Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Azeem@Ajim on 25 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT:
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NEW DELHI),
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
State Vs. 1. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim
S/o Mohd. Asif
2. Aman @ Ammu
S/o Sh. Suleman
Both Residents of:-
R/o 1127, 3rd Floor, Khan Kuch
Kalan, Kalan Mahal,
Dariyaganj Delhi, Daryaganj,
Central Delhi.
● CNR No. : DLND01-001477-2023.
● Registration No. of the Case : 48/2023
● SC Number : 314/2023
● FIR Number : 48/2023
● PS : North Avenue
● Under Section : 392/397/34/411 IPC.
● Date of Institution : 11.08.2023
● Case Committed to the
Court of Sessions for : 29.08.2023
● Case Received by this Court
by way of Transfer on : 01.09.2023
Digitally
● Case Reserved for signed by
Pitamber
Pitamber Dutt
Judgment on : 20.02.2026 Dutt Date:
2026.02.25
● Judgment Announced on : 25.02.2026 17:02:45
+0530
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 1 of 39.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the case bearing SC
No. 314/2023, being FIR No. 48/2023, PS North Avenue,
registered under Sections 392/397/34/411 IPC. The brief facts
necessitated in registration of this case, as per the prosecution
are given as under:-
Brief Facts
2. The prosecution has alleged that on 13.06.2023 at
around 07.30 PM, complainant Sh. Amit Kumar Yadav along
with his relative Sh. Ramji Yadav, reached at Kendriya
Terminal bus stand, Pandit Pant Marg and while they were
waiting for the bus, two persons came on a scooty and started
inquiring about the route to Bangla Sahib Gurudwara from a
lady. At that time, Ramji Yadav got a call and he started talking
on his phone. Suddenly, the pillion rider of the scooty, snatched
the mobile phone of Ramji Yadav, who was talking on his
mobile phone, however, Ramji Yadav caught the hand of the
scooty driver, upon which, the scooty driver asked the pillion
rider to hit Ramji Yadav with a blade, after which the pillion
rider, slashed the neck of Ramji Yadav with a sharp blade, due
to which Ramji Yadav fell on road and scooty riders fled away
towards Gol Dakkhana. Thereafter, Ramji Yadav was shifted to
RML Hospital by complainant Amit Kumar Yadav, who made
a complaint in this regard to PS North Avenue, Delhi and on
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 2 of 39.
the basis of said complaint, rukka was prepared, pursuant to
which FIR No. 314/2023 under Section 392/397/34/411 IPC at
PS North Avenue was registered and investigation was
initiated.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
filed before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on 11.08.2023. On
the basis of charge sheet, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate had
taken the cognizance against accused Mohd. Azeem @ Azim
and Amaan @ Ammu and after complying with the provisions
of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the present case to the Court
of Sessions.
4. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated
18.09.2023 framed formal charge under Section 397 of IPC
against accused Amaan @ Ammu and charges for the offence
punishable under Section 411 of IPC, under Section 103 of
Delhi Police Act, were framed against accused Mohd. Azeem
@ Ajim and charges under Section 394 read with Section 34
IPC, were framed against both the accused persons. Charges
were read over and explained to both the accused persons, who
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The, matter was, thereafter posted for Prosecution
Evidence. To prove their case, prosecution has examined 21
witnesses, which are as under:-
● PW-1:- Sh. Amit Yadav, complainant and relative
of victim Ramji Yadav, who proved his statementFIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 3 of 39.
recorded by the police in the hospital as Ex.PW-
1/A and Site Plan as Ex.PW-1/B.● PW-2:- Victim Ramji Yadav, who identified his
blood stained shirt Ex.P-2/1, surgical blade Ex.P-
2/2, T-shirt and lower of black color, worn by
accused Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim Ex.P-2/3 (colly),
mobile phone make POCO Ex.P-2/4.
● PW-3:- ASI Giri Raj Prasad Meena was posted as
Duty Officer in PS North Avenue on 13.06.2023.
He exhibited computer copy of FIR no. 48/2023 as
Ex. PW-3/A, endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW-
3/B and Certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-3/C.● PW-4:- SI Puran Singh was posted as Incharge
Mobile Crime Team, New Delhi district on
13.06.2023. On receiving information he along
with HC Dharam Raj went to the spot and assisted
the IO in collecting blood samples and earth
control from the spot. He also inspected the spot
and gave his detailed report Ex. PW-4/A.● PW-5:- HC Dharam Raj was posted as
photographer, mobile crime team, New Delhi
district. He exhibited photographs Ex.P-5/1 toFIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 4 of 39.
Ex.P-5/7 and certificate under Section 65 of the
Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-5/A.
● PW-6:- Mohd. Inam, Owner of Shanta Public
School, he exhibited the original admission form
of accused Amaan as Ex. PW-6/A and copy of
birth certificate of accused Amaan as Ex. PW-6/X.
● PW-7:- ASI Dev Kumar was posted as duty
officer at PS North Avenue from 04.00 PM to
12.00 Midnight and recorded GD no. 49A. He
exhibited GD no. 49A as Ex.PW-7/A.
● PW-8:- Ms. Adeeba Asif, sister of accused Ajeem,
and registered owner of scooty bearing no.
DL14SR5426. She exhibited her statement
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the
Ld. MM as Ex.PW-8/A.
● PW-9:- Dr. Purvi Dhanraj Mankar, RML Hospital,
New Delhi. She exhibited MLC of Ramji Yadav
as Ex.PW-9/A and MLC of Mohd. Azeem @
Ajim as Ex.PW-9/B.
● PW-10:- Sh. Sheesh Ram Yadav, relative of
victim Ramji Yadav. He exhibited bill of mobile
phone gifted by him to Ramji Yadav as Ex.PW-
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 5 of 39.
10/A.
● PW-11:- HC Sunil Kumar was on patrolling duty
on 14.06.2023 in the area of North Avenue and
after receiving the call from the duty officer, he
along with ASI Narender reached at RML
Hospital, where ASI Narender collected MLC of
injured Ramji Yadav, recorded the statement of
complainant and eye-witness Amit Yadav and
prepared rukka, on the basis of which FIR was
registered. Thereafter, he went at the spot and
called the crime team and collected samples from
the spot and sealed the samples with the seal. He
exhibited sealed envelopes as Ex.PW-11/A, sealed
pulanda as Ex.PW-11/B and cloth pullanda as
Ex.PW-11/C.
● PW-12:- Sh. Shahzad, neighbor of accused
Azeem.
● PW-13:- HC Pawan Kazla assisted the IO in the
investigation. He exhibited documents w.e.f.
Ex.PW-13/A to Ex.PW-13/K.
● PW-14:- Constable Gaurav was posted in the
CCTV Control Room, installed at PS Parliament
Street and handed over the CCTV footage of the
incident to the IO. He exhibited certificate under
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 6 of 39.
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as
Ex.PW-14/A and pendrive Ex.PW-14/B and
images contained in the pendrive as Ex.PW-14/C.
● PW-15:- Sh. Saurabh Pathak Junior Forensic /
Chemical Examiner (Biology), RFSL,
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. He exhibited his
detailed report as Ex.PW-15/A.
● PW-16:- ASI Bikram Singh was posted as duty
officer in PS Chanakyapuri on 13.06.2023 from
07.18 PM to 07.19 PM. He exhibited certificate
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as
Ex.PW-16/A.
● PW-17:- Sh. Prakash Saxena, Nodal Officer,
Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. He exhibited CAF qua
mobile phone no. 9354207006, in the name of Ms.
Adeeba Asif as Ex.PW-17/A, CDR dated
13.06.2023 qua said mobile as Ex.PW-17/B and
Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act as Ex.PW-17/C.
● PW-18:- Sh. Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti
Airtel Ltd. has exhibited notice under Section 91
Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW-18/A, CAF as Ex.PW-18/B,
computer generated CDR of mobile number
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 7 of 39.
9818860537 w.e.f. 12.06.2023 to 23.06.2023 as
Ex.PW-18/C, certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-18/D.
● PW-19:- Sh. Raj Kumar, Medical Record Clerk,
RML Hospital, New Delhi.
● PW-20:- SI Rajender Kumar, received the RFSL
result and filed the same in the Court in shape of
supplementary charge sheet.
● PW-21 ASI Narender Singh is the investigating
officer of this case.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the
incriminating material was put to accused persons in their
statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.. Both the accused persons
have denied all incriminating material put to them and opted to
lead defence evidence. However, they have failed to lead any
defence evidence despite granting opportunity, consequently,
defence evidence was closed by the Ld. Predecessor of this
Court vide order dated 22.11.2025 and matter was posted for
final arguments.
7. Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld. Additional PP for the State has
contended that prosecution has established its case against both
the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. He further
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 8 of 39.
argued that prosecution has established all the circumstances
against accused persons which unmistakably proves the guilt of
accused persons and rules out every possibility of their
innocence. He further contended that prosecution has placed on
record sufficient material to prove the guilt of accused persons.
He prayed that accused persons may be convicted under
appropriate provisions of law.
8. Sh. Rashid Hasmi, Ld. Counsel for accused Azeem @
Ajim has contended that the injured has not stated anything
regarding the commission of robbery of mobile phone to the
doctor at the time of preparation of his MLC. He further
contended that though the injured was conscious but his
statement was recorded after two days of commission of
offence. He further contended that the police has not joined any
public witness at the time of recovery of mobile phone,
therefore, the said recovery is of no use. He further contended
that the prosecution has implicated the accused in a false case,
which they have miserably failed to prove, beyond reasonable
doubt. He prayed that accused may be acquitted.
9. Sh. Amarender Choubey, Ld. Counsel for accused
Aman @ Ammu has also raised the same contention as raised
by Ld. Counsel for accused Azeem @ Ajim.
10. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, guarantees
every citizen protection of life and liberty as a fundamental
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 9 of 39.
right. It cast a duty on State to maintain law and order in
society for securing peace and security to its citizens. To
achieve the said objectives State enacts substantive penal laws,
instrumental and symbolic prescribing punishment in case of
breach of law and order in society. When any person found
guilty of committing breach of right of life, liberty or property
guaranteed to citizens then it becomes a duty of the State to
apprehend such person, put him to fair trial and punish him if
found guilty. The aim of Criminal Justice System is to punish
the guilty and to protect the innocent.
11. In a criminal trial, the charge against the accused must
be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of
proof does not lie in the realms of surmises and conjectures.
However, the doubt must be of reasonable man and the
standard adopted must be a standard adopted by a reasonable
and just man for coming to a conclusion considering the
particular subject matter. Doubt must be actual and substantial
doubts as to the guilt of accused arising from the evidence or
lack of it, as opposed to mere apprehensions.
12. Section 390 of IPC deals with robbery. It provides that
in all robbery there is either theft or extortion. 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 voluntarily causes or
attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 10 of 39.
restraint, or fear of instant death or instant hurt, or of instant
wrongful restraint. Section 392 of IPC provides punishment for
robbery.
13. Section 394 of IPC deals with voluntary causing hurt
while committing robbery. It provides that if any person in
committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily
causes hurt, then such person, and any other person jointly
concerned in committing or attempting to commit such
robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life and for
rigorous punishment for a term which may extend to 10 years
and shall also be liable to fine.
14. Both the accused persons have been charged under
Section 394 Read with Section 34 of IPC.
15. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons
under Section 394/34 IPC, the prosecution has examined PW –
1 Sh. Amit Yadav, the complainant, who briefly deposed in his
examination in chief that on 13.06.2023, he along with Sh.
Ramji Yadav were at Pandit Pant Marg Central Terminal, for
catching their respective buses at around 07.30 PM, both
accused Azeem @ Ajim and accused Amaan, came on a scooty
and inquired about the way to Bangla Sahib Gurudwara from a
women, standing there. In between, phone of Sh. Ramji Yadav,
who was at a distance, rang and he started talking on his mobile
phone. At that time, accused Aman, pillion rider of the scooty,
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 11 of 39.
snatched the mobile phone of Ramji Yadav, who caught hold
the left hand of driver of scooty. However, driver of the scooty,
did not stop the scooty and dragged Ramji Yadav at the
distance of about 70/80 meters. Ramji Yadav, did not leave the
hand of driver of the scooty, therefore, accused Mohd. Azeem
@ Ajim asked accused Amaan @ Ammu to hit Ramji Yadav
with a blade otherwise Ramji Yadav would not leave his hand,
on which accused Aman @ Ammu gave a blade blow on the
neck of Ramji Yadav 2-3 times, due to which Ramji Yadav left
the hand of scooty driver and fell on the road and both accused
persons ran away towards Gol Dakkhana with the mobile
phone. PW- 1 has further deposed that he ran towards Ramji
Yadav, who was in the pool of blood and took him to RML
Hospital in a TSR, where his statement was recorded by the
police.
16. During cross-examination, PW – 1 denied that Ramji
Yadav did not catch hold the hand of accused Azeem @ Ajim,
who was driving the scooty. He also denied that he identified
accused persons at the instance of IO or that he had never seen
accused robbing the mobile of Ramji Yadav or causing injury
to him. He further deposed that he had not told about the
incident of robbery to the doctor concerned or the reason as to
how Ramji Yadav sustained injury, however, he told the reason
of receiving injury on the person of Ramji Yadav to the police
officials. He further deposed that at the time of incident, he was
at the distance of 5/6 feet from Ramji Yadav. He further
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 12 of 39.
deposed that he was drinking water when the incident had
taken place. He further deposed that he came to know about the
incident after hearing the noise and at that time robbers had
passed about 12 meters from him and he ran behind them. He
further averred that accused persons dragged Ramji Yadav for
a distance of about 40 meters. He had not heard the words to hit
Ramji Yadav with blade otherwise Ramji Yadav would not
leave his hand. He denied that a quarrel had taken place with
Ramji Yadav with some unknown person or that he sustained
injury in the aforesaid quarrel.
17. The prosecution has also examined injured PW – 2
Ramji Yadav, who briefly deposed in his examination in chief
that on 13.06.2023, he along with his relative Amit came from
Naraina at Pandit Pant Marg Central Terminal and was waiting
for catching his bus. At about 07.30 PM, accused Azeem @
Ajim and accused Amaan, came there on a scooty and asked
the way to Bangla Saheb Gurudwara from a woman who was
standing there. Meanwhile, his mobile rang and he started
making conversation on his mobile phone and was at a distance
from complainant Amit Yadav. He further deposed that
accused Amaan, who was sitting on the pillion seat of the
scooty, snatched his mobile phone make POCO. He caught
hold the left hand of accused Mohd. Azeem, who was driving
the scooty. However, accused did not stop the scooty and
dragged him at the distance of about 70/80 meters, he however,
did not leave his hand and accused Azeem asked accused
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 13 of 39.
Amaan @ Ammu to hit him with blade, otherwise he would not
leave his hand. On which accused Amaan @ Ammu gave
surgical blade blow on his neck 2-3 times as well as on his
cheek, after which he left the hand of the driver of the scooty
and fell on road and thereafter both the accused persons fled
towards Gol Dakkhana with mobile phone. He further averred
that blood was oozing from his injuries and Amit took him to
Doctor RML Hospital in a TSR.
18. During cross-examination, PW – 2 denied that he could
not see who caused injuries on his neck. He also denied that he
has identified accused persons at the instance of IO. He denied
that he has never seen the accused persons robbing his mobile
phone and causing injuries to him. He denied that accused
Amaan was never present at the spot at the time of incident or
that he is deposing falsely. He further deposed that when
accused persons asked the route of the Gurudwara, he was at
the distance of 4/5 feet from the lady and was standing at the
road, at the time of incident and Amit was standing at a
distance of ½ feet from him. He further deposed that after
receiving the injury, he became unconscious, so he cannot say
when he reached the hospital. He regained his consciousness
after about half an hour after reaching the hospital. He told the
doctor concerned that he sustained injury in the aforesaid
incident of robbery. He also denied that he had disclosed to the
police that he sustained injury in a quarrel or some unknown
person caused injury on his neck. He further deposed that he
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 14 of 39.
was discharged from the hospital on 14.06.2023 in the morning
hour. He further deposed that he did not visit the police station
on 14.06.2023. He further deposed that he visited the police
station to get his statement recorded, however, he does not
remember the exact date. He further deposed that his mobile
phone, which was robbed from him was gifted by his brother
in law. He denied that his said mobile phone was never gifted
to him by his brother in law.
19. The prosecution has also examined PW – 6 Mohd.
Inam, owner of Shanta Public School, Opposite Suiwalan,
Chitli Qabar, Delhi – 110006. He produced the original
admission form of accused Amaan Ex.PW – 6/A (OSR) and his
birth certificate as Ex.PW-6/X. As per the said Birth Certificate
Ex. PW-6/X, the date of birth of accused Amaan is 31.03.2003.
Thus, he was of around 20 years of age at the time of incident.
20. The prosecution has also examined PW- 9 Dr. Purvi
Dhanraj Mankar, PG Resident, Dr. RML Hospital, who
prepared the MLC of injured Ramji Yadav on 13.06.2023 and
proved the same as Ex. PW-9/A. She deposed in her
examination in chief that on medical examination of accused
Ramji Yadav, it was found that he was having incised would
over left side of neck on the upper side measuring about 10 x
0.5 cm and back of left ear measuring 5 cm x 0.5 cm; abraised
wound over right elbow.
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 15 of 39.
21. PW- 9 also examined accused Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim
and prepared his MLC dated 15.06.2023 Ex.PW-9/B. On
medical examination of Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim, it was found
that there were two nail scratch marks over left forearm below
left, about two days old and bruise marks over right hand,
which were also two days old.
22. The prosecution has also examined PW – 10 Sheesh
Ram Yadav, who gifted the mobile phone make POCO C-3 of
blue color from Flipkart. He exhibited the bill of aforesaid
mobile phone as Ex.PW-10/A.
23. The prosecution has also examined PW – 13 HC Pawan
Kazla, who accompanied the PW-21 IO / ASI Narender Singh
on 15.06.2023 at the residence of Ms. Abida Asif, daughter of
Mohd. Asif, R/o House no. 1127, Kucha Faulad Khan, Kucha
Chalan, Darya Ganj, Delhi, who was the sister of accused
Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim. IO / ASI Narender Singh made
interrogation from Ms. Abida Asif in the presence of PW – 13
HC Pawan Kazla and she told them that scooty bearing no. DL-
14SR-5426 make Yamaha is owned by her. She further told
that her brother Azim Khan had taken the said scooty on
13.06.2023 and came back on that date at around 10 PM. She
also told that accused Azim Khan was sleeping in his room
when they reached at the address. Thereafter, PW – 13 along
with IO went inside the room, where accused Azim Khan was
sleeping. He was interrogated by the IO in his presence and
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 16 of 39.
accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW-13/A, thereafter,
accused Mohd. Azim handed over one mobile phone make
POCO, after taking out the same from the almirah, kept in his
room, which was robbed in the incident. The said mobile phone
was seized by the IO vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-13/B.
24. Accused Mohd. Azim also pointed out towards Scooty
bearing registration no. DL-14SR-5426 make Yamaha, which
was standing in a gali towards left side of the house of the
accused and told them that it was the same scooty , which was
used in the incident on 13.06.2023. Mohd. Azim also handed
over four other mobile phones of different makes, for which
accused could not account for his ownership. Those mobile
phones were taken into possession by the IO vide
Ex.PW-13/C. Thereafter, in the presence of PW – 13, IO / ASI
Narender arrested accused Amaan @ Ammu on the pointing
out of accused Azeem @ Azim, who also made disclosure
statement Ex.PW-13/F and from his possession, a surgical
blade was recovered, which was taken into possession vide
Memo Ex. PW-13/G. Both the accused persons were arrested
in the presence of PW – 13 vide arrest memo Ex. PW-13/H and
Ex.PW-13/I. Thereafter, personal search of both the accused
persons was also carried out and personal search memo(s)
Ex.PW-13/J and Ex.PW-13/K were prepared.
25. During cross-examination, PW – 13 deposed that the
name of accused Amaan @ Ammu was disclosed by accused
Azeem @ Ajim. He volunteered that accused Amaan was also
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 17 of 39.
found visible in the CCTV footage as pillion rider on scooty.
He had seen the CCTV footage, in which accused was found
sitting as pillion rider. He further deposed that surgical blade
was recovered from accused Amaan. He further deposed that
IO, he and police team officials were present when the CCTV
footage were analyzed in presence of its operator. He further
deposed that he does not remember whether any notice under
Section 133 of the MV Act was served upon Ms. Abida or not.
He further deposed that he has no idea how many rooms were
built in the premises of Ms. Abida. He further deposed that
apart from Abida, her mother and accused Azeem @ Ajim
were also present. He further deposed that public persons were
asked to join the investigation but none of them came forward
to join the investigation. He further deposed that if any notice
was served upon those persons or not. He further deposed that
the almirah from where mobile phone was recovered from the
house of accused Azeem @ Ajim, was made of wood. He
denied that no mobile phone was recovered at the instance of
accused Azeem. He denied that the scooty was not recovered in
pursuance of the disclosure statement of accused Azeem.
26. Prosecution has also examined PW – 14 Ct. Gaurav,
who proved the CCTV footage of the cameras installed in PS
Parliament Street between 07:39 PM to 07:41 PM in a pen-
drive Ex.PW-14/B along with Certificate under Section 65 B of
the Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW-14/A. He also proved the four
images visible in the CCTV footage as Ex.PW-14/C (colly).
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 18 of 39.
27. During cross-examination, he deposed that he did not
note down that the said pen-drive consists of how much storage
capacity. He only handed over the footage of the incident after
transferring the same in the pen-drive. He did not hand over
any image of the incident to the IO. He denied that he did not
hand over any CCTV footage to the IO. He denied that the
certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act is not
correct.
28. The prosecution has also examined PW – 16 ASI
Bikram Singh, who proved the CCTV footage of Panchsheel
Red Light crossing from 07:18 PM to 07:19 PM of Camera L2
and L4 (traffic cameras) Ex.PW-14/C. He also issued
Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act
Ex.PW-16/A.
29. The prosecution has also examined PW – 15 Sh.
Saurabh Pathak, who proved the CFSL Report Ex.PW-15/A.
30. A perusal of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
shows that both PW – 1 and 2 have categorically deposed
before the Court that the incident had taken place on
13.06.20203, when accused Azeem and Amaan came on a
scooty and snatched the mobile phone of victim Ramji Yadav,
who was talking on his mobile phone. Ramji Yadav caught
hold of the hand of accused Azeem @ Ajim, driver of the
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 19 of 39.
scooty, who dragged him to a distance of 70-80 Meters but
when Ramji Yadav did not leave the hand of accused Azeem @
Ajim, he told accused Amaan, pillion rider of the scooty, to hit
Ramji Yadav with a blade, otherwise, he would not leave his
hand, on which accused Amaan gave surgical blade blow on
the neck of Ramji Yadav 2-3 times, due to which Ramji Yadav,
left the hand of accused Azeem @ Ajim and fell on road and
thereafter he was taken to the hospital by complainant Amit
Yadav, where he was medically examined and his MLC
Ex.PW-9/1 was prepared by Dr. Purvi Dhanraj Mankar,
mentioning that Ramji Yadav was having a wound over left
upper side of his neck, measuring about 10 x 0.5 cm and back
of left ear measuring 5 cm x 0.5 cm and abrased wound over
right elbow. As per MLC Ex.PW-9/1, the injuries sustained by
Ramji Yadav were simple injuries.
31. Both PW -1 and PW – 2 have identified accused Mohd.
Azeem @ Ajim, who was driving the said scooty on the date of
incident as well as accused Amaan @ Ammu, who was the
pillion rider of the scooty and snatched the mobile phone from
victim Ramji Yadav and caused injuries on his neck.
32. Both PW – 1 and PW – 2 have been thoroughly cross-
examined but their testimonies have remained unshaken and no
material contradiction has emerged in their testimony.
33. Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that PW – 1
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 20 of 39.
and PW – 2 were not knowing the accused persons and have
identified them first time in the Court, therefore, their
identification is of no use. They further contended that both
PW – 1 and PW – 2 have identified the accused persons at the
instance of the IO, therefore, identification of the accused first
time in the Court should be seen with suspicion.
34. The said contention of Ld. Counsel of accused however
is not sustainable for the simple reason that during the
investigation, prosecution filed an application for holding the
TIP of accused persons. However, both the accused persons
refused to participate in TIP proceedings before Sh. Sahil
Khurmi, Ld. Duty MM-01, New Delhi District, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi on 16.06.2023, without assigning any
reason.
35. None of the accused persons gave any reason before the
Ld. MM, for their refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings.
Both the accused persons have also admitted the factum of their
refusal for the TIP proceedings, before this Court and their
statement in this regard was recorded on 02.08.2025.
36. When both the accused persons themselves had refused
to participate in the TIP proceedings without assigning any
reason, then they could not be allowed to say that they have
been identified by PW – 1 and PW-2, first time in the Court.
37. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 21 of 39.
“Munna Vs State (NCT of Delhi)”, reported as (2003) 10
Supreme Court Cases 599 has held that:-
“In a case where an accused himself refuses to
participate in a test identification parade, it is not open
to him to contend that the statement of the eye-
witnesses made for the first time in the Court, wherein
they specifically point towards him as a person who had
taken part in the commission of the crime, should not be
relied upon. The plea is available provided the
prosecution is itself responsible for not holding a test
identification parade. However, in a case where the
accused himself declines to participate in a test
identification parade, the prosecution has no option but
to proceed in a normal manner like all other cases and
rely upon the testimony of the witnesses, which is
recorded in court during the course of the trial of the
case.”
38. Both the accused persons themselves have refused to
participate in the TIP proceedings sought to be conducted by
the police during the investigation on 16.06.2023. They have
also admitted the proceedings conducted before the Court on
16.06.2023 Ex.PX-1.
39. When both the accused persons themselves had to
participate in TIP proceedings during the investigation,
therefore, they cannot be allowed to say that PW – 1 and PW –
2 have identified them first time in the Court, therefore, their
testimony is of no use.
40. Both PW – 1 and PW – 2 have categorically deposed
before the Court that they were present at Pandit Pant Marg,
Central Terminal at around 07.30 PM, when the incident had
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 22 of 39.
taken place. The accused persons were on their scooty.
Accused Amaan snatched mobile phone. PW – 2 Ramji Yadav
caught hold the hand of accused Azeem @ Ajim, who was
driving the said scooty. Accused persons dragged Ramji Yadav
for a distance of 70-80 meters and thereafter accused Amaan @
Ammu, on the asking of accused Azeem @ Ajim, hit PW – 2
Ramji Yadav with a surgical blade on his neck, due to which
Ramji Yadav left the hand of accused Azeem @ Ajim and fell
on road.
41. PW – 1 Amit Yadav, complainant and PW- 2 Ramji
Yadav, Victim were having sufficient time to see the accused
persons who committed the offence on that day.
42. The prosecution has placed on record CCTV footage of
the incident Ex. PW-14/B, which clearly shows that a scooty
came at the bus stand and was having a driver and a pillion
rider. The pillion rider of the scooty snatched the mobile phone
and the victim caught the hand of the driver of the scooty and
he was dragged at some distance by them and thereafter he fell
down.
43. Four images taken from the CCTV footage Ex.PW-
14/C also shows that both the accused persons came on a black
scooty and initial registration number of the scooty i.e. DL 14 S
was visible and make of scooty was Yamaha.
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 23 of 39.
44. The incident which is narrated by PW – 1 and PW – 2
during their deposition before the court found support from the
CCTV footage Ex. PW-14/B, where the sequence of events
were shown as it is as deposed by both the witnesses.
45. PW – 1 and PW – 2 have identified both the accused
persons and described their roles played in the said incident and
there is no contradiction in their testimony.
46. It is relevant to mention that both PW – 1 and PW – 2
stated categorically that when the pillion rider of the scooty
snatched the mobile phone of PW – 2, he caught the hand of
the driver and PW – 2 was dragged for about 70 to 80 meters
but he did not leave his hand, upon which, driver told the
pillion rider that he should hit PW – 2, otherwise, he would not
leave his hand, thereafter, pillion rider hit on the neck of PW –
2, due to which he fell down.
47. Accused Azeem @ Ajim was arrested on 15.06.2023
and his medical examination was conducted by PW – 9, who
prepared MLC Ex.PW-9/B. In the said MLC, accused was
having two nail scratch marks over left forearm below elbow
(two days old) and bruise mark over right hand.
48. The left hand of accused Azeem @ Ajim, was caught
by PW – 2. Accused Azeem was having scratch marks over his
left forearm below his elbow, which was two days old i.e. of
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 24 of 39.
the date of incident. Accused Azeem has not furnished any
explanation, how and when, he sustained those bruises or
injury marks on his left hand.
49. The accused got bruises and injury marks on his left
forearm. As per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is
within the personal knowledge of accused Azeem as to how he
sustained these marks. However, he has not given any
explanation. In the absence of any explanation, an irresistible
conclusion emerges that accused Azeem @ Ajim got bruises at
the time of the incident, when PW – 2 Ramji Yadav caught his
hand, when accused Amaan @ Ammu Snatched his mobile
phone.
50. The prosecution has arrested accused Azeem from his
house, where he was sleeping and recovered the mobile phone
of PW – 2, which was snatched in the said incident in the
presence of PW – 13 HC Pawan Kazla.
51. Accused Mohd. Azeem had also handed over four other
mobile phones of different make, qua which, he could not
furnish any explanation qua their ownership and same were
also taken over possession by the IO.
52. The prosecution has also examined PW – 10, who
deposed in his examination in chief that he purchased mobile
phone make POCO of blue color through Flipkart in October
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 25 of 39.
2020, vide bill Ex.PW-10/A and gifted the same to his relative
Ramji Yadav.
53. PW – 2 Ramji Yadav was talking on his mobile phone
at the time of the incident. The said mobile phone was snatched
by accused Amaan @ Ammu, the pillion rider of the scooty,
which was being driven by accused Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim on
13.06.2023. Accused Amaan @ Ammu also caused simple
injury at the neck of victim Ramji Yadav.
54. The said mobile phone, which was snatched by accused
Amaan @ Ammu from PW – 2 Ramji Yadav, was recovered
from the possession of accused Azeem @ Ajim by PW – 21
IO / ASI Narender Singh in the presence of PW – 13 HC
Pawan Kazla.
55. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have contended
that police has not joined any public witness while arresting
accused persons and at the time of recording their disclosure
statement. They further contended that as the police had not
joined any public witness during the recovery proceedings,
therefore, recovery of mobile phone, shown from accused
Azeem @ Ajim, is of no consequence.
56. The contention of Ld. Counsel of accused persons is
however not sustainable. After analyzing the CCTV footage
and after inquiring about the ownership of the scooty, police
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 26 of 39.
came to know that scooty bearing registration no. DL 14S 5426
was owned by Ms. Abida. Thereafter, IO ASI Narender Singh
along with HC Pawan Kazla, visited the house of Ms. Abida,
who was the registered owner of said scooty. On enquiry, Ms.
Abida told the IO that accused Azeeem @ Ajim is her brother
and was sleeping in another room. Thereafter, police entered
into said room and interrogated accused Azeem @ Ajim and
arrested him and during interrogation accused Azeem @ Ajim
handed over mobile phone make POCO, after taking out the
same from his almirah, which was kept in his room. He also
handed over four other mobile phones of different make, for
which he could not account for his ownership. All these mobile
phones were seized by the IO in the presence of PW – 13 HC
Pawan Kazla vide Memo Ex. PW-13/B and Ex.PW-13/C.
57. No doubt that at the time of arresting accused Azeem @
Ajim and getting recovery of mobile phones, scooty and
surgical blade from the possession of accused Azeem @ Ajim
and accused Amaan @ Ammu, no public witnesses were
joined, however, mere non-joining of public witnesses cannot
be fatal for the prosecution case.
58. The testimonies of PW – 13 and PW – 21 are consistent
qua the arrest of accused persons from their house as well as
qua recovery of mobile phone, scooty and surgical blade from
the possession of accused persons.
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 27 of 39.
59. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “State of
Government of NCT of Delhi Vs Sunil & Ors.“, reported as
2001 (1) SCC 652 has held in para 21 that:-
“We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the
police officer should be approached with initial distrust.
We are aware that such a notion was lavishly
entertained during the British period and policemen also
knew about it. Its hangover persisted during post-
independent years but it is time now to start placing at
least initial trust on the actions and the documents made
by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the
presumption that the police records are untrustworthy.
As a proposition of law the presumption should be the
other way around. That official acts of the police have
been regularly performed is a wise principle of
presumption and recognized even by the legislature.
Hence when a police officer gives evidence in Court
that a certain article was recovered by him on the
strength of the statement made by the accused, it is
open to the Court to believe the version to be correct if
it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the
accused through cross-examination of witnesses or
through any other material, to show that the evidence of
the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe
to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has
any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such
records of the police the court could certainly take into
account the fact that no other independent person was
present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally
approvable procedure to presume that police action as
unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action
merely for the reason that police did not collect
signatures of independent persons in the documents
made contemporaneous with such actions.
60. The said legal proposition has been reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Rizwan Khan Vs State of
Chhattisgarh” 2020 (9) SCC 627.
61. The above legal propositions laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India makes it absolutely clear that there is
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 28 of 39.
no law that the testimony of police witnesses should not be
believed, even if their testimony is consistent, coherent and
without any defect. There is no rule of evidence that in all
circumstances, public witnesses should be joined.
62. In the instant case, accused Mohd Azeem @ Ajim was
at his house and PW – 21 and PW – 13 came at the premises of
Ms. Abida, who was the registered owner of the scooty used in
the incident. She informed that scooty was being driven by her
brother accused Azeem @ Ajim, who was sleeping there and
thereafter accused Azeem @ Ajim narrated the entire incident
and also brought the mobile phone from his almirah.
63. The said mobile phone was not owned by Mohd.
Azeem @ Ajim or any of his family members but same was of
PW – 2 Ramji Yadav, which was gifted to him by PW – 10
Sheesh Ram Yadav, who purchased the same from Flipkart
vide bill Ex.PW-10/1.
64. The said mobile phone was robbed on 13.06.2023 while
PW – 2 was talking on his said phone. The said mobile phone
was recovered from the almirah of accused Mohd. Azeem @
Ajim, thus the recovery is without any default.
65. The aforesaid fact thus clearly shows that prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Mohd.
Azeem @ Ajim and co-accused Amaan @ Ammu have
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 29 of 39.
voluntarily caused hurt on the person of Ramji Yadav by a
blade while committing robbery of mobile phone from him,
therefore, both the accused persons have committed the offence
punishable under Section 394 Read with Section 34 IPC.
66. The prosecution has also successfully proved that
accused Mohd Azeem @ Ajim, got recovered four mobile
phones make Samsung, HOPE, JIO and I Phone from his
house, of which he was not the owner and he failed to establish
as to how those mobile phones came in his possession.
67. The prosecution has thus proved that accused Azeem
has committed the offence punishable under Section 103 of the
Delhi Police Act.
68. Accused Azeem @ Ajim has also been charged for the
offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. However, once
accused Azeem @ Ajim is found guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 394/34 IPC he cannot be called
recipient of the stolen property as mobile phone recovered from
his possession was robbed by Mohd. Amaan, which was found
from his possession. Thus, it cannot be held that he was the
recipient of the stolen property and cannot be held guilty for
the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC.
69. The prosecution has thus failed to prove on record that
accused Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim has conmitted offence
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 30 of 39.
punishable under Section 411 of IPC.
70. Accused Amaan @ Ammu has also been charged for
the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, on the ground
that while committing the robbery, accused Amaan @ Ammu
used a deadly weapon.
71. Section 397 of IPC deals with robbery or dacoity with
attempts to cause death or grievous hurt. It provides that at the
time of committing robbery, the offender uses any deadly
weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to
cause death or grievous hurt to any person shall liable to be
punished for imprisonment which shall not be less than seven
years.
72. Section 397 of IPC attracts if, at the time of committing
robbery or dacoity, the offender uses a deadly weapon, or
causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death
or grievous hurt to any person. A deadly weapon must have
been used at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, and not
before its commission. The word ‘uses’ in should be given a
wider meaning, and should not be confined merely to cutting,
stabbing or shooting, as the case may be, but also to carrying
the weapon for the purpose of overwhelming the victims of
dacoity. If a dacoit is armed with a deadly weapon, then
undoubtedly, he inspires the victim with the feeling of fear and
his power of resistance is, to a great extent, paralysed. Section
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 31 of 39.
397 IPC does not create any offence but merely regulate the
punishment already provided for robbery and dacoity. This
section fixes a minimum term of imprisonment between the
commission of robbery and dacoity has been attended with
certain aggravating circumstances, viz., (1) the use of a deadly
weapon, or (2) the causing of grievous hurt, or (3) attempting
to cause death or grievous hurt.
73. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Asif Vs State
(NCT of Delhi)”, reported as 2022 SCC Online Del 270 has
held that:-
“It is a well settled law that whether the weapon of
offence is deadly or not, is a question of fact which
would depend on the nature of weapon used in the
offence. A pistol, revolver, sword, axe or even a knife
are deadly weapons. However, in the case of knife, the
length of the knife, its sharpness and the pointed edge
has to be seen to ascertain whether the knife is a deadly
weapon or not.” In the present case, the evidence of the
prosecution is that the appellant took out a blade and
kicked the complainant. In cross-examination it is
further stated that the blade was not a shaving blade,
hence the kind of blade used is not proved even by the
ocular evidence of the witnesses. Though it is not
essential that the weapon of offence should be
recovered to prove the nature of the weapon used and
that a deadly weapon was used at the time of
commission of the offence, however, the prosecution is
required to prove the nature of the weapon of offence
used specially in the case of knife or blade. Since from
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the size and
sharpness of the blade is not proved, hence the
prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant used a
deadly weapon.”
74. Both PW – 1 and PW – 2 have stated that accused
Amaan @ Ammu, on the asking of accused Mohd. Azeem @
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 32 of 39.
Ajim, hit PW – 2 on his neck, with a surgical blade. However,
neither PW – 1 nor PW – 2 gave any detail or dimension of
said surgical blade either before the police or during his
examination in chief.
75. The police recovered the said surgical blade from the
possession of accused Amaan, when he was arrested by the IO,
in the presence of PW – 13. However, when the said surgical
blade got recovered from the pocket of accused Amaan @
Ammu, the IO did not prepare any sketch of the said surgical
blade nor described the nature of said blade recovered from the
possession of acc used Amaan @ Ammu.
76. The said surgical blade along with cloth of PW – 2
were sent to CFSL for examination. CFSL report has been
proved by PW – 15 Sh. Saurabh Pathak, Junior Forensic
Chemical Examiner (Biology), RFSL, Chanakyapuri, New
Delhi. As per RFSL Report Ex.PW-15/A, no blood could be
detected on surgical blade Ex. ‘6’.
77. If the said surgical blade was used in commission of
offence, the stain of blood should have been there on the said
surgical blade but RFSL report Ex.PW-15/A shows that no
blood could be detected on the surgical blade recovered from
the possession of accused Amaan.
78. The aforesaid facts thus clearly shows that the
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 33 of 39.
prosecution has failed to produce on record any sufficient
material to prove that accused Amaan @ Ammu has used
deadly weapon while committing robbery on 13.06.2023. The
prosecution has thus failed to prove on record that accused
Mohd. Amaan @ Ammu has committed an offence punishable
under Section 397 of IPC.
CONCLUSION
79. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of
the considered view that the prosecution has successfully
proved beyond any reasonable doubt that accused Azeem @
Ajim and accused Amaan @ Ammu have caused voluntary
hurt on the person of Sh. Ramji Yadav by a blade, while
committing robbery of mobile phone from Sh. Ramji Yadav
and thus committed offence punishable under Section 394 of
IPC Read with Section 34 of IPC.
80. The prosecution has also proved beyond any reasonable
doubt that accused Azeem @ Ajim was in possession of four
mobile phones, for which he could not account for his
ownership, therefore, he is held guilty for commission for the
offence punishable under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act.
81. The prosecution however, has failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that accused Amaan @ Ammu has committed
the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC. Hence,
accused Amaan @ Ammu stands acquitted for the same.
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 34 of 39.
82. The prosecution has also failed to prove beyond any
reasonable doubt that accused Azeem @ Ajim has committed
offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. Hence, accused
Azeem @ Ajim stands acquitted for the same.
83. A copy of this judgment be given dasti to Prosecution.
84. In view of the directions given by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India to all Trial Courts across the country vide
judgment dated 15.12.2025 in case titled Manojbhai Jethabhai
Parmar (Rohit) vs State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No(s).
2973 of 2023, following charts have been appended to enhance
the legibility of criminal judgments.
1. Chart of Witnesses Examined
Srl. Prosecution Name of Witness Description
No. Witness
Number
1 PW 1 Sh. Amit Yadav Eye witness/complainant.
2 PW 2 Sh. Ramji Yadav Injured/victim.
3 PW 3 ASI Giri Raj Prasad Duty Officer/recorded FIR.
Meena
4 PW 4 SI Puran Ram In-charge mobile crime
team/inspected the spot.
5 PW 5 HC Dharam Raj Photographer mobile crime
team/took photographs.
6 PW 6 Mohd. Inam Owner of Shanta Public School,
Delhi.
7 PW 7 ASI Dev Kumar Duty Officer/recorded GD No. 49A.
8 PW 8 Ms. Adeeba Asif Owner of Scooty No.
DL14SR5426.
9 PW 9 Dr. Purvi Dhanraj PG Resident at Dr. RML
Mankar Hospital/Medical Jurist.
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 35 of 39.
10 PW 10 Sh. Sheesh Ram Purchaser of mobile phone in
Yadav question.
11 PW 11 HC Sunil Kumar Accompanied Investigating Officer.
12 PW 12 Sh. Shahzad Hakeem by profession.
13 PW 13 HC Pawan Kazla Accompanied Investigating Officer.
14 PW 14 Ct. Gaurav CCTV control room operator at PS
Parliament Street.
15 PW 15 Sh. Saurabh Pathak Jr. Forensic Chemical Examiner,
RFSL, New Delhi.
16 PW 16 ASI Bikram Singh Duty Officer PS Chankaya
Puri/CCTV footage handed over to
IO.
17 PW 17 Sh. Prakash Saxen Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio
Info.com Ltd, Delhi.
18 PW 18 Sh. Ajay Kumar Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd.,
Delhi.
19 PW 19 Sh. Raj Kumar Medical Record Clerk, RML
Hospital, Delhi.
20 PW 20 SI Rajender Kumar Witness of filing RFSL result.
21 PW 21 ASI Narender Investigating Officer.
Singh
2. Chart of Exhibited Documents
Srl. Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested
No. No. by
1 PW 1/A Statement of complainant/eye PW 1 Amit Yadav
witness Amit Yadav
2 PW 1/B Site plan PW 1 Amit Yadav
3 PW 3/A Computerized copy of FIR No. No. PW 3 ASI Giri Raj
48/2023 U/s 392/397/34 IPC Prasad Meena
4 PW 3/B Endorsement on rukka PW 3 ASI Giri Raj
Prasad Meena
5 PW 3/C Certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A. PW 3 ASI Giri Raj
Prasad Meena
6 PW 4/A Spot inspection report PW 4 SI Puran Ram
7 PW 5/A Certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A. PW 5 HC Dharam
Raj
8 PW 6/A Copy of original admission form of PW 6 Mohd. Inam
(OSR) Amaan
9 PW 6/X Photostat copy of birth certificate PW 6 Mohd. Inam
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 36 of 39.
attached with the admission form
10 PW 7/A GD No. 49 A PW 7 ASI Dev
Kumar
11 PW 8/A Statement u/s 164 Cr. PC of Ms. PW 8 Adeeba Asif
Adeeba Asif
12 PW 9/A MLC of injured/victim Ramji PW 9 Dr. Purvi
Yadav Dhanraj Mankar
13 PW 9/B MLC of accused Azeem PW 9 Dr. Purvi
Dhanraj Mankar
14 PW 10/A Bill of mobile phone in question PW 10 Sh. Sheesh
Ram Yadav
15 PW 11/A Seizure memo of Blood in Gauze PW 11 HC Sunil
and Earth control (Ex. 1, Ex. 2 and Kumar
Ex. 3)
16 PW 11/B Seizure memo of Blood sample and PW 11 HC Sunil
sample Seal of injured/victim Ramji Kumar
Yadav
17 PW 11/C Seizure memo of Blood stained PW 11 HC Sunil
shirt of injured/victim Ramji Yadav Kumar
18 PW 12/A Statement u/s 161 Cr. PC of PW 12 PW 12 Shahzad
Shahzad
19 PW 13/A Disclosure statement of accused PW 13 HC Pawan
Azeem Kazla
20 PW 13/B Seizure memo of mobile phone PW 13 HC Pawan
POCO Kazla
21 PW 13/C Seizure memo of Mobile Phone PW 13 HC Pawan
(Total 4) u/s 102 Cr. PC Kazla
22 PW 13/D Seizure memo of Scooty PW 13 HC Pawan
DL14SR5426 (Yamaha) Kazla
23 PW 13/E Seizure memo of cloths of Azeem PW 13 HC Pawan
Kazla
24 PW 13/F Disclosure statement of Aman @ PW 13 HC Pawan
Ammu Kazla
25 PW 13/G Seizure memo of surgical blade PW 13 HC Pawan
Kazla
26 PW 13/H Arrest Memo of accused Mohd. PW 13 HC Pawan
Azeem Kazla
27 PW 13/I Arrest Memo of accused Aman @ PW 13 HC Pawan
Ammu Kazla
28 PW 13/J Personal Search Memo of accused PW 13 HC Pawan
Mohd. Azeem Kazla
29 PW 13/K Personal Search Memo of accused PW 13 HC Pawan
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 37 of 39.
Aman @ Ammu Kazla
30 PW 14/A Certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A PW 14 Ct. Gaurav
31 PW 14/B Pen Drive make HP USB PW 14 Ct. Gaurav
32 PW 14/C Four Images PW 14 Ct. Gaurav
Colly
33 PW 15/A Report No.RFSL, PW 15 Saurabh
DLH/523/BIO/171/2023 BIO Pathak
No.168/23 dated 13.11.2023
34 PW 16/A Certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A PW 16 ASI Bikram
Singh
35 PW 17/A CAF with photocopy of Adhar Card PW 17 Prakash Saxen
36 PW 17/B CDR of Mobile No.XXXXX07006 PW 17 Prakash Saxen
37 PW 17/C Certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A PW 17 Prakash Saxen
38 PW 18/A Reply of Sh. Rajiv Vashisht PW 18 Ajay Kumar
39 PW 18/B CAF alongwith photocopy of ID PW 18 Ajay Kumar
40 PW 18/C CDR of Mobile No. XXXXX60537 PW 18 Ajay Kumar
41 PW 18/D Certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A PW 18 Ajay Kumar
42 PW 18/D Certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A PW 18 Ajay Kumar
(sic) PW
18/E
43 PW 21/A Endorsement on Ex. PW 1/A PW 21 ASI Narender
Singh
44 PW 21/B Sketch of site plan of recovery of PW 21 ASI Narender
scooty Singh
45 PW 21/C Notice u/s 133 MV Act PW 21 ASI Narender
Singh
46 PW 21/D Reply of Ms. Adiba Asif to Notice PW 21 ASI Narender
u/s 133 MV Act Singh
3. Chart for material objects/Munddamals
Srl. Material Object Description of the Exhibit Proved
No. Number by/Attested by
1 Ex. P-2/1 Shirt of injured/victim Ramji PW 2 Ramji
Yadav Yadav
2 Ex. P-2/2 Surgical blade PW 2 Ramji
Yadav
3 Ex. P-2/3 One T-shirt and one lower of black PW 2 Ramji
(colly) colour belonging to accused Yadav
Azeem
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 38 of 39.
4 Ex. P-2/4 Mohine Phone make POCO of PW 2 Ramji
injured/victim Yadav
5 Ex. P-5/1 to Photographs PW 5 HC Dharam
Ex. P-7 Raj
6 Ex. P-5 (colly) Mobile phones make Samsung PW 13 Pawan
Note-10 Plus Galzi, HOPE F-2 Kazla
Keypad, Jio keypad phone and one
I-phone
7 Ex. PX-1 TIP of Mohd. Azeem Admitted by both
accused persons
on 02.08.2025
8 Ex. PX-2 Statement u/s 164 Crpc. of Adeeba Admitted by both
Asif accused persons
on 02.08.2025
Digitally
signed by
Pitamber Dutt
Pitamber
Announced in the open Court today Dutt
Date:
2026.02.25
i.e. on 25.02.2026 17:02:56
+0530
(PITAMBER DUTT)
Principal District & Sessions Judge,
New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts New Delhi.
FIR No. 48/2023 Judgment dated 25.02.2026
PS North Avenue. State Vs. Mohd. Azeem @ Ajim & Anr. Page No. 39 of 39.
