Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit Raj@Golu@ Randa on 18 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS:
NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 181/2023)
CNR No. DLND01-004846-2023
FIR No. 20/2023
Police Station Mandir Marg
Charge sheet filed 394/397/75 IPC
Under Section
Charge framed Under 393/394/397 IPC
Section
Rohit Raj @ Golu @ Randa
s/o Late Giri Raj r/o Jhuggi
State Vs. No. C-79/11, Aram Bagh,
Paharganj, Delhi.
Date of institution 24.05.2023
Arguments concluded on 03.07.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 18.07.2026
Decision Convicted u/s 394/398
IPC
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1.1 Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that on
21.01.2023 on receipt of DD No. 64A to the effect that Mandir Marg T-Point,
Delhi Haat Alliance yaha per ek admi unhe or unki wife ko chaku dikha raha
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 1 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:15:09 +0530
tha jisse traffice staff ne pakda hua hai need help, IO SI Abhey Singh
alongwith HC Balkari reached at the spot i.e., Panchkuian Road, Connaught
Place towards near Mandir Marg, T-Point, Red Light, New Delhi where
complainant Harsh Yadav, Traffic police staff HC Krishan Kumar and Ct.
Neeraj alongwith accused Rohit Raj were present. IO made inquiries from
complainant. Thereafter, accused was sent to police station in PCR van
alongwith HC Balkari whereas complainant was sent to LHMC hospital for his
medical examination. Injured was declared fit for statement. Accordingly, IO
recorded statement of injured Harsh Yadav wherein he alleged that on
21.01.2023 at about 09:15 PM he alongwith his wife Nikita Yadav was going
Greater Kailash for dinner from Ashok Vihar via Panchkuian Road. He further
alleged that when he reached at T-Point Red Light, P. K. Road, Mandir Marg,
back side tyre of his car got punctured. He parked his car on side at
Panchkuian Road going towards Connaught Place and was changing the tyre.
He further alleged that at the same time his wife Nikita Yadav also got down
from the car. In the meantime, accused came to his wife, who got scared and
called him (complainant). He further alleged that he immediately rushed to his
wife, who on inquiry informed that accused was threatening her. He further
alleged that when he inquired from accused, he took out a knife from wearing
pants and brandished towards them. He also threatened them to hand over their
belongings i.e., money, mobile, gold chain and bangles to him otherwise he
would kill them. He further alleged that he caught hold the hand of accused to
stop him inflicting injury to them. He further alleged that he raised hue and cry
and on hearing the same, traffic police officials i.e., Ct. Krishan Kumar and Ct.
Neeraj also reached there and accused was handed over to them. He further
alleged that he also called at number 112.
1.2 On the statement of complainant, present FIR was registered.
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 2 of 25 FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.07.18 15:15:15 +0530
Accused was arrested in this case, disclosure statement was recorded and knife
used by the accused was seized. During investigation, site plan of place of
occurrence was prepared and photographs of vehicle of complainant were
obtained. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences under
section 394/397/75 IPC against accused was filed in the court.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order
dated 07.07.2023, charge under sections 393/394/397 IPC was framed against
the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 15
witnesses in all.
LIST OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES
Witness No. Name of Witness Description/Role of witness
PW1 Dr. Mustkim Proved MLC of injured Harsh
Yadav
PW2 Harsh Yadav Injured
PW3 Dr. Nitin Kumar Conducted medical examination
of accused
PW4 Nikita Yadav Eye witness/wife of injured
PW5 HC Krishan Kumar Traffic police official.
Apprehended accused with Ct.
Neeraj.
PW6 Ct. Ravikant Reached at the spot alongwith
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 3 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:15:20 +0530
Ct. Mahipal on receipt of PCR
call at about 09:20 PM.
PW7 Ct. Neeraj Traffic police official.
Apprehended accused with HC
Krishan Kumar.
PW8 Ct. Mahipal Reached at the spot alongwith
Ct. Ravi on receipt of PCR call
at about 09:20 PM.
PW9 Dr. Vinod Proved nature of injury on MLC
of injured as opined by Dr.
Sumit.
PW10 HC Rahul Rathi MHC(M) at PTC Traffic Circle
PW11 HC Balakari Accompanied IO SI Abhay
Singh during investigation.
PW12 Deepak Singh, Consignment Proved certified copy of order
Clerk, Record Room (Central), on sentence dated 23.02.2019 in
Tis Hazari Courts, FIR No. 155/2018 PS Paharganj.
PW13 HC Kavinder MHC(M) PS Mandir Marg
PW14 SI Abhay Singh Investigating Officer
PW15 ASI Om Prakash Duty Officer
DW1 Gulab Devi Owner of e-rickshaw bearing
No. DL-6ER-0615
LIST OF PROSECUTION EXHIBITS
Exhibit number Description of the exhibit Proved by/Attested
by
Ex. PW1/A MLC of injured Harsh Yadav PW1 Dr. Mustkim
Ex. PW2/A Statement
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 4 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:15:26 +0530
PW2 Harsh Yadav
Ex. PW2/B Arrest memo
Ex. PW2/C Seizure memo of pullanda
Ex. PW2/D Seizure memo of photographs of
car
Ex. P1 Knife
Ex. PW3/A Medical examination report of PW3 Dr. Nitin
accused Kumar
Ex. PW5/A Sketch of knife PW5 HC Krishan
Kumar
Ex. PW10/A DD No. 14 PW10 HC Rahul
Rathi
Ex. PW10/B DD No. 22
Ex. PW10/C DD No. 30
Ex. PW11/A Personal search memo PW11 HC Balakari
Ex. PW11/B Disclosure statement of accused
Ex. PW12/A Certified copy of order on sentence PW12 Deepak
dated 23.02.2019 in FIR No. Singh, Consignment
155/2018 PS Paharganj Clerk, Record Room
(Central)
Ex. PW13/A Entry No. 879 in register No. 19 PW13 HC Kavinder
Ex. PW14/A Rukka
PW14 SI Abhay
Ex. PW14/B Site plan Singh
Ex. PW14/C 9 photographs of the car, tyre and
complainant
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 5 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by
DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:15:31 +0530
Ex. PW15/A DD No. 64A
Ex. PW15/B DD No. 66A PW15 ASI Om
Prakash
Ex. PW15/C FIREx. PW15/D Certificate under section 65-B of
Indian Evidence ActEx. DW1/A Agreement dated 14.07.2021 of e- DW1 Gulab Devi
rickshaw bearing No.
DL-6ER-0615FORMAL WITNESSES
4. PW1 Dr. Mustkim deposed that on 22.01.2023 at about 01:12 AM,
he examined patient namely Harsh Yadav vide MLC which is Ex. PW1/A.
5. PW3 Dr. Nitin Kumar deposed that on 22.01.2023, accused Rohit
Raj @ Golu was produced from medical examination. He examined the
accused vide MLC which is Ex. PW3/A.
6. PW9 Dr. Vinod, Senior Resident, Lady Hardinge Hospital, New
Delhi, proved the nature of injury on MLC dated 22.01.2023 of injured Harsh
Yadav as simple as opined by Dr. Sumit.
7. PW10 HC Rahul Rathi proved DD No. 14 as Ex. PW10/A, DD
No. 22 as Ex. PW10/B and DD No. 30 as Ex. PW10/C as entered in roznamcha
register by HC Kuldeep on his instructions.
8. PW12 Deepak Singh, Consignment Clerk, Record Room
(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, brought case file of FIR No. 155/2018 PS
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 6 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:15:37 +0530
Paharganj bearing goshwara No. 74/19. He proved certified copy of order on
sentence dated 23.02.2019 as Ex. PW12/A.
9. PW13 HC Kavinder, being MHC(M), proved entry No. 879 in
register No. 19 as Ex. PW13/A vide which SI Abhay Singh deposited knife in
malkhana on 21.01.2023.
10. PW15 ASI Om Prakash, being duty officer, proved DD No. 64A
as Ex. PW15/A, DD No. 66A as Ex. PW15/B, FIR as Ex. PW15/C and
certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW15/D.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
11.1 PW2 Harsh Yadav, who happens to be injured, deposed that on
21.01.2023 at about 09:15 PM, he alongwith his wife Nikita Yadav were going
for a dinner at G. K., New Delhi on his car bearing No. HP-52B-7785. He
further deposed that when they reached near T-Point Red Light, Panchkuian
Road heading towards Connaught Place side, he felt that left side back tyre of
his car got deflated. He further deposed that he got down from his car whereas
his wife sitting in the car and he was trying to change the tyre with the stapney.
He further deposed that in the meantime accused came from left side of the
road and went to his wife and started threatening his wife while stating that
“tumhare pass jo hai mujhe de do, chain, mobile, gold jewellery, purse, jo bhi
hai de do”. He further deposed that his wife called him for help. He went to her
and she told that accused was threatening her. At that time accused was also
standing there, so he asked as to what happened. He further deposed that
accused also threatened him to give all his belongings to him. Thereafter,
accused took out a knife from his right side back pocket of his wearing jeans
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 7 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by
DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:15:42 +0530
and brandish the knife to him and also threatened to kill him. He further
deposed that he caught the right hand of the accused with his left hand to stop
him for inflicting injuries to them by that knife. He further deposed that
thereafter, accused hit him on his forehead with his left hand 3-4 times due to
which he sustained injuries. He further deposed that he shouted for help and
two traffic police officials, who were on duty at T-Point immediately reached
and helped them. Police officials apprehended the accused at the spot and they
also recovered knife from the hands of accused. He further deposed that he
called at No. 112 and police officials from PCR immediately reached there. He
further deposed that he was medically examined at Lady Harding Medical
College and thereafter, his statement was recorded which is Ex. PW2/A.
Accused was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW2/B and knife was
seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW2/C. He identified his signature of
seizure memo vide which photographs of his car were seized which is Ex.
PW2/D and knife as Ex. P1.
11.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he admitted
that some public persons also gathered at the spot at the time of incident. He
stated that his wife was standing outside the car when accused came to her. He
stated that accused had brandished the knife towards her. He denied that
accused was driving e-rickshaw on the day of incident. He further denied that
due to his e-rickshaw, his car got scratched and due to that reason they had
scuffled on the spot. He further denied that as his tyre got punctured and due to
that reason his car got imbalanced and collided with the e-rickshaw of accused.
12.1 PW4 Nikita Yadav, deposed on the lines of PW2 Harsh Yadav in
her examination in chief.
12.2 During her cross examination on behalf of accused, she deposed SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 8 of 25 FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.07.18 15:15:49 +0530
that when the trye of the car got punctured, she was sitting adjacent to the
driver seat in the front. She stated that while driving the car, her husband
sensed some problem in the tyre of the car, therefore, the car was stopped and
trye was checked. She stated that when her husband was checking the trye, she
remained in the car for around 5-10 minutes. She stated that initially, she went
near to her husband to inquire about the status of the tyre, thereafter, she saw
that accused seeing in the car from the window where she was sitting on this
she raised alarm and asked him “what he was seeing in the car”. She admitted
that nobody from the public came for her help. She stated that traffic police
officials were standing at near by traffic signals which was also near to the
place where their car was parked. She stated that on raising of alarm by her and
her husband, police officials came at the spot. She admitted that when her
husband was changing the tyre, nobody from the public helped him. She stated
that knife which the accused was holding, was taken by the police and same
was a kitchen knife. She denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of
accused.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
13.1 PW5 HC Krishan Kumar deposed that on 21.01.2023, he was on
duty at Panchkuian Road from 03:00 PM to 11:00 PM. He further deposed that
at about 09:00 PM, when he was present at T Point of Mandir Marg alongwith
Ct. Neeraj and they were managing/regulating the heavy traffic, he heard a
noise “bachao bachao” which was coming from the side of Panchkuian Road
going towards Connaught Place. He further deposed that he alongwith Ct.
Neeraj immediately rushed towards the spot. On the spot, he saw that accused
was having a knife in his hand and the person, who was shouting for help was
holding the right hand of accused in which he held the knife. He further
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 9 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:15:57 +0530
deposed that he alongwith Ct. Neeraj apprehended the accused and recovered
the knife from him. He further deposed that vehicle owner/complainant made a
call at PCR. After sometime, PCR officials reached at the spot and they handed
over the accused alongwith recovered knife to PCR officials. He further
deposed that IO seized the knife after preparing its sketch which is Ex. PW5/A
and arrested the accused.
13.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he admitted
that sketch of the knife was not prepared in his presence. He stated that the said
knife was not taken by him from the accused when he overpowered him. He
admitted that at that time 1-2 persons were standing at a distance of 10-15
meters. He admitted that he handed over the accused to local police and
thereafter, accused was formally arrested. He admitted that accused was
arrested in Police Station Mandir Marg. He denied all the suggestions put forth
on behalf of accused.
14.1 PW6 Ct. Ravikant, deposed that on 21.01.2023 at about 09:20
PM, on receipt of PCR call qua an information from Control Room that at
Mandir Marg, Delhi Haat Alliance Hospital “yahan par ek aadmi unhe aur unki
wife ko chaku dikha raha hai, jise traffic staff ne pakda hua hai “, he alongwith
Ct. Mahipal (driver) reached at the spot i.e., Panchkuian Road, Connaught
Place, Near Mandir Marg Red Light, New Delhi. He further deposed that at the
spot, they met complainant Harsh Yadav, who was present alongwith his wife
Nikita Yadav and their car was parked at the spot. He further deposed that
traffic police staff also held accused and he was shouting that ” tum mera kuch
nahi bigad sakte, mere khilaf phele bhi 10-15 case chal rahe hain “. He further
deposed that in the meantime, IO also reached at the spot alongwith HC
Balkari. IO inquired the matter from the complainant and thereafter, accused
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 10 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir MargDigitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:16:04 +0530
was sent to police station in PCR van.
14.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated
that site plan was not prepared in his presence. Sketch of the knife was
prepared by the IO in his presence. He admitted that public persons gathered
when he reached at the spot. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf
of accused.
15.1 PW7 Ct. Neeraj deposed on the lines of PW5 HC Krishan Kumar
qua apprehension of accused during his examination in chief.
15.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated
that distance between their position and the position of complainant and
accused was around 15-20 meters. He admitted that public persons had
gathered there when they reached at the spot. He denied all the suggestions put
forth on behalf of accused.
16.1 PW8 Ct. Mahipal deposed on the lines of PW6 Ct. Ravikant in his
examination in chief.
16.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated
that he stated that site plan and sketch of knife were not prepared by the IO in
his presence. He stated that knife was not taken by him from the accused when
he overpowered him. He admitted that 1-2 persons were standing at a distance
of 10-15 meters. He stated that photographs of the vehicle were not taken by
the IO in his presence. He admitted that they handed over the accused to local
police and thereafter, accused was formally arrested in police station Mandir
Marg. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
17.1 PW11 HC Balakari deposed that on 21-22.01.2023, SI Abhay SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 11 of 25 FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.07.18 15:16:09 +0530
received DD No. 64A and thereafter, he alongwith him went to the spot i.e., T-
Point, Red Light, Panchkuian Road, Mandir Marg, Delhi where they met
complainant Harsh Yadav, his wife and two traffic staff HC Krishan and Ct.
Neeraj (PCR staff) and accused. He further deposed that complainant told IO
that accused had tried to rob his mobile, cash, golden chain and bangles as well
as from his wife after showing knife and threatening for their life but could not
succeed due to intervention of traffic police staff. He further deposed that
traffic staff i.e., HC Krishan Kumar handed over accused to them as well as a
knife having blue colour handle. He further deposed that IO prepared sketch
memo of knife and seized the same. Accused was sent to police station Mandir
Marg through PCR can and he also accompanied the accused in the PCR van.
He further deposed that accused was shouting in PCR van ” tum mera kunch
nahi bigad sakte, mere khilaf phele he 10-15 case chal rahe hain”. He further
deposed that complainant was taken to hospital by IO. After sometime, IO
alongwith complainant came at police station and on the basis of statement of
complainant, he prepared tehrir and got the FIR registered. He further deposed
that IO arrested the accused, conducted his personal search vide personal
search memo which is Ex. PW11/A and recorded his disclosure statement
which is Ex. PW11/B. He further deposed that complainant handed over the
photographs his vehicle bearing No. HP-52B-7785 to IO.
17.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated
that he did not make any DD entry regarding his departure, however, DD No.
64A was recorded for their departure. He stated that they reached at the spot
within 10 minutes. HC Krishan from traffic police had already apprehended
the accused at the spot when they reached there. He denied all the suggestions
put forth on behalf of accused.
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 12 of 25 FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.07.18 15:16:14 +0530 18.1 PW14 SI Abhay Singh, being the IO, deposed about the
investigation carried out by him and on the lines of PW11 HC Balakari during
his examination in chief. He exhibited rukka as Ex. PW14/A, site plan
prepared at the instance of complainant as Ex. PW14/B and 09 photographs of
the car as Ex. PW14/C.
18.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated
that except the complainant and his wife, no other public person were present
near the spot. He admitted that knife was never sent for examination to FSL.
No independent public witness was examined when he prepared the seizure
memo of the knife. He stated that as per his observation, there were only
abrasion injuries and there was no sharp cut on the person of the complainant
or his wife. He stated that he prepared the site plan at the instance of
complainant at the spot. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of
accused.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
19.1 After closure of PE, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313
Cr.P.C. on 04.05.2026, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence put to
him. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
He stated that an accident took place between car of the complainant and e-
rickshaw which was being driven by him on that day. Due to which the car got
scratched and thus, they have falsely implicated him in the present case.
19.2 Accused opted to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE 20.1 DW1 Gulab Devi deposed that she is owner of e-rickshaw bearing SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 13 of 25 FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.07.18 15:16:20 +0530
No. DL-6ER-0615 model No. Udaan Colour Green Make 2017 bearing chassis
No. M5LEEVUD16L000516, Engine No. EEVM516 which was purchased
from Raj s/o Sh. Shiv Narayan vide agreement dated 14.07.2021 which is Ex.
DW1/A (colly) (OSR) for her son Rohit Raj for earning his livelihood.
20.2 She further deposed that on the day of incident i.e., on 21.01.2023,
the said e-rickshaw was being driven by her son which got collied with the car
of the complainant due to which a quarrel took place between them and false
FIR has been registered by the complainant against her son. She further
deposed that her son did not commit any robbery with the complainant.
20.3 During cross examination done on behalf of State, she stated that
her son Rohit Raj did not have any driving license. She denied that on
21.01.2023 at about 09:15 PM at Panchkuyian Road Towards, Connaught
Place near Mandir Marg, T-Point Red Light, New Delhi, accused committed
robbery and he used a deadly weapon i.e., knife which was recovered from his
possession in commission of said robbery. She further denied that on
21.01.2023, accused was neither driving the said e-rickshaw nor the same
collided with the car of the complainant.
21. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
22. I have heard Sh. A. B. Asthana, Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ms.
Rukaya Rashid, Ld. Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for accused.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
23. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the allegations levelled against
the accused are of serious nature as he tried to commit robbery by showing a
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 14 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:16:26 +0530
deadly weapon i.e., knife to the complainant as well as his wife and threatened
them to handover all the valuable articles to him. When the complainant tried
to intervene, he extended threat to kill them. Accused was apprehended at the
spot in possession of the knife used by him in the crime. Prosecution has
proved its case on the basis of credible testimonies of PW2 and PW4 and they
have correctly identified the accused and duly supported the case of the
prosecution. The presence of accused and recovery of the weapon are also
proved by PW5 HC Krishan Kumar and PW7 Ct. Neeraj. Prosecution has also
proved the fact that injury suffered by complainant Harsh Yadav were simple
in nature which were inflicted by the accused. Therefore, prosecution has
proved its case against accused under section 393/394/397 IPC.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly
proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the
witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelieved and for this
reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC
625 .
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
24. Per contra, Ld. Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for
accused has argued that this is a false and concocted case foisted against the
accused. It was submitted that accused had an altercation with the complainant
as his battery rickshaw collided with the car of the complainant and it got
scratched. Complainant has framed the accused with the allegations of armed
robbery and no such attempt was ever made by the accused. Prosecution has
failed to prove the fact that accused had manhandled the wife of the
complainant or he had any scuffle with the complainant himself. Complainant
deposed that he called the police seven times from 09:15-09:30 PM which is
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 15 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:16:30 +0530
not possible as the incident which was allegedly so grave in nature was in a
continuance in the said period. If accused had used the knife during the alleged
offence then injuries could have been more serious in nature and the injuries
are not corroborating with the oral testimonies of PW2 and PW4. It is further
stated that no public witness was examined by the IO who could have
corroborated the version of the complainant and his wife. It is further pointed
out that IO did not place on record the CCTV footage of the spot intentionally
to falsely implicate the accused. It is stated that as per the version of the
complainant his car got punctured but IO never verified this fact during
investigation. It was further argued that prosecution has miserably failed to
prove its case against accused. Hence, accused is entitled to be given benefit
of doubt and he may be acquitted accordingly.
25. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
26. The accused Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa is charged for the
commission of offence punishable under section 393/394/397 IPC.
27. The relevant section is reproduced as under:
SECTION 393 IPC
Attempt to commit robbery-Whoever attempts to
commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 394 IPC
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 16 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:16:35 +0530
Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery- If
any person, in committing or in attempting to
commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such
person, and any other person jointly concerned in
committing or attempting to commit such robbery,
shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 397 IPC
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.
28. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is
believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is
called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled
to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle
finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1
incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section
2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in
criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused
in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on
06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 17 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir MargDigitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:16:41 +0530
“the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot
be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved.It
is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he
is deemed to be innocent…….. A fundamental postulate of
criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence
meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until
found guilty……….
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is
for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
29. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on
behalf of the prosecution.
30. The star witness of the prosecution in this case are PW2 Harsh
Yadav (complainant) and PW4 Nikita Yadav (wife of the complainant). They
were travelling in their car on the date of incident and the car got punctured at
Red Light Panchukiya Road heading towards Connaught Place. When the
complainant was changing the punctured tyre, accused came near the said car
and threatened her to hand over all the belongings. When she shouted for help,
her husband intervened but accused also threatened PW2 and took out a knife
and brandished the same to threaten the complainant. He also punched PW2 on
his forehead. PW2 and PW4 shouted for help and accused was apprehended at
the spot by PW5 and PW7, who were police officials over there.
31. PW2 and PW4 have thoroughly supported the case of the
prosecution by narrating the incident occurred with them and correctly
identified the accused. It is pleaded on behalf of accused that he had a
collusion with the car of the complainant when he was driving e-rickshaw on
that day and due to that collusion they had an altercation with each other.
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 18 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:16:46 +0530
Material witnesses have been cross examined on this aspect and suggestions
have been given to them on this issue.
32. To prove this defence, no evidence has been led by the accused
that he was driving e-rickshaw on that day. He has examined DW1 Gulabi
Devi, who deposed that she is the owner of the e-rickshaw but it is nowhere
proved by her that accused Rohit Raj was driving the same on the date and
time of the incident. Even if it is believed that PW2 and PW4 have deposed
falsely against the accused as their car got damaged by the alleged collusion,
still this defence lacks substance in it. PW5 HC Krishan Kumar and PW7 Ct.
Neeraj were the first persons, who reached to help out the complainant and his
wife. Both these police officials were present at the spot in the capacity of
traffic police officials and their presence were duly proved at the spot on the
basis of their duty roster. They are also silent whether any e-rickshaw was
present at the spot or not.
33. PW6 Ct. Ravikant was on duty at PCR van, who reached at the
spot. He is also silent whether any e-rickshaw was present there or not. In fact,
all the police officials including IO PW14 SI Abhay Singh have not deposed
about presence of any e-rickshaw at the spot. So, the defence that accused had
a collusion with the car of the complainant with his e-rickshaw could not be
substantiated by him during the trial and it is of no avail to him in the present
case.
34. It is also argued on behalf of accused that IO failed to examine the
public witnesses despite their availability at the spot and there is no
corroboration of PW2 and PW4 that accused had tried to commit robbery with
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 19 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:16:51 +0530
the help of a knife. It is also argued that IO did not collect the CCTV footage
of the camera installed around the spot.
35. The issue of absence of public witness during investigation has
been deliberated over many a times by higher courts. In State Vs. Sunil and
Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 652, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“It need hardly be said that in order to lend assurance that the investigation
has been proceeding in fair and honest manner, it would be necessary for the
Investigating Officer to take independent witnesses to the discovery under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act; and without taking independent
witnesses and taking highly interested persons and the police officers as the
witnesses to the discovery would render the discovery, at least, not free from
doubt.
In this context we may point out that there is no requirement either under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, to obtain signature of independent witnesses on the record in
which statement of an accused is written. The legal obligation to call
independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness
the exercise made by the police is cast on the police officer when searches
are made under Chapter VII of the Code. Section 100(5) of the Code requires
that such search shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized
in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively
found, shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such
witnesses. It must be remembered that search is made to find out a thing or
document which the searching officer has no prior idea where the thing or
document is kept. He prowls for it either on reasonable suspicion or on some
guess work that it could possibly be ferreted out in such prowling. It is a
stark reality that during searches the team which conducts search would have
to meddle with lots of other articles and documents also and in such process
many such articles or documents are likely to be displaced or even strewn
helter-skelter. The legislative idea in insisting on such searches to be made in
the presence of two independent inhabitants of the locality is to ensure the
safety of all such articles meddled with and to protect the rights of the
persons entitled thereto. But recovery of an object pursuant to the
information supplied by an accused in custody is different from the searching
endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code. This Court has indicated
the difference between the two processes in the Transport Commissioner,
Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & anr. vs. S. Sardar Ali & ors. (1983 SC 1225).
Following observations of Chinnappa Reddy, J. can be used to support the
said legal proposition: Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code to which
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 20 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir MargDigitally signed
by
DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:16:56 +0530
reference was made by the counsel deals with searches and not seizures. In
the very nature of things when property is seized and not recovered during a
search, it is not possible to comply with the provisions of sub-section (4) and
(5) of section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of a seizure
[under the Motor Vehicles Act], there is no provision for preparing a list of
the things seized in the course of the seizure for the obvious reason that all
those things are seized not separately but as part of the vehicle itself.
Hence it is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to
any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the
Investigating Officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily
be attested by independent witnesses. Of course, if any such statement leads
to recovery of any article it is open to the Investigating Officer to take the
signature of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for
such recovery. But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to
affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a
proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must
be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The court has to
consider the evidence of the Investigating Officer who deposed to the fact of
recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth.
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 British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hang
over 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 recognised 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 materials, 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 the 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.
36. In Rizwan Khan Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2020
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 21 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:17:01 +0530
SUPREME COURT 4297, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be
rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by independent witness. As
observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, examination of
independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-
examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case, [see “Pardeep
Kumar (supra)].
In the recent decision in the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab,
(2020) 2 SCC 563, while considering somewhat similar submission of non-
examination of independent witnesses, while dealing with the offence under
the NDPS Act, in paragraphs 15 and 16, this Court observed and held as
under:
“15. The judgment in Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 521,
relied on by the counsel for the respondent State also supports the case of the
prosecution. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held that merely
because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not
necessarily lead to conclusion that the accused was falsely implicated. The
evidence of official witnesses cannot be distrusted and disbelieved, merely
on account of their official status.
As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way round. That
official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of
presumption and recognised even by the legislature.”
37. It is correct that there were public persons gathered at the spot
when accused was apprehended by PW5 and PW7 with the help of the
complainant and none of the public witness was examined by the IO but law
remains the same that it is the quality of the witness which is material rather
than the quantity. A person can be convicted on the basis of sole and reliable
testimony of witness. In the present case testimonies of PW2 and PW4 inspire
confidence of this court which are duly corroborated by PW5 and PW7.
Moreover, accused has not pleaded that he had any previous enmity with the
complainant and that is why he has been falsely implicated in this case.
Examining witnesses and collection of evidence i.e., CCTV footage in a case is
a job of investigating officer and if that is not done by him, testimonies of
complainant and his wife cannot be brushed aside. Ideally, CCTV footage
should have been collected by the IO but absence of the same cannot reduce
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 22 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:17:06 +0530
the importance of ocular testimony of the victim and his wife. Lacunas in the
investigation which do not go to the roots of the case needs to be ignored and
are of secondary importance. If prosecution is able to prove its case against the
accused on material aspects then minor lacunas committed by the IO are of no
consequence. Therefore, absence of public person has no bearing to the
outcome of this case.
38. It is also argued on behalf of accused that PW14 SI Abhay Singh
stated that colour of the handle of the knife was blue whereas in the seizure
memo it is mentioned as yellow. It is correct that PW14 has deposed so but this
aspect is again of secondary importance as far as merits of the case are
concerned. Minor contradictions during the recording of evidence are bound to
be occur and they need to be ignored if they are not affecting the merits of the
case. The material aspect is that whether accused had used the knife or not
during the offence and whether it was recovered from his possession or not.
The answer of both these questions are in affirmative and hence, colour of the
knife stated by PW14 SI Abhay Singh is covered under the category of minor
contradiction and same is of no significance in this matter.
39. It is also argued that it was improbable for the complainant to call
the police seven times from 09:15 PM to 09:30 PM and at that time the
incident was still in continuance. I do not find any abnormality on the part of
the complainant because accused and complainant were grappling with each
other. Accused was armed with a knife and complainant caught hold of his
hand to apprehend him. Therefore, he might have called the police seven times
between the time span of 15 minutes to save himself and his wife from the
aggressive conduct of the accused. So, this argument is of no significant in this
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 23 of 25
FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:17:13 +0530
case.
40. Prosecution has proved the fact that complainant had suffered
simple injury during the incident and MLC of the complainant has been proved
by PW9 Dr. Vinod. This witness has not been cross examined by the defence
and there is no denial of the fact that complainant was not medically examined
on the date of incident or he did not suffer the injury as mentioned in the MLC
on that day. Complainant had a swelling on his left supra orbital region which
was caused due to injury caused by the accused. So, it is duly proved that
accused had assaulted the complainant on that day.
41. Accused has been charged under section 393/394/397 IPC. The
ingredients of section 394 IPC are duly proved against accused as he
voluntarily caused hurt to PW2 Harsh Yadav while attempting to commit
robbery and he stands convicted under section 394 IPC. Accused is also
charged under section 397 IPC but section 398 IPC is applicable in the present
case as it is duly proved by the prosecution that accused was armed with
deadly weapon i.e., knife while attempting to commit robbery. Section 397 IPC
contemplates a situation where deadly weapon is used while committing
robbery or dacoity. In the present case, accused could not complete the offence
of robbery and it was barely an attempt to do so. Since, offence of robbery
could not be completed, so it is beyond the purview of section 397 IPC.
Prosecution is an effort to prove section 397 IPC had actually proved section
398 IPC against the accused. However, facts were same throughout the entire
trial. Therefore, by virtue of section 222 CrPC, accused stands convicted under
section 398 IPC.
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 24 of 25 FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.07.18 15:17:18 +0530 CONCLUSION
42. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, this court is of the
considered view that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the
accused to the effect that he attempted to commit robbery from PW2 Harsh
Yadav and PW4 Nikita Yadav by using a deadly weapon i.e., knife. He also
caused simple injury to PW2 Harsh Yadav by giving a fist blow on his
forehead. Hence, accused is convicted for committing offences punishable
under section 394/398 IPC. Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.07.18
15:17:24 +0530Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana)
Court on 18.07.2026 ASJ-07, Patiala House Courts,
(running in 25 pages) New Delhi.
SC No. 181/2023 State Vs. Rohit @ Raj @ Golu @ Randa Page No. 25 of 25 FIR No. 20/2023 PS Mandir Marg
