floor of that hotel and held a meeting with somebody. After 15-
20 minutes, he alongwith 3/ 4 more persons came out of the room and
further ask me to wait for sometime and thereafter they also took me
to the roof top of that hotel.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 26/43
While I was standing aside at some place and accused along
with the said 3-4 accused persons were having some conversation
among themselves. That conversation lasted for about 08-10
minutes. Thereafter, we all came downstairs and out of the hotel.
Thereafter, I along with accused hire an auto for Shalimar Bagh. When
I asked him why we were not going to Safdurjung Enclave, he replied
that ” mere ghar se phone aa gaya ab mai ghar jaaunga aur
safdarjung kissi aur din chalenge”. On the way back to Shalimar Bagh,
accused alighted the TSR near some metro station and I went to
Shalimaar Bagh. I do not know where the said 03-04 persons had gone
from the hotel.
After about 08/10 days I received a call from one Police
Inspector PS CR Park. He inquired from me if I knew accused Vinay
Kumar @ Smarty. I answered in affirmative telling him that accused
is running a shop opposite to my residence in Shalimaar Bagh.
Thereafter, said Inspector asked me to come to PS CR Park. On the
very same day I went to PS CR Park along with my wife and my
brother in law namely Lokesh Gupta.
At the asking of police I narrated the above story in the PS. I
was asked if anything had happened in my presence at the hotel. I
replied in negative.
At this stage, Ld. LADC seeks permission of this court to cross
examine the witness u/s 157 BSA. Heard. Allowed.
I do not know any person by name of Prashant Gupta and
Sushant Gupta. I also do not know if the said persons accompanied us
to the roof top of the hotel at the relevant time. Except the said garment
I did not do any other business during those period. I did not come
across any advertisement regarding sale of any hotel.
I identify accused present in Court. I never arrange any loan
for accused from MSME Department.
It is wrong to suggest that once I had seen advertisement for
sale of a hotel, thereafter, I along with the accused visited the hotel for
inspection and to finalize the deal to buy the hotel. It is wrong to
suggest that thereafter, I had assured one Prashant Gupta to arrangeFIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 27/43
loan from MSME Department after the deal for purchase of the hotel
had collapsed. It is wrong to suggest that on that account I had
received Rs. 4 lakhs as commission from Prashant. It is wrong to
suggest that to facilitate the said loan I had sent accused to Prashant
Gupta to obtain his signature on some documents on 25.10.2021.
It is correct that it was the month of October when I was called
by the said Inspector at PS CR Park.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately concealing the
true facts of the case and deposing falsely for the reason not to return
the money of Rs. 4 lakhs to Prashant Gupta”.
15. After conclusion of defence evidence, final arguments were
advanced by both the parties.
16. Ld. Addl. PP argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. It was submitted that PW2 (complainant) gave a
consistent and reliable account of the incident which remained unshaken in
cross-examination. PW1 fully corroborated him on all material particulars
regarding use of weapons, tying of hands, forcible signatures on
documents, robbery of cash and threats with ransom of ₹4 crores.
16.1 It was further argued that PW10 (receptionist) independently
corroborated the presence of accused and his associates at the hotel and
their visit to Room No. 201. CCTV footage and admitted FSL reports
support the prosecution version and that the inconclusive handwriting
report is irrelevant since the case is of forcible signatures, not forgery.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 28/43
16.2 Ld. Addl. PP contended that the defence story of MSME loan and
commission is an afterthought and stands contradicted by DW2, who
denied arranging any loan or receiving money. It was lastly contended that
the recovery of air pistols, supported by FSL report and sanction, proves
the Arms Act offence. Conviction was accordingly prayed for.
17. Per contra, Ld. Legal Aid Defence Counsel argued that the case is
false and arises from a business/loan dispute. It was submitted that material
inconsistencies exist in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 regarding the
incident and their conduct after the occurrence, creating doubt about the
prosecution story.
17.1 Reliance was placed on admissions of PW2 regarding discussions
with Sushil Modi about MSME loan and commission, suggesting that the
accused had visited the hotel in connection with a financial transaction and
not to commit robbery.
17.2 It was further argued that the handwriting expert gave an
inconclusive opinion, the delay in reporting the matter is unexplained, and
the recovery of weapons is doubtful. The defence evidence offers a
plausible alternative version, and therefore benefit of doubt should be
granted and the accused acquitted.
18. Heard. Record perused.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 29/43
19. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to
prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of
doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the
prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the
prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of
doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
20. This Court has carefully examined the testimony of PW1 Sh.
Sushant Gupta and PW2 Dr. Prashant Gupta, both of whom are eye-
witnesses to the occurrence. Their presence at the spot is natural and
undisputed, being the owners of the property in question and having
admittedly fixed a meeting with the accused for the proposed sale of the
hotel. The defence has not disputed that the accused had been in contact
with PW2 prior to the incident or that he had visited the hotel earlier. In
fact, during cross-examination, PW2 admitted that accused Vinay had
visited the property and discussions regarding sale had taken place. Thus,
the foundational fact that accused had access to and acquaintance with the
complainant stands established.
21. The core question is whether on 25.10.2021 the accused, in
furtherance of common intention with his associates, committed robbery
and put the complainant and PW1 in fear of death or grievous hurt while
armed with deadly weapons, and whether he committed extortion by
putting them in fear of death.
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 30/43
22. PW1 and PW2 have given substantially consistent accounts regarding
the manner of occurrence. Both have deposed that after entering Room No.
201, accused Vinay went downstairs on the pretext of bringing his uncle
and returned with two boys. Both witnesses stated that weapons were used
–pistol and knife–and that their hands were tied with rope. They have
consistently deposed that signatures were forcibly obtained on Agreement
to Sell and receipts brought by the accused and that original property
documents were taken away. They have also deposed regarding demand of
Rs. 4 crores and threats extended to them.
23. The testimony of PW10 Sh. Umang Singh, the receptionist, lends
material corroboration to the prosecution version to the extent that accused
Vinay had come to the hotel with two boys; that they went to Room No.
201 along with PW1 and PW2; that after about 30 minutes they left; and
that PW1 and PW2 appeared terrified thereafter. PW10 correctly identified
the accused in Court. His presence at the reception is natural and there is
no reason brought on record to falsely implicate the accused at the instance
of his former employer. His cross-examination does not reveal any material
contradiction or motive to depose falsely.
24. Further corroboration emerges from the CCTV footage (Ex. MO-1),
which was played in Court and identified by PW1. The DVR was seized
vide memo Ex.PW2/C. The FSL report of Cyber Forensic Division
(admitted under Section 294 CrPC) does not suggest tampering. Though
the CCTV footage may not capture the incident inside the room, it
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 31/43
establishes the entry and exit of accused and his associates at the relevant
time, thereby supporting the ocular testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW10.
25. The defence has attempted to build a theory that the dispute was
purely civil in nature, arising out of a proposed MSME loan transaction
through one Sushil/Sumit Modi and that the present case has been
fabricated to avoid payment of commission allegedly agreed to be paid. In
this regard, reliance has been placed upon certain admissions elicited from
PW2 in cross-examination regarding conversation with Sushil Modi and
discussion about 2-4% expenses.
26. However, even if it is assumed that there were parallel discussions
regarding MSME loan, the same does not probabilize the defence version
that the accused had gone merely to collect commission and was beaten
and falsely implicated. No suggestion has been substantiated by any
independent material. No complaint was lodged by the accused alleging
assault by PW1 or PW2. The defence version remains uncorroborated.
27. DW1 (accused himself) has deposed about alleged dealings with
Sumit Modi and about arranging loan. However, his testimony is self-
serving in nature and suffers from material infirmities. He admits his
presence at the hotel on 25.10.2021 and in Room No. 201 with PW1 and
PW2. His explanation that PW2 returned loan papers and asked him to get
money refunded does not inspire confidence, particularly in the absence of
any contemporaneous communication, message or complaint evidencing
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 32/43
such transaction.
28. Further, DW2 Sumit Modi has not supported the defence case.
Rather, he denied arranging any loan for accused from MSME and denied
receiving Rs. 4 lakhs from Prashant Gupta. He also denied visiting the hotel
for finalizing any deal. Thus, the very foundation of the defence theory
stands demolished by its own witness.
29. It is true that PW5, the handwriting expert, gave an inconclusive
opinion regarding common authorship of questioned signatures. However,
the prosecution case is not that the accused forged signatures; rather, the
case is that signatures were forcibly obtained. The inconclusive FSL
opinion does not advance the defence case nor does it discredit the ocular
testimony of PW1 and PW2 who have admitted their signatures but stated
that the same were obtained under threat.
30. As regards recovery of two air pistols, PW8 has opined that the
weapons were in working condition and fall within the definition of firearm
under the Act. Sanction under Section 39 Arms Act (Ex. PW9/A) has been
duly proved by PW9. The accused has not been able to show that he was
holding any valid licence or permit. The recovery, as deposed by IO PW12,
has remained unshaken in cross-examination.
31. Minor discrepancies pointed out by defence–such as exact sequence
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 33/43
of tying of hands, exact amount robbed, or who made the call to police–
are natural variations arising from lapse of time and do not go to the root
of the matter. The substratum of prosecution case, namely that accused
entered the room with associates, used weapons, tied the victims, forcibly
obtained signatures, robbed cash and threatened them with death while
demanding Rs. 4 crores, remains intact.
32. The testimony of injured/eye-witness stands on a higher pedestal and
unless there are compelling reasons to discard the same, the Court ought
not to reject it. In the present case, PW1 and PW2 have withstood lengthy
cross-examination. No material contradiction affecting the core of the
prosecution story has been elicited. Their version finds corroboration from
PW10 and the electronic evidence.
33. From the evidence on record, it stands proved beyond reasonable
doubt that on 25.10.2021 accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty, in furtherance
of common intention with his associates, committed robbery of cash and
property documents from PW1 and PW2, and at the time of commission of
robbery used a deadly weapon, thereby attracting Section 397 IPC. It is
further proved that he put the complainant and his brother in fear of death
and demanded Rs. 4 crores, thereby committing offence under Section 387
IPC.
34. Further, the recovery of air pistols from his possession without
licence establishes offence under Section 25 Arms Act. Reliance is placed
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 34/43
upon the judgment in People for Animals Vs. Union of India & Others 2011
SCC OnLine Del 235 which reads as under:-
“24. An air gun/air rifle/air pistols uses the energy or force
produced from compressed air or other gas for discharging of
the pellet or projectile. Normally these air guns, etc. use metal
projectiles and the ones which use plastic projectiles are Air
(soft) Guns. General internet search on air guns reveals that
these are distinguished from firearms, which burn a propellant
in order to shoot the projectile but under the definition of
firearms, as provided under the Act and as extracted above, it
is clear that the air guns/air rifles/air pistols are also covered, for
not only the arms which discharge projectile(s) by action of any
explosive are covered under the definition, but also arms which
use other forms of energy, in this case being the energy or
force generated from compressed air or gas. Thus, it is safe to
conclude that air guns/air rifles/air pistols are not mere toys, as
against the assertion of the respondents and they are very much
subject to the provisions of the Act, being firearms.”
35. Accordingly, accused Vinay Kumar @ Smarty is held guilty and is
hereby convicted for offences punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC read
with Section 397 IPC, Section 387/34 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act.
36. Let the convict be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed by
ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.15
14:39:48 +0530
Announced in the open (ANUJ AGRAWAL)
Court on 15.04.2026 Additional Sessions Judge-03,
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
FIR No. 313/21, PS C.R. Park State vs. Vinay Kumar @ Smarty Page No. 35/43
Appendix
Chart for witnesses examined:
Prosecution Name of Description
Witness No. Witness
PW1 Sh. Sushant Gupta Brother of the complainant
/eyewitness of the incident.
PW2 Dr. Prashant Gupta Complainant / Eyewitness of the
incident.
PW3 SI Vijay Singh He is the duty officer, who made
endorsement Ex.PW3/B on the
rukka and registered the FIR
Ex.PW3/A.
PW4 ASI Braham Prakash He is the photographer from mobile
crime team, who took photographs
of the scene of crime and proved the
said photographs as Ex. PW4/A.
PW5 Mr. Alok Kumar PW-5, the concerned Forensic
Mehta, Sr. Scientific Science Laboratory expert, deposed
Officer, RFSL, that he had examined the questioned
Chanakya Puri, signatures appearing on the
property documents along with the
specimen signatures of the accused.
He proved his detailed report as Ex.
PW5/C.
PW-5 opined that certain
similarities were observed in the
execution of various characters and
in their inconspicuous details.
However, he categorically stated
that no definite opinion could be
expressed regarding the common
authorship of the questioned and
specimen signatures. In other
words, the examination remained
inconclusive and the authorship of
the disputed signatures could
neither be confirmed nor ruled out
on scientific basis.
PW6 HC Ashok Kumar He was the Channel Operator, who
received the call regarding the
robbery and forwarded the
information to concerned police
station. He proved the PCR form as
Ex.PW6/A and E-form event ID as
Ex. PW6/B.
PW7 SI Ajay PW-7 was the Incharge of the
Mobile Crime Team, who deposed
that on receipt of information, he
along with ASI Braham Prakash
(Photographer) and HC Soran Singh
(Fingerprint Proficient) reached the
scene of crime and inspected the
spot. He proved the Crime Team
Inspection Report as Ex. PW7/A.
PW8 Ms. Anubha Lal, She proved the FSL report Ex.
Chemical Examiner PW8/A regarding two air pistols
(Ballistics), recovered at the instance of
accused. As per said report, the
pistols were found in working
condition and same are fire arm as
per extant Act and Rules.
PW9 Sh. Ankit Chauhan, He proved Sanction under section
39 of Arms Act Ex. PW9/A.
PW10 Sh. Umang Singh He was the receptionist at Hotel
South Continental and stated about
visiting of accused alongwith two
boys in the hotel and went to the
room no. 201 with Prashant and
Sushant on the date of offence.
PW11 SI Sunder Pal He filed the FSL report Ex. PW5/A,
reports from Ballistics Division
Ex.PW8/A, Sanction u/s 39 Arms
Act Ex.PW9/A and FSL report of
DVR of CCTV footage Ex.
PW11/P1 by way of supplementary
charge-sheet.
PW12 SI Tejender Nandal He is the Investigating Officer (IO)
of the case and deposed about the
investigation carried out by him.
PW13 HC Sudhir Kumar He is the Nodal Officer, posted at
CPCR and proved the PCR form as
Ex. PW13/P1.
Chart of Exhibited Documents
Exhibit Description of the exhibit Proved by /
No. Attested by
1 Agreement to Sell & Purchase / Bayana PW1
dt. 23.10.2021 in name of Prashant Gupta
and Vinay Kumar - Ex.PW1/A
2 The receipt dt. 25.10.2021 in respect of PW1
receipt of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- by Prashant
Gupta (seller) against the said property
Ex.PW1/B
3 Agreement to Sell & Purchase / Bayana PW1
dt. 23.10.2021 in name of Prashant Gupta
and Vinay Kumar - Ex.PW1/C
4 Receipt dated 25.10.2021 in respect of PW1
receipt of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- by Prashant
Gupta (seller) against said property
-Ex.PW1/D
5 Agreement to Sell & Purchase / Bayana PW1
dt. 23.10.2021 in name of Prashant Gupta
and Vinay Kumar - Ex.PW1/E
6 Receipt in respect of receipt of Rs. PW1
2,50,00,000/- by Prashant Gupta (seller)
against said property- Ex.PW1/F
7 Original Sale Deed by Prashant Gupta PW1
sold the property to Ms. Sunita Chabra -
Ex.PW1/G
8 Certified copy of sale deed in name of PW1
Ms. Varsha Hoon and Prashant Gupta in
respect of above said property.
Ex.PW1/H and Ex.P1/I
9 Statement of Prashant -Ex.PW2/A PW2
10 Site plan - Ex.PW2/B PW2
11 Seizure memo of DVR make CP Plus PW2
from the OYO Hotel - Ex.PW2/C
12 Seizure memo of pieces of rock by which PW2
they were tied - Ex.PW2/D
13 Paper cutting of newspaper regarding PW2
selling property Ex.PW2/1
14 Computer generated copy of FIR - PW3
Ex.PW3/A (OSR)
15 Endorsement on the rukka - Ex.PW3/B PW3
16 GD No. 72A Ex.PW3/C PW3
17 The digital photographs Ex.P4/A(colly) PW4
18 Certificate – Ex.PW4/B PW4
19 The Standard document Ex.A1 to A14 PW5
Ex.PW5/A
20 Specimen signature of Vinay Kuamr PW5
from S1 to S61 on five sheets
Ex.PW5/B(colly)
21 Report of Mr. Alok Kumar Mehta. Sr. PW5
Scientific Officer – Ex.PW5/C
22 The PCR form duly filled – Ex.PW6/A PW6
23 E-Form Event ID 40815149 alongwith PW6
Certificate u/s 65B of IEA – Ex.PW6/B
24 Crime Scene report – Ex.PW7/A PW7
25 Detailed report qua examination of said PW8
two pistols
26 Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act for prosecution PW9
Ex.PW9/A
27 FSL report regarding the DVR / footages PW11
of CCTV camera alongwith certificate
Ex.PW11/P1
28 DD No.47A – Ex.PW12/P1 PW12
29 Rukka Ex.PW12/P2 PW12
30 Seizure memos of documents cash and PW12
the original agreement to sell / purchase
and receipt property documents
Ex.PW12/P3, Ex.PW12/P4 and
Ex.WP12/P5 respectively.
31 Seizure memo of clothes of accused PW12
Ex.PW12/P6
32 Arrest memo of accused – Ex.PW12/P7 PW12
33 Personal search memo of accused PW12
Ex.PW12/P8
34 Sketch of two guns – Ex.PW12/P10 and PW12
Ex.PW12/P11
35 Sketch of both knives – Ex.PW12/P12 PW12
and Ex.PW12/P13.
36 Seizure memo of both the guns – PW12
Ex.PW12/14 and Ex.PW12/15
37 Seizure memo of both knives – PW12
Ex.PW12/P16 and Ex.PW12/P17.
38 Seizure memo of scooty – Ex.PW12/P18 PW12
39 Site plan of place of recovery of scooty PW12
with weapon – Ex.PW12/P19
40 Site plan of place of recovery of clothes PW12
– Ex.PW12/P20
41 Seizure memo of bank account opening PW12
form of accused vinay Ex.PW12/P21
42 PCR form pertaining to the Event ID PW13
4085149 dt. 25.10.2021 – ExPW13/P1
and certificate u/s 63 BSA in this regard
Ex.PW13/P2
Chart for Material Objects/Muddamals
Material Description of the Proved
Object no. Exhibit by/Attested by
1. DVR and footage Ex.MO-1
2. Pistol (Mark F-1) Ex.MO-1
3. Pistol (Mark F-2) Ex.MO-2
4. Cord (sutli) Ex.MO-3
5. Knives (used by two associates Ex.MO-4 and Ex.MO-5
(JCL) of Vinay)
6. Clothes of accused Vinay Ex.MO-6 (colly)