Delhi District Court
State vs Nizam Khan on 21 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. NIZAM KHAN
CNR No.DLCT01-003419-2024
Sessions Case No. 149/2024
FIR No. 08/2024
Police Station Kamla Market
Date of Committal 06.03.2024
Name of the complainant Onkar Singh
Name of the accused, parentage Nizam Khan, S/o Mustkeen
& address Khan, R/o Kotha No. 49, GB
Road, Kamla Market, Delhi.
Offence Complained of Under Section 392/397/411
IPC
Plea Of The Accused Pleaded Not Guilty
Judgment delivered on 21.04.2026
Final Order Acquitted
J U D G M E N T :
–
1. The FIR has been registered at PS Kamla Market against
the accused person namely Nizam Khan for the offence under
Section 392/397/411 IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 04.01.2024,
at about 09:30 PM, at in front of khota no.64, GB Road, Delhi,
within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kamla Market, Delhi,
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.1 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI JAIN
SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:42:31
+0530
accused committed the offence of robbery of mobile phone make
I-Phone 7 plus black color and Rs. 500/- from the possession of
complainant and brother of complainant namely Harjeet Singh
and he used deadly weapon i.e. Knife in the commission of said
offence of robbery. It is further alleged that aforesaid mobile
phone and Rs.500/- were recovered from the possession of
accused and thus, he is alleged to have committed an offence
punishable under Section 392/397/411 IPC.
3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in
the Court.
4. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this
Court.
CHARGE
5. On 24.04.2024, Ld. Predecessor framed charge against the
accused for the offence punishable under 392/397/411 IPC to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 04
witnesses in total.
7. PW-1/Onkar Singh deposed that he residing at Village
Issapur, Roni.P.S. Derabassi, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, and
pursuing Graduation and doing a private job. He deposed that on
04.01.2024, he came to Delhi at about 8 a.m. from Mohali
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.2 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:42:36
+0530
alongwith his cousin brother Harjit Singh for attending an
interview organized by Action Tesa plywood company, that after
giving interview, he alongwith his cousin brother, went to
Sheeshganj Gurudwara and his return train was scheduled at
about 11.00 p.m. from New delhi to Ambala Cantt, that on that
day, in the night, at about 9 pm/ 9.30 pm, he alongwith his cousin
brother boarded the e-rickshaw from Sheeshganj Gurudwara
Sahib for going to New Delhi railway station, that on way to
New Delhi railway station, one boy came there and he climbed
up on the E-rickshaw due to which E-rickshaw driver stopped the
E-rickshaw, that the said boy took out a knife and put the same
on the neck of his cousin brother Harjeet Singh and demanded
money from his cousin brother Harjeet Singh, that Harjeet Singh
handed over a currency note of Rs. 500 to the said boy.
8. He further deposed that the said boy pointed the knife
towards him and asked him to handover his phone i.e. iphone 7
plus to him, that due to fear, he handed over the mobile phone to
the said boy, he deposed that the said boy fled away from the
spot after robbing his mobile phone and Rs. 500 of his cousin
brother. He deposed that he alongwith his cousin brother went to
Police Chowki which was 100 meter ahead from the spot where
2-3 police officials were present. He deposed that he narrated
entire incident to the police officials, that the Police officials
showed lot of photographs of snatchers on mobile phone.
9. He deposed that after seeing photographs on mobile phone
of police official, he identified one boy, one robber who
committed robbery with him and his cousin brother. He deposedSC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.3 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:42:41
+0530
that police officials went in the search of said boy while he along
with his cousin brother remained present at police chowki, that
after one and half hour police officials returned to police chowki
with one boy, that he identified said boy as robber who
committed robbery with him and my cousin brother, that police
took cursory search of said boy/robber and recovered his robbed
mobile phone, one currency note of Rs. 500 and one knife.
10. He further deposed that he came to know the name of said
boy/robber as Nazim Khan through police officials, that police
recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point
A, that FIR was registered on the basis of his statement and he
received one copy of FIR, that police prepared sketch memo of
recovered mobile phone which is Ex.PW1/B bearing his
signature at point A, that police officials seized recovered Knife,
his mobile phone and currency note of Rs. 500 vide respective
seizure memos which is Ex.PW1/C and PW1/D, that police
arrested accused Nazim Khan vide arrest memo which Ex.PW1/E
bearing his signature at point A, that during the course of the
investigation, he showed the place of incident to the police and
police prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW/E1, that
he got released his said mobile phone and Rs. 500 on superdari
vide superdarinama which is Ex.PW1/F bearing his signature at
point A.
11. He further deposed that police handed over his mobile
phone and Rs. 500 to him after clicking the photographs of the
same vide panchnama Ex.PW1/G bearing his signature at point
A, that photographs of mobile phone and currency note of Rs.
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.4 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:42:46
+0530
500/- alongwith mobile phone are shown to the witness. He
further deposed that said photographs were clicked by police vide
panchnama before handing over his mobile phone and Rs. 500 to
him, that photographs are Mark PW1/H(colly).
12. He further deposed that he had brought his said mobile
phone and he produced one mobile phone of black colour make
iphone by stating that this is his mobile phone which was robbed
by accused and he got released the same on superdari. He further
deposed that he cannot identify accused at that time due to lapse
of considerable time. Thereafter, MHC(M) produced one white
color cloth pullanda duly sealed with the seal of DR having
written case particulars over the same. The same was opened and
one knife having light green color plastic handle and steel blade
was taken out and shown to the witness. PW-1 further deposed
that the said knife was used by the accused in commission of
offence and the same was recovered from his possession after his
apprehension.
13. In cross-examination by the Ld. Additional PP, PW-1
deposed that he does not remember the exact address of the place
of incident whether it was Kotha No.64, GB road. He voluntarily
deposed that he came to Delhi for the first time due to which he was
unable to recollect the exact address of the place of incident,
however incident happened while going to New Delhi Railway
Station from Sheesh Ganj Gurudwara. He admitted that Kotha
No.64, GB Road was written in his complaint Ex.PW1/A and
voluntarily deposed that he had shown place of incident to the
police officials and police officials told him the address of the saidSC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.5 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI JAIN
SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:42:51
+0530
place. He admitted that police took him and his cousin brother
Harjeet near the place of incident, where they identified one boy
who was standing there as robber and police apprehended him in
presence of PW-1 and his cousin brother Harjeet. Attention of
witness was drawn towards accused but witness failed to identify
him by saying that due to lapse of considerable time, he was unable
to identify the accused. He admitted that accused was apprehended
by police in his presence and recovery of his mobile phone,
currency note of Rs.500/- and one knife was effected from the
possession of the accused.
14. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW-1
deposed that his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded by police
officials in the concerned PS, that when he put his signature on
Ex.PW1/A it was in written condition. He denied that his
signatures were obtained on the blank papers. He further deposed
that police officials read over his statement Ex.PW1/A to him. He
admitted that has not stated to police officials at the time of
recording of his statement that place of incident was near Kotha
No.64, GB Road and place of apprehension was near Kotha
No.58, GB Road. He voluntarily deposed that he had shown the
aforesaid places to the police officials. He deposed that he cannot
tell as to on how many documents police officials obtained his
signature. He further deposed that he cannot tell the nature of
documents on which police officials obtained his signature. He
further deposed that police prepared sketch memo of knife
Ex.PW1/B while sitting in the concerned PS at about 11:00-11:30
pm. He deposed that Police did not record his statement after
04.01.2024, that he stated in his statement Ex.PW1/A that policeSC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.6 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:42:57
+0530
official showed him photographs of so many suspect in their
mobile phone for identification of accused/robber. He was
confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A wherein it was not so
recorded. He denied that he alongwith his cousin brother visited
Kotha No.64, where quarrel took place between him and call
girls and call girls took his mobile phone and currency note of
Rs.500/- or that he had deposed falsely at the instance of police
officials. He denied that Ex.PW1/D & Ex.PW1/E1 were not
prepared in his presence at the police station. He denied that
accused was neither arrested in his presence nor any document
like seizure memo, arrest memo and disclosure statement was
prepared by the police officials in his presence. He denied that he
alongwith his cousin brother visited Kotha on the alleged date of
incident and in order to conceal this fact from the family, he
falsely implicated the accused in the present case. He denied that
no recovery had been effected from the accused in his presence.
15. PW-2/ Sh. Harjeet Singh deposed that Omkar Singh was his
cousin brother. He deposed that on 04.01.2024, he came to Delhi at
about 8 a.m. from Mohali alongwith cousin brother Omkar Singh
for attending a interview of Omkar Singh organized by Action Tesa
plywood company, that after interview, he alongwith his cousin
brother Omkar Singh went to Sheeshganj Gurudwara and their
return train was scheduled at about 11.00 p.m. from New delhi to
Ambala Cantt. He deposed that on that day, in the night, at about
08:00 pm- 08:30 pm, he alongwith his cousin brother boarded the e-
rickshaw from Sheeshganj Gurudwara Sahib for going to New
Delhi railway station, that on way to New Delhi railway station
when they were half kilometer away from Sheeshganj Gurudwara,
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.7 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:43:17
+0530
one boy came there and climbed up on the E-rickshaw due to
which E-rickshaw driver stopped the E-rickshaw, that said boy
started pushing himself towards him and he felt that the said boy
was under the influence of intoxication. He deposed that the said
boy took out a knife and put the same on his neck and demanded
money from him. He deposed that he handed over a currency note
of Rs. 500 to the said boy, despite that said boy started demanding
more money from him on which he told him that he do not have
more money, then said boy searched his pocket but he did not find
any money in his pocket. He further deposed that the said boy
pointed knife towards Omkar and demanded money from Omkar,
on which Omkar replied that he did not had money. He deposed
that the said boy snatched mobile phone make I-phone 7 plus in
black color from Omkar, that the said boy fled away from the spot
after robbing Omkar’s mobile phone and Rs. 500 from him at Knife
point. He further deposed that he alongwith his cousin brother went
to Police Chowki which was 100 meter ahead from the spot, where
4-5 police officials were present, that they narrated entire incident
to the police officials. He deposed that police officials shown many
photographs of snatchers on mobile phone and after seeing
photographs on mobile phone of police official, they identified one
boy as robber who committed robbery with them, that they showed
place of incident to the police official, they alongwith police
officials went in the search of said boy.
16. He deposed that during search they identified one boy as
robber who was standing in that area at some distance away from
the place of incident and police officials overpowered said boy at
their instance, upon inquiry by police official, accused revealed his
name as Nazim Khan. He deposed that the said boy was brought to
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.8 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:43:21
+0530
police chowky by police officials alongwith them. He deposed that
police took cursory search of accused and recovered robbed mobile
phone of his cousin brother, one currency note of Rs.500/- and one
vegetable cutter knife. Police seized recovered I-phone, currency
note of Rs.500/- and knife vide respective seizure memo which are
Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/B, that police took them to Police Station
where police recorded their statement, that they showed place of
incident to the police official and police prepared site plan at their
instance Ex.PW1/E, that police arrested accused vide arrest memo
which is Ex.PW1/E.
17. He deposed that his brother Omkar got released said mobile
phone and Rs. 500 on superdari. He deposed that he can identify the
case property if shown to him, that photographs of mobile phone
and currency note of Rs. 500 which depicting photographs of
superdar alongwith mobile phone were shown to the witness
whereupon he deposed that said photographs were clicked by police
vide panchnama before handing over mobile phone and Rs. 500 to
his brother. He correctly identified accused Nazim Khan, during
his testimony. He deposed that he can identify the knife if shown to
him, thereafter, MHC(M) produced one white color cloth pullanda
with broken seal having written case particulars over the same. The
same was opened and one knife having light green color plastic
handle and steel blade was taken out and shown to the witness. He
deposed that he cannot say due to lapse of considerable time
whether this knife was used by the accused in the commission of
alleged offence or not.
18. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW-2
deposed that his statement was recorded on 04.01.2024 in police
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.9 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:43:26
+0530
station at about 11:00 pm-11:30 pm that he had gone through his
statement and put his signature on the same. He was confronted
with his statement dated 05.01.2024, Ex.PW2/DA whereupon he
admitted that his statement was recorded on 05.01.2024 and not on
04.01.2024. He denied that Ex.PW2/DA was recorded by the police
officials on their own. He deposed that he does not remember
whether he had stated to police officials at the time of recording of
his statement Ex.PW2/DA that place of incident was near Kotha
No.64, GB Road and place of apprehension was near Kotha No.58,
GB Road.
19. He voluntarily deposed that he had shown the aforesaid
places to the police officials. He denied that he neither disclosed
nor shown aforesaid place to the police officials. He further
deposed that he did not remember whether he has stated to the
police that at the time of recording of his statement Ex.PW2/DA,
that he had identified accused from the photographs shown to him
by the police in the mobile phone. He deposed that statement of his
brother was recorded by the police officials in his presence on
04.01.2024. He deposed that he cannot tell as to on how many
documents police officials obtained my signature. He further
deposed that he cannot tell the nature of documents on which police
officials obtained his signature. He deposed that arrest memo of
accused was prepared in his presence on 04.01.2024 at about 11:00
pm. Witness was confronted with arrest memo Ex.PW1/E which
pertains to date 05.01.2024.
20. He deposed that he do not know whether disclosure
statement of accused was recorded or not as well as he do not know
whether personal search memo of accused was prepared in his
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.10 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:43:30
+0530
presence or not. He deposed that he had signed site plan
Ex.PW1/E1 after understanding the contents of the same. He
deposed that he could not tell the place of incident after perusing
the aforesaid site plan. He denied that he was deposing falsely at
the instance of police officials. He denied that he had identified
accused Nizam Khan as he had seen him when the matter was
called by his name. He deposed that he did not know whether any
number of seized note of Rs.500/- was mentioned on the seizure
documents or not, he further deposed that he did not know whether
any identification mark was put on aforesaid note of Rs.500/- by the
police officials or not. He deposed that he did not remember from
which pocket of accused case property as well as weapon of offence
was recovered. He denied that he alongwith his cousin brother
visited Kotha No.64, where quarrel took place between him and call
girls and call girls took his mobile phone and currency note of
Rs.500/- or that he had deposed falsely at the instance of police
officials. He deposed that he did not know whether chance print
were obtained by police officials from the place of incident or at the
time of recovery or not. He denied that he did not remember
anything because no such alleged recovery or alleged incident ever
took place. He deposed that he did not remember whether he had
stated to the police officials in his statement Ex.PW2/DA that
accused was under the influence of intoxication at the time of
incident. He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of
police officials. He denied that no such alleged incident committed
by accused on alleged date, time and place. He denied that no
recovery had been effected from the accused in his presence.
21. PW/3 HC Shamsher, deposed that On 04.01.2024, he was
posted at PS Kamla Market as HC and he was beat incharge of
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.11 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI JAIN
SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:43:36
+0530
beat no.10 of PS Kamla Market, that on that day, at about 09:30
pm, when he was present at the booth of beat no.10, 2 boys, came
to him and told him that one boy robbed their mobile phone and
money at knife point in front of Kotha no.64, that he left police
booth alongwith both boys in search of culprit, that during search
when they reached near Kotha no. 58, both boys identified one
boy who was standing there as robber, who robbed their mobile
phone and money at knife point. He deposed that, with the help
of both boys he overpowered said boy/robber, that upon inquiry
said boy/culprit revealed his name as Nizam Khan, that he took
cursory search of accused Nizam Khan and recovered one black
color I-phone7 alongwith one currency note of Rs.500/- from
right side pocket of wearing pants of accused and one vegetable
knife was recovered from left side pocket of the wearing pants of
accused.
22. He further deposed that, he alongwith accused,
complainant Omkar and his friend Harjeet went to police station,
PS Kamla Market, where he produced accused before IO/ASI
Deshraj who was on emergency duty and handedover recovered
black color I-phone 7, currency note of Rs.500 and knife to ASI
Deshraj. IO/ASI Deshraj prepared sketch memo of recovered
knife which is Ex.PW1/B, that the handle of recovered knife is
light green in color and blade of knife is made of steel, that the
total length of recovered knife was 18.7cm, out of which length
of handle was 10cm and blade was 8.7 cm and width of bald was
1.5cm.
23. He further deposd that, IO prepared pullanda of recovered
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.12 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:43:40
+0530
knife by wrapping the same with white color cloth and sealed the
same with the seal of DR, that IO seized recovered knife vide
seizure memo Ex.PW1/C, that IO kept recovered mobile phone
and currency note of Rs.500/- in white color envelop and sealed
the same with the seal of DR and took the same into police
possession which is Ex.PW1/D, that after use, IO handedover
seal to him, that IO recorded statement of complainant Omkar
Singh and got the present case FIR registered. He further deposed
that, IO alongwith complainant Omkar and his friend Harjeet
Singh went to the spot after handingover custody of accused to
him, that after sometime, IO returned to PS alongwith
complainant and his friend Harjeet Singh. He further deposed
that, IO interrogated accused and arrested him vide arrest memo
Ex.PW1/E, that personal search of accused was carried out by
IO, as per personal search memo Ex.PW2/D3, that IO recorded
disclosure statement of accused vide memo Ex.PW2/D2. He
further deposed that he alongwith Ct. Ankit and IO took accused
to LNJP hospital for medical examination and after medical
examination accused was sent to police lockup. He identified the
4 photographs Ex.PW1/H(colly), depicting photos of black color
I-phone, one currency note of Rs.500 and one turban wearer
person (Omkar Singh), as the same were recovered from the
possession of accused. He also identified one vegetable cutting
knife Ex.PW3/P1 having light green color plastic handle and
steel blade and deposed that said knife was recovered from the
possession of accused during his cursory search. He also
identified the accused Nizam Khan.
24. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW-3
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.13 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI JAIN
SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:43:45
+0530
deposed that on 04.01.2024, he was on 24 hour duty in his beat
area, that he alongwith complainant and his friend reached at spot
at about 09:45 pm, that he do not remember about the police
official who were present alongwith him at police booth at that
time, that Kotha No.64 is situated 200 meter away from his
police booth. He further deposed that Omkar had told him that
his mobile phone has been robbed, that Omkar did not tell name
of robber as well as his physical description. He further deposed
that he did not ask physical description from complainant Omkar.
He denied that no boys came at his police booth that is why he
did not ask from them about the physical description of robber.
He further depose that complainant Omkar told him about the
knife which was vegetable cutting knife. He further deposed that
he had stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C regarding vegetable
cutting knife as well as in his deposition, that both boys remained
with him at police booth for about 5-7 minutes, that he did not
do any writing work at police booth within said 5-7 minutes. He
alongwith complainant and his friend reach near Kotha no.58 at
about 10:00 pm, that he did not lodge any DD entry in police
booth regarding going to the spot, that 8-10 public persons were
coming and going through the spot, that shops were closed at that
time.
25. He further deposed that no street vendor were found
present at the spot at that time, that accused was found standing
in front of Kotha no.58, that neither he nor IO prepared site plan
of the place where accused was found present, that accused was
not known to him, already. He further deposed that he does not
know who was Shabnam. He admitted that he does not remember
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.14 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:43:52
+0530
color and style of wearing cloths of accused. He voluntarily
deposed that accused was wearing pants and shirts but he did not
remember its color. He further deposed that no specific sign was
found present on currency note of Rs.500/-, that he stayed at the
place of arrest for about 5-7 minutes and returned to police
station alongwith accused, complainant and his friend, that he did
not make any PCR call from the spot nor he got lodged any DD
entry that he does not done any writing work at the place of arrest
within 5-7 minutes.
26. He denied that neither he went to the spot alongwith
complainant and his friend nor he overpowered any robber at the
instance of complainant and his friend. He denied that nothing
incriminating was recovered from the possession of accused or
that recovery was planted one. He denied that he knew accused
Nizam Khan already as he used to supply snacks and tea to
police booth and he got married with a girl namely Shabnam. He
denied that he was deposing falsely that he does not know
accused Nizam Khan although accused knows his name as well
as other police official namely Ankit, Rohit, Deshraj and HC
Shekhar posted in beat no.10. He further deposed that after
apprehension of accused, he returned to PS at about 10:15 pm
alongwith accused by e-rickshaw, that he does not know the
name of the driver of e-rickshaw, that he had paid Rs.10/20 to the
driver of e-rickshaw as fare, that he did not claim fare from his
department, that no DD entry was lodge at the time of
handingover of one currency note of Rs.500/-, black color I-
phone and vegetable cutting knife to the IO, that IO prepared one
seizure memo of I-phone and currency note of Rs.500/- and
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.15 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:43:57
+0530
another seizure memo regarding recovered vegetable cutting
knife. He deposed that he does not remember exact time of
preparing of seizure memo, that he does not remember exact time
of putting his signature on both seizure memo as a witness, that
both the seizure memos and sketch memo of knife were prepared
prior to rukka, that both seizure memo were signed by him,
complainant Omkar Singh and his brother Harjeet Singh as a
witness, that FIR number was later on added to the seizure memo
by the IO in his presence. He deposed that he does not remember
exact time of preparation of rukka by the IO, that no chance
prints were obtained when alleged recovery of one currency note
of Rs.500/-, one black color I-phone-7 and vegetable cutter knife
was done from accused, that IO did not prepare seal handingover
memo, that he had not returned seal to the IO and he deposited
the seal in malakhana on next day, that statement of Omkar
Singh, his brother and himself were recorded in the concerned
PS, that his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by IO on
05.01.2024, that IO recorded statement of Ct. Ankit u/s 161
Cr.P.C, that despite their effort neither CCTV footage of place of
incident was found nor e-rickshaw driver of e-rickshaw by which
complainant and his brother were traveling at the time of incident
could be traced, that he does not know whether CCTV cameras
were installed or not in between the way from where complainant
boarded the e-rickshaw to the place of incident.
27. He denied that many CCTV cameras were installed in
between the way and he was deposing falsely as no such alleged
incident ever happened. He denied that accused has been falsely
implicated in the present FIR in order to hide the real incident of
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.16 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:44:02
+0530
complainant visiting the Kotha and that quarrel took place
between complainant and some ladies over there due to which
police apprehended them. He denied that accused was falsely
implicated in the present matter as he was working in the Kotha.
He admitted that he was beat officer of Kotha no. 64 and Kotha
no. 58. He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of
his senior official and nothing had been recovered from the
possession of accused.
28. PW/4 SI Deshraj, deposed that On 04.01.2024, he was
posted at PS Kamla Market as SI, that on that day, he was on
night emergency duty from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am on next day,
that on that day, when he was present at PS, complainant Omkar
Singh alongwith his cousin brother Harjeet Singh, HC Shamsher
alongwith accused Nizam Khan came to the PS and HC
Shamsher produced accused Nizam Khan before him alongwith
recovered mobile phone make I-phone 7 in black color, one
currency note of Rs.500/- and one vegetable cutting knife having
light green color plastic handle and steel blade to him.
29. He further deposed that, he measured recovered knife and
found that it was 18.7 cm in length out of which length of handle
was 10 cm, length of blade was 8.7 cm and width of blade was
1.5 cm, that he prepared sketch memo of recovered knife
Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that, he prepared pullanda of
recovered knife by wrapping the same in white color cloth and
sealed the same with the seal of DR, that he took recovered knife
into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C.
30. He further deposed that, he kept recovered mobile phone
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.17 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:44:09
+0530
alongwith currency note of Rs.500/- into white color envelop and
sealed the same with the seal of DR and seized the same vide
seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. He further deposed that, he made
inquiry from complainant Omkar singh and recorded his
statement on his official Laptop Ex.PW1/A, that he prepared
rukka on basis of statement of complainant Ex.PW4/A, that he
produced rukka before the then duty officer PS Kamla Market for
registration of FIR.
31. He further deposed that, he handedover custody of accused
to HC Shamsher and went to the spot i.e. in front of kotha no. 64
alongwith complainant and his cousin brother, that both
witnesses also shown the place from where accused was
apprehended i.e. Kotha no.58, that at the instance of both
witnesses, he prepared site plan of the place of incident i.e. in
front of Kotha no. 64 and place of apprehension of accused i.e. in
front of Kotha no. 58 Ex.PW1/E, that meanwhile, Ct. Ankit
arrived at the spot from PS and he handedover copy of FIR and
original rukka to him.
32. He further deposed that, he alongwith complainant, his
brother Harjeet and Ct. Ankit came back to PS, that in PS he
wrote FIR number 8/2024 on both seizure memo, site plan and
sketch memo, that he recorded supplementary statement of
Omkar Singh and Harjeet Singh u/s 161 Cr.P.C, that he
interrogated accused Nizam Khan and arrested him at about
12:30am vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/E in the presence of
complainant, Harjeet Singh and HC Shamsher, that he took
personal search of accused vide personal search memo
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.18 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:45:26
+0530
Ex.PW2/D3. He recorded disclosure statement of accused vide
memo Ex.PW2/D2.
33. He deposed that he informed wife of accused regarding his
arrest, that he alongwith HC Shamsher and Ct. Ankit took
accused to LNJP hospital for his medical examination, that after
medical examination accused was sent to lockup, that he
deposited case property in malkhana, that he recorded statement
of HC Shamsher and Ct. Ankit on 05.01.2024, that during course
of investigation he recorded statement of witnesses, placed
relevant documents with charge-sheet and on the completion of
the investigation he prepared charge-sheet and filed the same. He
identified the 4 photographs Ex.PW1/H(colly), depicting photos
of black color I-phone, one currency note of Rs.500 and one
turban wearer person( Omkar Singh). He deposed that the black
color I-phone and one currency note of Rs.500/- which were
depicted in photographs were the same which were recovered
from the possession of accused and the same were handedover to
him by HC Shamsher. He also identified one vegetable cutting
knife Ex.PW3/P1 having light green color plastic handle and
steel blade by stating that said knife was recovered from the
possession of accused during his cursory search. He also
identified the accused Nizam Khan.
34. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW-4
deposed that he could not tell the exact time of preparing rukka
as well as seizure memos, however he prepared rukka as well as
seizure memos between 10:30 pm to 11:30 pm, that complainant
alongwith his brother Harjeet and HC Shamsher came before him
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.19 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:45:31
+0530
at about 10:15 pm, that HC Shamsher handedover I-phone, one
currency note of Rs.500/- and vegetable cutting knife to him at
about 10:15/20 pm, that at the time of preparation of site plan HC
Shamsher was not present at the spot. He deposed that he made
inquiry from street vendors present at the spot when he went
there for preparing of site plan but none cooperate and he could
not serve notice upon them due to late night, that no public
person gathered at the spot, when he was preparing site plan at
the spot, that he did not get the spot photographed/videographed.
He admitted that CCTV cameras were installed on the way from
where complainant boarded the e-rickshaw and deboarded the e-
rickshaw. He deposed that he checked those cameras but said
cameras were not covering/focusing the road, that he
telephonically informed wife of accused regarding the arrest of
accused, that wife of accused visited the PS. He admitted that the
residential address of accused is Kotha no.49, SN Margh, Delhi.
He further deposed that he verified regarding status of accused
from Kotha no.49 and came to know that accused was residing
there and he was pimp, that he came to know about the status of
the accused from the ladies residing at Kotha no.49 and other
persons who were working there.
35. He denied that he knew accused prior to the incident. He
denied that he was deposing falsely that he did not know accused
Nizam Khan although accused knows his name as well as other
police official namely Ankit, Rohit, Shamsher and HC Shekhar
posted in beat no.10. He denied that he recorded disclosure
statement of accused on his own. He denied that accused had
been falsely implicated in the present FIR in order to hide the
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.20 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:45:44
+0530
real incident of complainant visiting the Kotha and that quarrel
took place between complainant and some ladies over there due
to which police apprehended them. He denied that accused was
falsely implicated in the present matter as he was working in the
Kotha.
36. PWs ASI Adesh Kumar and PW Nodal Officer were
dropped from the list of witnesses as accused admitted
Registration of FIR No. 8/2024 as Ex.A1, Certificate u/s 65B
Indian Evidence Act as Ex.A2, Nodal Officer Airtel Okhla Delhi
as Ex.A3.
37. PW Ct. Ankit was also dropped from the list of witnesses
on the ground that PW-3 HC Shamsher and PW-4 SI Deshraj had
already been examined on the same line of facts.
38. Vide separate statement of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, on
16.07.2025 prosecution evidence was closed and matter was
fixed for SA.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 351 BNSS
39. Statement of the accused under Section 351 BNSS was
recorded on 02.08.2025 wherein the accused stated that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. He chose not to lead DE and
therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF BOTH THE PARTIES
40. Final arguments were addressed by Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld.
Additional PP for the State and Sh. Ayub Ahmed Qureshi, Ld.
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.21 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:45:49
+0530
Counsel for accused. This court has duly considered the rival
contentions and has also perused the record carefully.
41. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubts by examining the
prosecution witnesses. Ld. Addl. PP for the State also submitted
that robbed articles and knife were recovered from the possession
of the accused. It is further submitted that complainant/victim i.e.
PW-1 and PW-2 have duly supported the case and corroborated
the complaint and statements recorded by the police officials.
Thus, it was submitted that accused committed robbery with the
help of deadly weapon i.e. knife and therefore, he be convicted
accordingly.
42. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel submitted that
identification of accused is disputed in the present matter as
PW-1/complainant failed to identify the accused during his
testimony in the Court. It is further submitted that PW-2 failed to
identify the weapon of offence during his testimony in the Court.
It is further argued that testimony of both the witnesses suffers
from material improvement and contradictions and therefore,
benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. It is further
submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in the present
matter by the complainant at the instance of police officials in
order to hide the real incident. It is prayed that accused be
acquitted in the present case.
APPRECIATION AND EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE,
ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIONS AND FINDINGS
43. It is a settled principle of criminal law that in a criminal
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.22 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:45:53
+0530
trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved
guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Further, prosecution has to
stand on its own legs and it has to prove its case against the
accused beyond any reasonable doubt by leading cogent and
conclusive evidence. Burden of proving its case exclusively lies
upon the prosecution and in order to succeed, it has to discharge
the said burden.
44. In the instant case, accused is charged with the offence
under Section 392/397/411 Cr.P.C. with the allegations that on
04.01.2024, at about 09:30 PM, at in front of khota no.64, GB
Road, Delhi, accused committed the offence of robbery of mobile
phone make iPhone 7 plus black color and Rs. 500/- from the
possession of complainant and brother of complainant namely
Harjeet Singh and he used deadly weapon i.e. vegetable knife in
the commission of said offence of robbery. It is further alleged
that aforesaid mobile phone and Rs.500/- were recovered from
the possession of accused and thus, he is alleged to have
committed an offence punishable under Section 392/397/411
IPC.
45. Section 392 IPC provides punishment for the offence of
robbery therefore it is necessary to go through the provisions of
section 390 IPC which defines offence of Robbery as under:-
46. Section 390 IPC stipulates that
“In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery.– Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the
committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in
carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained
by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or
attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful
restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant
wrongful restraint.
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.23 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI JAIN
JAIN Date:
2026.04.21
16:45:57
+0530
When extortion is robbery.– Extortion is “robbery” if the
offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the
presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion
by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or
of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other
person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in
fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation.– The offender is said to be present if he is
sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death,
of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.”
47. Section 397 IPC stipulates that
Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous
hurt–If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the
offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to
any person, so attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any
person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be
punished shall not be less than seven years.”
48. Section 411 IPC stipulates that
“Dishonestly receiving stolen property–Whoever dishonestly
receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having
reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
49. Ocular evidence/ eye witness is considered as the best
evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of
the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the
reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though
minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the
normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses
corroborate each other on material aspects connected with the
offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies.
50. Since the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the
testimony of PW1 Sh. Omkar Singh/complainant and PW-2 Sh.
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.24 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI JAIN
SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:46:01
+0530
Harjeet Singh/victim, it is therefore necessary for this Court to
first determine whether their testimonies are reliable and truthful.
It is settled law that in a case where the testimony of a witness is
found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole
testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon’ble
Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the
basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be
ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in
AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court
that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have
deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be
scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs.
State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not
be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court
(Courts of Act). It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses’ account
would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation
for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged
making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the
sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must
be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability
of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held
to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the
‘credit’ of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box;
their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such
evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a
cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR
2003 SC 2978).
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.25 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:46:07
+0530
51. Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the
present case, coming first to the testimony of PW1/Sh. Omkar
Singh wherein he has deposed that on 04.01.2024, he came to
Delhi at about 8 a.m. from Mohali alongwith his cousin brother
Harjit Singh for attending a interview organized by Action Tesa
plywood company. It is pertinent to note that the fact of coming
to Delhi from Mohali for attending the interview is nowhere
disclosed by PW1 in his statement Ex.PW1/A recorded by the
police officials. Accordingly, this is a material improvement. He
further deposed that he along with his cousin brother boarded the
e-rickshaw from Sheeshganj Gurudwara Sahib for going to New
Delhi Railway Station and one boy climbed upon e-rickshaw and
committed alleged offence with him and his brother, thereby,
giving an inference that e-rickshaw driver is an eye/key/material
independent public witness of the incident in question. However,
he has neither been cited nor examined as a witness in the case in
hand for the reasons best known to the Investigating Agency.
PW-1 further deposed that on way to New Delhi Railway Station,
one boy came and climbed upon the e-rickshaw due to which e-
rickshaw driver stopped and thereafter, alleged incident
happened. However, in his statement given to police officials
Ex.PW1/A, he stated that when they reached Kotha No.64, G.B
Road, then the alleged incident happened, thereby, contradicting
his own statement qua place of incident. PW-1 miserably failed
to disclose the exact place of incident as Kotha No.64, G.B. Road
in his examination-in-chief. Furthermore, he categorically
deposed in the cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State
that he does not remember the exact address of the place of
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.26 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI JAIN
SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:46:12
+0530
incident whether it was Kotha No. 64, G.B. Road. He admitted
that Kotha No.64 is written in his complaint Ex.PW1/A and
police officials told him the address of the said place, thereby,
giving an inference that he was not aware about the exact address
of the place of incident and same was written in his complaint
Ex.PW1/A at the instance of police officials. Accordingly, he
miserably failed to disclose the exact address of place of incident
in question in his entire testimony despite being cross-examined
by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, thereby, raising doubt about the
prosecution version and happening of alleged incident.
52. PW-1 further deposed that the boy took out a knife and put
the same on the neck of PW-2 and demanded money from him
and accordingly, PW-2 handed over currency note of Rs.500/- to
the said boy. He nowhere deposed in his entire testimony that
putting of knife caused alarm and fear in the mind of PW-2 due
to which he handed over the currency notes of Rs.500/- to the
said boy. Accordingly, element of creating a terror in the mind of
victim is missing in the testimony of PW-1. PW-1 further
deposed that said boy by pointing the knife towards him asked
him to hand over his phone. However, in his complaint
Ex.PW1/A, he stated that the boy forcefully snatched his mobile
phone by showing knife to him, thereby, contradicting his own
statement with respect to mode and manner of robbery as in the
complaint Ex.PW1/A, he stated that mobile phone was snatched
from him but during his testimony, he deposed that he handed
over the mobile phone to the said boy on his asking. Accordingly,
there are no allegations of snatching of mobile phone of PW-1 in
his entire testimony which is a material contradiction qua his
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.27 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:46:22
+0530
statement Ex.PW1/A.
53. PW-1 further deposed that he along with his cousin brother
went to police chowki where 2-3 police officials were present
and he narrated entire incident to the police officials. However,
PW-2 deposed that 4-5 police officials were present over there
and they narrated the incident to the police officials but in his
statement Ex.PW2/DA, he stated that they narrated the incident
to one police official only, thereby, contradicting testimony of
each other as well as their own statement recorded by police
officials regarding number of police officials present in the police
chowki and regarding narration of entire incident to the police
officials as according to PW-1, he narrated the entire incident to
them but according to PW-2, both of them narrated the incident
to the police officials. According to PW-1, 2-3 police officials
were present over there but according to PW-2, 4-5 officials were
present over there.
54. PW-1 further deposed in his examination-in-chief that
police officials showed lot of photographs of snatchers on mobile
phone and after seeing photographs on mobile phone of police
officials, he identified one boy as robber who committed robbery
with him and PW-2 and thereafter, police officials went in search
of said boy while he along with his cousin brother stayed at
police chowki. However, in his statement recorded by police
officials Ex.PW1/A, he stated that police officials took them to
place of incident and from there and accused was
arrested/apprehended at the identification of PW-1, thereby,
materially contradicting his own previous statement regarding
happening of events as well as identification and apprehension of
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.28 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:46:27
+0530
accused.
55. Perusal of the testimony of PW-1 further reveals that he
miserably failed to identify the accused during recording of his
evidence in the Court by categorically deposing that he cannot
identify the accused due to lapse of time. He miserably failed to
identify the accused during his cross-examination by Ld. Addl.
PP for the State despite his attention being drawn specifically
towards him and deposed that he is unable to identify the accused
due to lapse of time.
56. Perusal of testimony of PW-1 further reveals that in his
examination-in-chief, he categorically deposed that he and PW-2
remained at police chowki and only police officials went in
search of the culprit and after one and a half hour, police returned
to police chowki with one boy who was identified as culprit by
him. However, in his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the
State, PW-1 admitted that police took him and his brother near
the place of incident where they identified one boy as robber,
thereby, materially contradicting his own examination-in-chief
regarding accompanying police officials to the place of
apprehension of culprit and place of his identification and
therefore, cannot be relied upon.
57. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW-1
deposed that he has stated in his statement Ex.PW1/A that police
officials showed him photographs of suspects in their mobile
phone for identification of accused/robber, whereupon he was
confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A, wherein it was not so
recorded and on the contrary, as per statement Ex.PW1/A, culprit
was found at Kotha No.58, G.B. Road and he was apprehended at
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.29 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:46:33
+0530
the identification of PW-1 and not by showing of photographs to
him by the police officials and accordingly, it is a material
contradiction regarding identification of the accused, thereby,
creating doubt about the identity of the accused.
58. PW-3/HC Shamsher categorically deposed during his
cross-examination that PW-1 did not tell the name of the robber
as well as his physical description to him and he has also not
asked about his physical description from
PW-1/Complainant/Onkar Singh.
59. Perusal of the record reveals that according to testimony of
PW-1 and PW-2, accused was identified by them at the police
station after being shown photographs of certain suspects on the
mobile phone of the police officials, however, according to
testimony of PW-3/HC Samsher, the accused was identified at
the instance of PW-1 and PW-2 when they were taken to place of
incident by the police officials and not by showing photographs
on mobile phone. There is thus a material contradiction regarding
the identification of the accused which raises doubt as to the
genuineness of the identification of the accused.
60. In a criminal trial, the identity of the accused is one of the
most crucial aspect. Therefore, even if it is established that the
incident took place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution
and on the alleged date, time & place, the accused cannot be
indicted for the said offence unless his identity is conclusively
established. The prosecution has examined eye witnesses of the
incident including the complainant/PW1/Onkar Singh. However,
he has not identified accused to be the perpetrator of the alleged
offence of robbery and testimony of other eye witness i.e.
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.30 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:46:37
+0530
PW2/Harjit Singh suffers from material contradictions as
discussed above regarding the mode and manner of identification
of the accused.
61. It is evident that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2
indicate that the accused was identified by them at the police
station after they were shown photographs of certain suspects on
the mobile phone of police officials. In contrast, the testimony of
PW-3 indicates that the accused was identified at the place of
incident at the instance of PW-1 and PW-2 when they were taken
there by the police officials. Thus, there exists a material
contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with
respect to the identification of the accused. This
inconsistency/contradiction creates a reasonable doubt regarding
the geuineness and reliability of the identification of the accused.
Consequently, the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused.
62. Thus, identity of the accused person to connect him with
the alleged offences has remained unsubstantiated. Accordingly,
there is not even an iota of evidence to establish that the accused
has committed the offence punishable under Section 392/397/411
IPC.
63. Furthermore, as per the deposition of PW-1, he and PW-2
remained present at police chowki and only police officials went
in search of the accused and after one and a half hour, police
officials returned to police chowki with one boy but PW-2
categorically deposed during his examination-in-chief that they
along with police officials went in search of said boy and during
search, they identified one boy as robber, thereby, contradicting
testimony of each other regarding accompanying the police to the
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.31 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:46:42
+0530
place of incident for the search of accused. PW-2 categorically
deposed that during search, they identified one boy as robber.
However, in his statement Ex.PW2/DA, he mentioned that PW-1
pointed at and identified the boy as robber, thereby, contradicting
his own statement regarding the fact whether the said
boy/accused was identified by both of them or by PW-1 only
which raises doubt about the identification of the accused. PW-2
also deposed that police officials overpowered said boy at their
instance. However, in his statement Ex.PW2/DA, he stated that
police officials apprehended the said boy with their help, thereby,
again contradicting his own previous statement regarding
apprehension and overpowering of culprit as according to
previous statement of PW-2, culprit was apprehended by one
police official and PW-1 and PW-2 but as per testimony of PW-2,
only police officials overpowered the culprit without any
assistance of PW-1 and PW-2.
64. As per deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 in the Court, case
property/robbed articles i.e. his mobile phone, one currency note
of Rs.500/- and one knife were recovered from the boy/robber by
the police officials when they took cursory search of the said boy
in the police station, however, in their statement Ex.PW1/A and
Ex.PW2/DA respectively recorded by police officials, they stated
that aforesaid articles were recovered from the boy at the place of
incident, thereby, contradicting their own previous statement
regarding the place of recovery of robbed articles and weapon of
offence. Perusal of the record reveals that in cross-examination
by Ld. Defence counsel, PW-2 categorically deposed that he does
not remember from which pocket of accused, case property as
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.32 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI JAIN
SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:46:47
+0530
well as weapon of offence was recovered and he also does not
remember about the wearing clothes of the accused at the time of
recovery of aforesaid case property, thereby, reflecting his
complete ignorance about the material particulars of alleged
recovery from the accused. Furthermore, PW-1 and PW-2
miserably failed to depose during their testimony in the Court
that from where exactly the alleged recovery was effected i.e.
from pockets of shirt or from pockets of pant or elsewhere,
thereby, raising doubt about the alleged recovery of robbed
articles and weapon of offence from the possession of the
accused. Furthermore, PW-2 miserably failed to identify the
knife/weapon of offence during recording of his testimony in the
Court by categorically deposing that he cannot say due to lapse
of considerable time whether this knife was used by the accused
in the commission of alleged offence or not, thereby, raising
doubt about the identification of knife/weapon of offence also.
65. PW-1 also deposed that he came to know the name of said
boy/robber as Nizam Khan through police officials. Accordingly,
it cannot be ruled out that accused was already known the police
officials and therefore, there is a possibility that he was falsely
implicated in the present case. PW-1 further deposed that he has
shown the place of incident to the police officials and site plan
Ex.PW/E1 was prepared at his instance. However, in his entire
testimony, he failed to disclose the exact address of the place of
incident, thereby, raising doubt about the genuinity of the site
plan, more so, when he categorically admitted in his cross-
examination by Ld. Defence counsel that he has not stated to the
police officials at the time of recording of his statement
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.33 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:46:55
+0530
Ex.PW1/A that place of incident is near Kotha No.64, G.B. Road
and place of apprehension is near Kotha No.58, G.B. Road. PW-1
and PW-2 further failed to tell as to on how many documents
police officials obtained their signature as well as nature of those
documents by categorically deposing during their cross-
examination by Ld. Defence counsel that they cannot tell as to on
how many documents police officials obtained their signature
and further, they cannot tell the nature of those documents. By
way of aforesaid testimony, genuinity of documents prepared at
their instance i.e. sketch memo of recovered mobile phone
Ex.PW1/B, seizure memo of recovered case property i.e.
Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D, arrest memo Ex.PW1/E and site plan
becomes doubtful.
66. PW-2 deposed in his examination-in-chief dated
19.04.2024 that on 04.01.2024, he came to Delhi at 8:00 a.m.
from Mohali along with his cousin brother for attending an
interview of PW-1 organized by Action Tesa Plywood Company,
however, this is a material improvement as this fact was not
disclosed by PW-2 in his statement Ex.PW2/DA recorded by
police officials for the reasons best known to him. PW-2 also
deposed about happening of alleged incident in presence of e-
rickshaw driver who is a material/eye/key/independent public
witness, however, he has neither been cited nor examined as a
witness in the present case for the reasons best known to
Investigating Agency as discussed above.
67. Perusal of testimony of PW-2 further reveals that he also
failed to disclose the exact address and place of the incident in
question as Kotha No. 64, G.B. Road during his entire
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.34 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:47:00
+0530
examination-in-chief and he deposed that on way to New Delhi
Railway Station, when they were half kilometer away from
Sheesh Ganj Gurudwara, one boy came over there and
committed alleged offence with them. Even during cross-
examination, PW-2 categorically deposed that he does not
remember whether he has stated to the police officials that place
of incident is near Kotha No.64, G.B. Road and the place of
apprehension of the accused is near Kotha No.58, G.B. Road. He
further deposed that he cannot tell the place of incident even after
perusing the site plan. Aforesaid testimony of PW-2 raises doubt
about the happening of the incident in question in the manner and
at the place as alleged by the prosecution.
68. PW-2 further deposed in his examination-in-chief that the
boy who committed alleged offence started pushing himself
towards him and he felt that that boy was under the influence of
intoxication. Perusal of the record reveals that it is nowhere
mentioned either in his statement Ex.PW2/A or in the entire case
of the prosecution that the boy was pushing himself towards
PW-2 and he was intoxicated at that time and this fact surfaced
for the first time on record in examination-in-chief of PW-2.
Accordingly, this is a material improvement in the testimony of
PW-2 and therefore, it cannot be relied upon.
69. PW-2 further deposed that said boy took out a knife and
put the same on his neck and demanded money from him
whereupon he handed over a currency note of Rs.500/- to the
said boy. Again, the element of creating a terror in the mind of
victim is missing in the testimony of PW-2 also as he nowhere
deposed in his entire testimony that putting of knife caused alarm
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.35 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:47:05
+0530
and fear in his mind due to which he handed over the currency
note of Rs.500/- to the said boy.
70. PW-2 further deposed that despite handing over of
currency note of Rs.500/-, the boy started demanding more
money from him, on which he told him that he does not have
more money and then, said boy searched his pocket but he did
not find anything in his pocket. He further deposed that
thereafter, said boy pointed knife towards Onkar and demanded
money from Onkar/PW-1, on which, PW-1 replied that he does
not have any money. However, the aforesaid fact of demanding
more money from him by the said boy, search of his pocket by
the said boy and demanding money from PW-1 by the said boy
and what PW-1 replied to the said boy is nowhere mentioned by
PW-2 in his entire statement Ex.PW2/DA recorded by the police
officials. Accordingly, this is also a material improvement in the
testimony of PW-2 regarding facts of the present case and
happening of events at the time of the alleged incident.
71. PW-2 deposed during his cross-examination by Ld.
Defence counsel that his statement was recorded on 04.01.2024
in the police station. However, perusal of the record reveals that
his statement Ex.PW2/DA was recorded on 05.01.2024.
72. Furthermore, contradictions in his testimony regarding
number of police officials, narration of incident to police officials
and identification of accused have already been discussed above
and therefore, same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
73. PW-3/HC Shamsher deposed in his examination-in-chief
dated 03.06.2025 that on 04.01.2024, PW-1 and PW-2 came to
him and told him that offence of robbery is committed with them
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.36 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:47:12
+0530
in front of Kotha No.64. However, PW-1 and PW-2 nowhere
deposed in their testimony that the place of the incident was
Kotha No.64 as discussed above. Accordingly, it is a material
contradiction in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
regarding disclosure of place of incident as Kotha No.64 by the
victims to the police officials i.e. PW-3.
74. PW-3 also deposed that with the help of both the boys
(PW-1 and PW-2), he overpowered the culprit which is again in
contradiction with the testimony of PW-2 who deposed in his
examination-in-chief that only police officials overpowered the
culprit.
75. PW-3 further deposed that he took cursory search of the
accused after his apprehension and recovered case property from
his wearing clothes at the alleged place of his apprehension i.e.
Kotha No.58, G.B. Road. However, as per testimony of PW-1
and PW-2, recovery was effected at police station. Accordingly,
by way of aforesaid testimonies, prosecution witnesses have
materially contradicted each other regarding the place of
recovery of case property.
76. PW-3 further deposed in his cross-examination by Ld.
Defence counsel that he did not lodge any DD Entry in police
booth regarding going to the spot and 8-10 public persons were
coming and going through the spot. It is pertinent to note that no
independent public witness has been joined in the investigation
despite the fact that 8-10 public persons were present over there
for the reasons best known to the Investigating Agency and non-
joining of public witnesses is fatal to the case of prosecution. He
further deposed that neither he nor IO prepared the site plan of
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.37 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:47:17
+0530
the place where accused was found present and no specific sign
was found present from the recovered currency note of
Rs.500/-.He further deposed that he did not make any PCR call
from the spot and did not lodge any DD Entry. He further
deposed that he does not remember the exact time of preparing of
seizure memo and no chance prints were obtained when alleged
recovery was effected from the accused. He also deposed that IO
has also not prepared seal handing over memo and he has not
returned the seal to the IO. He also deposed that neither any
CCTV footage of place of incident was found, nor e-rickshaw
driver who was an independent public witness of the incident
could be traced, thereby, reflecting bad and shoddy investigation
by the police officials.
77. This Court is of the view that all aforementioned material
improvements and contradictions go to the root of the
prosecution case and shrouded the case of the prosecution with
doubts. It is the primary duty of the prosecution to prove its case
beyond all reasonable doubts and prosecution has failed to do so.
78. Other witnesses are formal in nature, who have not
witnessed the incident in question and therefore, cannot prove the
guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
79. In the judgment titled as “S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P“
reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held:-
“…… In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an
offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it
shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to
somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of
the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false
that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this
burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explainSC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.38 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:47:21
+0530
or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case,
which would negative it. It is not however for the accused
even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be
eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of
the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus
shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his
plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests
upon the prosecution………………………”
80. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused
persons is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must
establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal
principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable
doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is
entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused.
Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati
Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII (2007)
SLT 454(SC).
81. The prosecution has failed to prove its case to conclude the
guilt of the accused and the fact established are not consistent
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It cannot be said
that there is no explanation or any other hypothesis except that
the accused is guilty and this leaves reasonable ground for the
innocence of the accused and it does not show that in all human
probability the act was done by the accused. Merely on the basis
of suspicion, conviction would not be tenable. It is the duty of the
prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is only
the accused who has committed the crime. The present court
finds that the prosecution has utterly failed to do so.
CONCLUSION:
82. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, appreciation
SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.39 of 40
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI JAIN
SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:47:26
+0530
of evidence, material contradictions and improvement in the
testimony of prosecution witnesses, doubtful alleged recovery of
case property, doubt about the identification of the accused,
doubt about happening of the alleged incident, absence of
independent public witness, bad investigation, it cannot be held
by any stretch of imagination that alleged incident has been
committed by accused as alleged by the prosecution, therefore,
the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt goes to the credit
of accused and accordingly, accused namely Nizam Khan is
hereby acquitted of the offences under Section 392/397/411 IPC.
83. Necessary BB with surety along with latest passport size
photograph and residence proof furnished in compliance of
Section 437A CrPC. Same is Accepted for a period of six months
from today.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.04.21
16:47:31
+0530Pronounced and Signed in the Open Court (Shilpi Jain)
on 21st day of April, 2026 Additional Sessions Judge-02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CERTIFICATE:
The judgment contains 40 pages and each page has been
Digitally
signed bysinged by me. SHILPI SHILPI
JAIN
Date:
JAIN
2026.04.21
16:47:36
+0530(Shilpi Jain)
Additional Sessions Judge-02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
21.04.2026SC No.149/2024 FIR No.08/2024 State Vs. Nizam Khan Page No.40 of 40