Delhi District Court
State vs Vikaram@Vikki on 20 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)- 03; SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT SAKET COURTS: DELHI
S.C. NO. 70/2020
FIR NO. 187/2019
PS KALINDI KUNJ
U/S. 394/397/411/34 IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.
CNR : DLSE01-000499-2020
THE STATE
VERSUS
1. VIKRAM @ VIKKI
S/O SH. GAJENDER
R/O. H. NO. 1098, PHASE-III,
J. J. COLONY, MADANPUR KHADAR,
NEW DELHI.
2. TRILOK @ CHINTU @ SONU
S/O SH. ARJUN SINGH
R/O. H. NO. 1193, PHASE-III,
J. J. COLONY, MADANPUR KHADAR,
NEW DELHI.
3. ABLAM @ ALAM
S/O SH. KESRI
R/O. H. NO. 296, RAJ NAGAR PHASE-III,
J. J. COLONY, MADANPUR KHADAR,
NEW DELHI.
... ACCUSED PERSONS
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:20:19
+0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 1 of 31
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 06.11.2019
ORDER RESERVED ON : 16.04.2026
ORDER DELIVERED ON : 20.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely Vikram @ Vikki, Trilok @
Chintu @ Sonu and Ablam @ Alam are facing trial for the offence
punishable u/s. 394/397/411/34 IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The case of Prosecution is that on the receipt of DD no. 4A,
ASI Ram Kishore alongwith Ct. Sunil reached at the spot i.e. Pushta
road, Kalindi Kunj near Yamuna ghat where they met SHO along
with the police officials namely ASI Jitender, Ct. Ravi, HC Saurabh
Kumar and Ct. Vinod and they handed over complainant Abrar Alam
and accused Vikram @ Vikki and Trilok Chand and auto bearing no.
DLIRS-0099 to the ASI Ram Kishore and accused Ablam was taken
to the hospital by the PCR van. ASI Ram Kishore inquired from the
complainant and from the cursory search of accused Trilok Chand @
Chintu one buttondar knife was recovered from left side pocket of his
jeans pant and one mobile phone, wallet and some cash was recovered
from right side pocket of his jeans pant which were taken into
possession by ASI Ram Kishore. From the cursory search of accused
Vikram @ Vikki one mobile phone was recovered from right side
pocket of his lower garment which was also taken into possession by
ASI Ram Kishore. The statement of the complainant was recorded
who stated that “on 21.05.2019 during Ramzan period, he was going
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:20:33
+0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 2 of 31
back to his home at Noida from Batla House after shopping and was
waiting for auto at auto stand near Park no. 9; that around 01:00 am,
one auto bearing no. 0099 stopped near him in which two persons
were sitting on the back side and one was driving the said auto and he
agreed to take him to Noida; that one of the passengers sitting at the
back came down from auto for smoking and he sat in between those
two passengers; that after some time the driver drove the said auto on
the wrong side towards loop pul; that one person sitting at the back
checked his pockets to see whether he was carrying any weapon and
then punched him; that one person sitting on his right side put knife
on his belly and when he cried for help, the auto driver stopped the
auto and caught hold of his hands and the other two persons took out
his two mobile phones make Oppo F11 and Oppo F3 Plus, Aadhar
card and purse containing Rs. 350/- from his pant; that seeing one car
coming from behind the auto driver tried to run away from there and
when he shouted, one of them bite on his left hand; that the other
person tried to ran away but the car coming from behind was a police
vehicle and it chased the said auto which turned turtle after some
distance and all of them were apprehended by police “. On the
statement of injured the present FIR was registered u/s.
394/397/411/34 IPC and under section 25/27 of Arms Act and
chargesheet was filed against accused persons.
3. On the basis of charge-sheet so submitted before Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate, cognizance of offence was taken by the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate and after compliance with the provisions of
Section 207 Cr.PC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:20:39 +0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 3 of 31
and was assigned to this Court.
CHARGE
4. After hearing arguments on point of charge and finding a
prima facie case against accused persons, requisite charges 394/34
IPC was framed against accused persons Vikram @ Vikki, Trilok @
Chintu @ Sonu and Ablam @ Alam. In addition u/s. 411 IPC is also
framed against accused Vikram @ Vikki and Trilok @ Chintu. In
addition u/s. 397 IPC and u/s. 25/27 Arms Act is also framed against
accused Trilok @ Chintu @ Sonu to which they all pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
5. CHART OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution Name of Description
witness no. witness
PW-1 Sh. Abrar He is the complainant in the present case.
Alam
PW-2 Sh. Babu Lal He is the owner of the auto in which the
alleged crime was committed.
PW-3 Sh. Puneet He is the one who sold the mobile phones
Gupta make Oppo F-11 Pro and Oppo F-3 Plus to
complainant Sh. Abrar Alam.
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date: 2026.04.20 15:20:45 +0530 S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS. Page no. 4 of 31 PW-4 HC Ravi He joined the SHO during the Kumar investigation and was part of the team who
apprehended and personally searched the
accused Vikram @ Vikki and shifted
injured Ablam to the hospital.
PW-5 Insp. Babu He is the second Investigating officer of
Lal the present case.
PW-6 Sh. Rajinder He identified the signature of Dr. Roshan
Singh, Lal on the MLC of injured Abrar Alam Ex.
Record PW6/A who had left the services of
Clerk hospital.
AIIMS
hospital
PW-7 HC He was part of the investigating team who
Bhagwan arrested, personally searched and recorded
Sahay disclosure statement of accused Ablam
which are Ex. PW7/A, Ex. PW7/B and
Mark 7/A.
PW-8 Insp. Sanjay He is the SHO of the PS who reached at
Sinha the spot at first instance.
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:20:57
+0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 5 of 31
PW-9 HC Sunil He was part of the investigating team who
Kumar registered the present FIR and personally
searched the accused Trilok @ Chintu and
Vikram @ Vikki.
PW-10 SI Ram He is the first Investigating officer of the
Kishore present case.
PW-11 Insp. Ajay He obtained ownership document of auto
Katewa bearing no. DL1RS0099 from Registering
authority, Burari, Auto Unit, Delhi.
PW-12 Insp. Amit He is also the Investigating officer of the
Pratap Singh present case.
6. DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF THE
PROSECUTION.
Exhibit Description of the Proved by/
Nos. Exhibits attested by
Ex. PW1/A Statement of complainant PW-1 Sh. Abrar
Alam
Ex. PW1/B Site plan of the place of PW-1 Sh. Abrar
incident Alam
Ex. PW1/C Sketch memo of buttondar PW-1 Sh. Abrar
knife Alam
Ex. PW1/D Seizure memo of knife PW-1 Sh. Abrar
Alam
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:21:04 +0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 6 of 31
Ex. PW1/E Seizure memo of auto PW-1 Sh. Abrar
bearing no. DL1RS0099 Alam
Ex. PW1/F Seizure memo of mobile PW-1 Sh. Abrar
make Oppo Gold and Alam
white colour
Ex. PW1/G Seizure memo of mobile PW-1 Sh. Abrar
make Oppo F-11, Pan Alam
card, Aadhar card and Rs.
350/- of the complainant.
Ex. PW1/H Arrest memo of accused PW-1 Sh. Abrar
Trilok. AlamEx. PW1/I Arrest memo of accused PW-1 Sh. Abrar
Vikram @ Vikki. AlamEx. PW1/J Personal search memo of PW-1 Sh. Abrar
accused Trilok. AlamEx. PW1/K Personal search memo of PW-1 Sh. Abrar
accused Vikram @ Vikki. AlamEx. PW3/A Mobile bill of Oppo F-11 PW-3 Sh. Puneet
Pro. GuptaEx. PW3/B Mobile bill of Oppo F-3 PW-3 Sh. Puneet
Plus. Gupta.
Ex. PW5/A Disclosure statement of PW-5 Insp. Babu
accused Vikram @ Vikki. Lal
Ex. PW5/B Disclosure statement of PW-5 Insp. Babu
accused Trilok Chand. Lal
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:21:11 +0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 7 of 31
Ex. PW5/C Seizure memo of bag PW-5 Insp. Babu
colour bag. Lal
Ex. PW5/D Pointing out memo of PW-5 Insp. Babu
place of occurrence Lal
Ex. PW5/E Site plan of pointing out PW-5 Insp. Babu
memo of accused. LalEx. PW5/F Pointing out memo of PW-5 Insp. Babu
place of occurrence. LalEx. PW6/A MLC of injured Abrar PW-6 Rajinder
Alam. Singh, Record
Clerk
Ex. PW7/A Arrest memo of accused PW-7 HC
Ablam. Bhagwan SahayEx. PW7/B Personal search memo of PW-7 HC
accused Ablam. Bhagwan SahayMark Disclosure statement of PW-7 HC
PW7/C accused Ablam. Bhagwan SahayEx.PW10/A Rukka PW-10 SI Ram
KishoreEx.PW11/A Letter for providing PW-11 Insp. Ajay
ownership information Katewa
regarding the vehicle
bearing no. DL1RS0099Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:21:22
+0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 8 of 31
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS
Material Description of exhibit Proved by /
object no. attested by
Ex.P-2 Knife PW-1 Sh.
Abrar Alam
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the
incriminating material was put to all accused persons under Section
313 Cr.PC. Accused Vikram @ Vikki and Trilok @ Chintu @ Sonu
pleaded innocence and stated that they are innocent and they have
been falsely implicated in the present case; that they were not present
at the spot; that they were apprehended by the police from their
residence; that thereafter police official also falsely implicated them in
the other case.
7.1. Accused Ablam @ Alam pleaded innocence and stated that
he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case;
that on the date of incident, he was going to his house through his auto
and it was turtle due to which he sustained injuries and complainant
was not sitting in his auto at that time. Though all accused persons
took the plea of being innocent in their statements u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C.
but preferred not to lead defence evidence and matter was fixed for
final arguments. Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:21:28 +0530S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 9 of 31
ARGUMENTS
8. Ld. Addl.P.P. has argued that PW-1 Sh. Abrar has fully
supported the case of Prosecution and disclosed the role of all accused
persons; that accused persons were apprehended near the place of
incident; that the testimony of complainant is also corroborated by the
complaint as well as the testimonies of police officials; that the case
property of the complainant were recovered at the instance of accused
persons; that PW-1 had also deposed that deadly weapon i.e. knife
was used by one of the accused namely Trilok @ Chintu @ Sonu in
committing robbery with him; that the common intention of all
accused persons is fully established before this Court by way of
testimony of PW-1; that PW-1 had identified all accused persons
before this Hon’ble Court; that the case properties which were
recovered at the instance of the accused persons have been identified
by PW-1; that the testimony of PW-1 is fully reliable and there are no
contradiction and improvement duly established by the Ld. Defence
Counsel; that the medical document is also supported the case of
Prosecution; that no ground was established by Ld. Defence Counsel
as to why accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present
case; that police witnesses have also supported the case of Prosecution
regarding the recovery of weapon of offence and case property; that it
is settled principle of law that testimony of police witnesses cannot be
discarded only on the ground that they are the official witnesses.
Therefore it has been prayed before this Court that accused persons
should be convicted for the offences charged.
8.1 Per contra, it was argued from the side of accused persons
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ 15:21:39
STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.+0530
Page no. 10 of 31
that all accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present
case; that recovery of knife and mobile were not effected in the
presence of the complainant; that there is no mention in the MLC
regarding the injuries suffered by the complainant on his left hand;
that ASI Babu Ram deposed that nothing was recovered from Trilok
or victim in his presence; that no public witness was joined in the
recovery proceedings; that there is no signatures of any police
officials on the documents prepared by the IO; that no Aadhar card or
mobile number was taken by the police from the injured. In view of
the same it has been prayed that accused persons be acquitted of the
offences charged.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
9. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld.
Counsel for all accused persons and perused the record.
9.1. The offences u/s. 394/397/411/34 IPC and Section 25/27 of
Arms Act are under consideration in the present case which are
reproduced below for the sake of convenience:-
Section 394: Voluntarily caused hurt in committed 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. The
point requiring proof are:
i. That the accused committed or attempted to commit, or
was concerned in the commission of robbery; Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:21:57
+0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 11 of 31
ii. That in doing so the accused or some other person so
concerned caused hurt;
iii. That the hurt was caused voluntarily
9.2. Section 392: Punishment for robbery: Whoever commits
robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if
the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise,
the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
9.3. Section 392 IPC provides the punishment for robbery and
section 390 IPC deals with the offence of robbery. It states that in all
robbery there is either theft or extortion and in the given facts and
circumstances, there is aggravated form of theft due to actual
attempted violence or by causing fear of violence. The point requiring
proof are:
I. Where theft is robbery:-
i. That the property in question is movable property;
ii. That it was in possession of a person;
iii. That the accused moved it;
iv. That he did so without the consent of the possessor;
v. That he did so in order to take it out of his possession;
vi. and with intent to cause wrongful gain to himself or
wrongful loss to the possessor.
vii. That the accused caused or attempted to cause death, or
hurt or wrongful restraint to any person, or that he
attempted to cause or caused fear of instant death or
instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint;
viii. that he did so voluntarily;
ix. That he did it, in order to commit theft, or in committing
theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:22:02
+0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 12 of 31
property obtained by theft.
Before a person can be convicted for robbery, the intention to
commit theft or the commission of theft by him must be
established. If that is not established, the appellants are entitled
to be acquitted of the offence of robbery.
II. Where extortion is robbery:-
i. that the accused put such person in fear of instant
death, hurt or wrongful restraint;
ii. that he was then in the presence of such person;
iii. that he did so intentionally;
iv. that he thereby dishonestly induced that person to
delivery any property etc.
9.4. Section 397: 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 hut
to any person, or 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.
9.5. Section 397 IPC deals with the robbery or dacoity with attempt
to cause death or grievous hurt. In order to attract Section 397 IPC it
is necessary to establish that at the time of committing robbery or
dacoity, the offender had used any deadly weapon or had caused
grievous hurt to any person or had attempted to cause death or
grievous hurt to any person.
9.6. Section 411 IPC deals with dishonestly receiving the stolen
property. For the sake of convenience section 411 IPC is reproduced
Digitally signed
below:- by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:22:09 +0530S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 13 of 31
“Who ever dishonestly receives or retains any
property stolen property, knowing or having reason to
believe the same to be stolen property, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extent to three years or with fine or
with both.”
9.7. The necessary ingredients of section 411 IPC are as under:-
(1) That a theft was committed and certain articles were stolen
and
(2) that the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of
the accused.
9.8. Section 25 Arms Act provides punishment for manufacturing,
selling, transferring, converting, repairing, or tests or proves or
exposes or offers for sale or transfer or has in his possession for sale,
transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in
contravention of section 5.
OCULAR EVIDENCE
10. The case of the Prosecution is that all accused persons robbed
mobile phones and purse containing cash and documents from one Sh.
Abrar Alam and accused Trilok @ Chintu @ Sonu used deadly
weapon i.e. knife while committing the said offence. In order to prove
its case, the Prosecution has examined complainant as well as injured
Sh. Abrar Alam who is the star witness of the case.
10.1. Complainant/ injured Sh. Abrar Alam was examined as
PW-1 and he has deposed that “on 21.05.2019 during Ramzan period,
he was going back to his home at Noida from Batla House after
shopping and was waiting for auto at auto stand near Park no. 9; that
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:22:15
+0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 14 of 31
around 01:00 am, one auto bearing no. 0099 stopped near him in
which accused namely Vikram and Trilok @ Chintu were sitting on
the back side and accused Ablam was driving the said auto and he
agreed to take him to Noida; that one of the passengers sitting at the
back i.e. accused Trilok Chand came down from auto for smoking
and he sat in between those two passengers i.e. accused Trilok Chand;
that after some time the driver i.e. accused Ablam @ Alam drove the
said auto on the wrong side towards loop pul; that accused Vikram @
Vikki sitting at the back checked his pant to see whether he was
carrying any weapon and then punched him; that accused Trilok
Chand @ Chintu sitting on his right side put knife on his belly and
when he cried for help, the auto driver i.e. accused Ablam @ Alam
stopped the auto and caught hold of his hands and accused namely
Vikram @ Vikki alongwith Trilok Chand @ Chintu took out his two
mobile phones make Oppo F11 and Oppo F3 Plus, Aadhar card and
purse containing Rs. 350/- from his pant; that seeing one car coming
from behind the auto driver i.e. accused Ablam tried to run away from
there and when he shouted, accused Vikram @ Vikki bite on his left
hand; that accused Trilok Chand tried to ran away but the car coming
from behind was a police vehicle and it chased the said auto which
turned turtle after some distance and accused Vikram @ Vikki
alongwith accused Trilok Chand were apprehended by police; that
one of those two boys i.e. accused Trilok Chand caused injuries on his
left hand with knife due and he was bleeding from his mouth due to
punch and he was taken to AIIMS hospital by police for medical
treatment; that he was taken to police station where his statement was
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:22:20 +0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 15 of 31
recorded and his statement is Ex.PW1/A; that he had shown the place
of the incident to the IO and IO prepared the site plan at his instance
which is Ex.PW1/B; that IO interrogated accused Trilok @ Chintu
before him and took his cursory search during which one buttondar
knife was recovered from his possession and IO prepared the sketch
of the same vide sketch memo Ex.PW1/C and sealed and seized the
same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D; that IO also seized the auto
bearing no. DLIRS 0099 in his presence vide seizure memo
Ex.PW1/E; that his phone make Oppo gold and white colour was
recovered from the possession of accused Vikram @ Vikki and IO
sealed and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F; that his
another phone make Oppo F11 Pro, wallet brown colour containing
my ID card, PAN card, Aadhar card and Rs. 350/- were recovered
from the possession of accused Trilok Chand and IO sealed and
seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G”. He was cross-
examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
10.2. Going by the above-said testimony, the case put forth by
the complainant is that he boarded one auto from Batla house for
going to his home at Shaheen Bagh on the date of incident in which
two persons were already sitting and he was made to sit in between
those two persons however instead of going to the destination, the
auto driver took a wrong turn. In his words “on 21.05.2019 during
Ramzan period, he was going back to his home at Noida from Batla
House after shopping and was waiting for auto at auto stand near Park
no. 9; that around 01:00 am, one auto bearing no. 0099 stopped near
him in which accused namely Vikram and Trilok @ Chintu were
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:22:27 +0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 16 of 31
sitting on the back side and accused Ablam was driving the said auto
and he agreed to take him to Noida; that one of the passengers sitting
at the back i.e. accused Trilok Chand came down from auto for
smoking and he sat in between those two passengers i.e. accused
Trilok Chand; that after some time the driver i.e. accused Ablam @
Alam drove the said auto on the wrong side towards loop pull “.
During cross-examination the fact that he boarded the auto got
confirmed when he has stated that he boarded the said auto on sharing
basis. No contrary suggestion was given to the witness regarding the
said fact and his testimony went unrebutted. No question was put
from the side of the accused persons that complainant did not board
their auto or that the auto was diverted from the destination. This part
of his testimony goes unchallenged, unrebutted and unshattered as the
same has not been assailed by way of cross examination. It is well
settled principle of law that if any part of testimony is not challenged
in the cross examination that is deemed to be admitted.
10.3. He has further deposed that when the auto took a round
turn, one of the passengers sitting at the back checked his pocket and
the other person put knife on his belly. In his words ” accused Vikram
@ Vikki sitting at the back checked his pant to see whether he was
carrying any weapon and then punched him; that accused Trilok
Chand @ Chintu sitting on his right side put knife on his belly “. This
fact has also nowhere been challenged that he was searched and was
shown weapon in order to intimidate him.
10.4. He has further deposed that the driver of the auto caught
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:22:32 +0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 17 of 31
hold off his hand and the passengers sitting along with him at the back
snatched away his phones and wallet containing the documents and
cash and also beaten him when he tried to resist the same. In his
words “when he cried for help the auto driver i.e. accused Ablam @
Alam stopped the auto and caught hold of his hands and accused
namely Vikram @ Vikki alongwith Trilok Chand @ Chintu took out
his two mobile phones make Oppo F11 and Oppo F3 Plus, Aadhar
card and purse containing Rs. 350/- from his pant; that seeing one car
coming from behind the auto driver i.e. accused Ablam tried to run
away from there and when he shouted, accused Vikram @ Vikki bite
on his left hand”. This fact also went unrebutted since no question
mark was raised on the same during the cross-examination. Ld.
Defence Counsel failed to raise any challenge regarding the act of
robbing and beating the complainant by the accused persons. The fact
that complainant was beaten during the course of robbery has also
been proved through MLC exhibited in the evidence of PW-6 Sh.
Rajender Singh who is the record clerk since the doctor who
examined the patient left the hospital. During cross-examination he
has denied the suggestion that he never worked with Dr. Roshan Lal
i.e. the doctor who examined the patient Abrar Alam.
10.5. He has further deposed that he started shouting on seeing
one car coming from behind and in that commotion accused persons
tried to fled away from there in auto but did not succeed since the auto
turned turtle and they were apprehended by the car coming from
behind which turned out to be police gypsy. During cross-examination
it was suggested to the witness that he sustained injuries due to
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:22:39 +0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 18 of 31
turning of auto and not by attack by accused persons which leads to
the conclusion that the auto indeed turned turtle and it has nowhere
been explained by the accused persons how the auto turned turtle. In
response to the question put to the accused persons regarding the said
fact while recording their statements u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., they simply
denied the said fact. For ready reference the question and answer are
reproduced below:
“Q3. It is further in evidence against you in the
testimony of PW-1 Sh. Abrar Alam that seeing
one car coming from behind the auto driver i.e.
co-accused Ablam tried to run away from there
and when he shouted, you accused Vikram @
Vikki bite on his left hand; that co-accused
Trilok Chand tried to ran away but the car
coming from behind was a police vehicle and it
chased the said auto which turned turtle after
some distance and you along with other co-
accused Trilok Chand were apprehended by
police. What do you have to say?
Ans: It is incorrect.”
10.6. During cross-examination complainant i.e. PW-1 Sh.
Abrar Alam has stated that he was not acquainted with the names of
the accused person prior to the incident in question and police only
told him the names of the accused persons that’s why he identified
them in the Court with their names. There is nothing strange in that
deposition since complainant i.e. PW-1 has nowhere deposed that he
knew the accused persons prior to the date of incident rather he has
deposed that he was robbed by the strangers during the journey.
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date: 2026.04.20 15:22:45 +0530 S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS. Page no. 19 of 31
Further the said aspect has been clarified by the witness in response to
the leading question put to him by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State
which is as follows:
“Q. You had stated in your statement given to police
that at Kalindi Kunj Red Light, auto driver had
turned his auto below the loop pul and had taken his
auto at a dark place and stopped and one person who
was sitting on the back side of the auto whose name
I came to know later on as Vikram Singh @ Vicky
had hit one punch on my face and caught hold of me
and another person was sitting in the window side of
the auto whose name I came to know as Trilok
Chand, had withdrawn one buttondar knife and put
it on my stomach and thereafter, they both had
robbed my wallet and mobile phones and when I
opposed the same, accused Trilok Chand had hit on
my left arm by the said knife and accused Vikram
Singh had bite on my hand. When, I requested the
auto driver to save me, on which, he de-boarded
from the auto and had caught hold of my both hands
and had stated to me by threatening to give my cash
and mobile phones to them otherwise, they will kill
me. On which, I got scared and the accused persons
had robbed my mobile phones make Oppo F11 Pro
Thunder Black Colour and Oppo F3 Plus, Gold
Colour and my wallet, containing cash and my
documents. Whether the above said facts are correct
or not, as per your statement?
Ans: Yes. It is correct.”
10.7. Further on Court question he has explained in detail the
manner in which he was looted by the accused persons in the
following words:
“I was looted by accused persons sitting at the
back, in the auto. When auto stopped, then
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:22:51
+0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 20 of 31
accused Vikram told me to move out of the
auto. Then, auto driver caught hold of my hands.
The two persons sitting at the back also moved
out of the auto. I was carrying two mobile
phones in my hand. Those mobile phones were
snatched by the person sitting at the left side of
mine. My purse and Aadhar Card were looted
from me when auto was stopped at the wrong
side towards Khadda Colony. I gave my purse
and Aadhar Card when the person sitting on my
left side, asked me to do so. Then, the said
person sitting on my left side, told me “Tu ATM
chalega or paise nikal ke bhi dega”. Then, I was
made to sit in the auto again by accused persons.
Then, police vehicle was coming which I saw
from the transparent window at the back side of
auto and I took my hand outside the auto and
shouted “bachao bachao”. Then, auto driver
started the auto. Then, after moving some
distance, said auto turned turtle on its own due
to rough road. I sustained some minor bruises on
my left cheek due to said accident. Then, knife
carried by one accused, injured my hand. When
the said auto was about to turn turtle, the person
sitting on my right side, moved out of the auto
and I do not know how he did it. Then, more
than 20 police officials came there and I do not
know how that auto was put properly from
being placed in turtle position. Then, I came out
of the auto.
Again said, auto turned turtle towards left side.
Before it could turn turtle, the accused sitting on
my right side, fled away from the auto. I was on
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:22:57
+0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 21 of 31
the accused sitting on my left side. I came out of
the said auto. The auto driver and accused
sitting on my left side, were apprehended by
police from the auto. The third accused namely
Trilok was apprehended by police after chasing
him for about 05 meter. I found more than 2/3
police vehicles at the spot. Within few minutes,
I was taken to hospital in one of the said police
vehicle to hospital.”
10.8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Prosecution has
successfully established that all accused persons put the complainant
in fear of instant hurt and robbed his valuables.
11. Coming to the charge u/s. 397 IPC framed against
accused Trilok @ Chintu @ Sonu, complainant i.e. PW-1 Sh. Abrar
Alam has deposed that one of the persons sitting alongwith him at the
back put knife on his belly in order to commit robbery and in response
to the leading question put by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that ” that
he came to know that the person sitting on the window side of the
auto whose name he came to know as Trilok Chand, had withdrawn
one buttondar knife and put it on his stomach “. He has further
mentioned about the said fact when he was asked to explain the
incident by the Court in the words ” Then, knife carried by one
accused, injured my hand”. That person he has identified to be the
accused Trilok @ Chintu @ Sonu. No contrary suggestion was given
to the witness regarding the said fact and his testimony went
unrebutted. No question was put from the side of the accused persons
that accused Trilok @ Chintu did not use knife while committing
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:23:02
+0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 22 of 31
robbery. This part of his testimony goes unchallenged, unrebutted and
unshattered as the same has not been assailed by way of cross
examination. It is well settled principle of law that if any part of
testimony is not challenged in the cross examination that is deemed to
be admitted. He has denied the suggestions that he suffered injuries
due to turning of auto and not by attacked by the accused. Though
during cross-examination he has stated that the knife was not
recovered by the police in his presence but it is well settled principle
of law that recovery of weapon of offence has no bearing on the
merits of the case provided the allegations are well proved. Mere non-
recovery of weapons does not adversely affect the credibility of the
prosecution story. It is now well settled that the recovery of weapon is
not essential for establishing that the weapon was used in commission
of the crime. In Rajender and Others Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
(2005) 9 SCC 784, the weapon of offence was not recovered by the
police from the possession of any of the appellants. Hon’ble Supreme
Court however, held that this could not be a ground to throw out the
prosecution case, when the same has been otherwise found to be
truthful by credible evidence.
11.1. During course of arguments, it is submitted by Ld.
Defence Counsel that there is no mention in the MLC regarding the
injuries suffered by the complainant on his left hand. Regarding that it
has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal
No.1333 of 2018 in case titled as “Ram Ratan Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh” that:
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:23:08
+0530S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 23 of 31
“17. From the position of law as enunciated
by this Court and noted above, firstly, it is
clear that the use of the weapon to
constitute the offence under Section 397
IPC does not require that the ‘offender’
should actually fire from the firearm or
actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but
the mere exhibition of the same,
brandishing or holding it openly to threaten
and create fear or apprehension in the mind
of the victim is sufficient. The other aspect
is that if the charge of committing the
offence is alleged against all the accused
and only one among the ‘offenders’ had
used the firearm or deadly weapon, only
such of the ‘offender’ who has used the
firearm or deadly weapon alone would be
liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC”
12. Coming to the offence u/s. 411 IPC, the charge framed
against accused Trilok Chand @ Chintu @ Sonu and Vikram @ Vikki
is that they were found in possession of mobile phones and wallet
containing cash and documents which they retained despite knowing
the same to be belonging to the complainant. Regarding that
complainant i.e. PW-1 Sh. Abrar Alam has deposed that his phone
make Oppo Gold and white colour was recovered from the possession
of accused Vikram @ Vikki and phone make Oppo F-11 Pro and his
wallet containing cash and document were recovered from the
possession of accused Trilok @ Chintu whereas he has admitted in his
cross-examination that the knife and the purse were not recovered by
police in his presence and he has voluntarily stated that his mobile
phone was recovered by police in his presence but said phone was
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:23:14
+0530S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 24 of 31
present in the police station when it was recovered in his presence.
The said cross-examination has shattered the whole case of
Prosecution regarding recovery of the robbed articles.
13. Coming to the offence u/s. 25/27 of Arms Act, the charge
framed against accused Trilok @ Chintu @ Sonu is that he was found
in possession of button actuated knife in contravention of the
provisions of Arms Act. Complainant i.e. PW-1 Sh. Abrar Alam has
deposed that “IO interrogated accused Trilok @ Chintu before him
and took his cursory search during which one buttondar knife was
recovered from his possession”. However he has stated in his cross-
examination that knife and purse was not recovered by police in his
presence which demolished the case of Prosecution regarding the said
charge.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is hereby held that the
Prosecution has successfully established its case that all accused
persons namely Vikram @ Vikki, Trilok @ Chintu @ Sonu and
Ablam @ Alam robbed mobile phones and purse containing cash
and documents from one Sh. Abrar Alam and also beaten him while
committing the said robbery. In these circumstances, accused namely
Vikram @ Vikki, Trilok @ Chintu @ Sonu and Ablam @ Alam are
convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 394/34 IPC. Further
Prosecution has successfully established its case that accused
accused Trilok @ Chintu @ Sonu used the button actuated knife
while committing the said robbery. In these circumstances, accused
Trilok @ Chintu @ Sonu is also convicted for the offences
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:23:21 +0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 25 of 31
punishable u/s. 397 IPC. However the Prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused namely Trilok
Chand @ Chintu @ Sonu and Vikram @ Vikki were found in
possession of mobile phones and wallet containing cash and
documents which they retained despite knowing the same to be
belonging to the complainant. In these circumstances, accused Trilok
@ Chintu @ Sonu and Vikram @ Vikki are hereby acquitted for the
offence punishable u/s. 411 IPC. The Prosecution has further failed
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused Trilok @
Chintu @ Sonu was found in possession of button actuated knife in
contravention of the provisions of Arms Act. In these circumstances,
accused Trilok @ Chintu @ Sonu is also hereby acquitted for the
offence punishable u/s. 25/27 of Arms Act.
15. Copy of this Judgement be sent to Ld. Secretary, DLSA,
South East District, Saket Courts for necessary compliance.
Digitally
Typed to the direct dictation and signed by
GEETANJALI
announced in the open court GEETANJALI Date:
on this 20th of April, 2026 2026.04.20
15:23:25
+0530
(Geetanjali)
Addl. Session Judge (FTC)-03
South East District,Saket Courts
New Delhi/20.04.2026Annexure: Appendix in compliance of Judgement passed by Hon’ble
Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2973/2023 titled as “Manojbhai
Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs. State of Gujarat“.
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date: 2026.04.20 15:23:32 +0530 S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS. Page no. 26 of 31 Appendix CHART OF WITNESSES EXAMINED Prosecution Name of Description witness no. witness PW-1 Sh. Abrar He is the complainant in the present case. Alam PW-2 Sh. Babu Lal He is the owner of the auto in which the alleged crime was committed. PW-3 Sh. Puneet He is the one who sold the mobile phones Gupta make Oppo F-11 Pro and Oppo F-3 Plus to complainant Sh. Abrar Alam. PW-4 HC Ravi He joined the SHO during the Kumar investigation and was part of the team who
apprehended and personally searched the
accused Vikram @ Vikki and shifted
injured Ablam to the hospital.
PW-5 Insp. Babu He is the second Investigating officer of
Lal the present case.
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:23:38
+0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 27 of 31
PW-6 Sh. Rajinder He identified the signature of Dr. Roshan
Singh, Lal on the MLC of injured Abrar Alam Ex.
Record PW6/A who had left the services of
Clerk hospital.
AIIMS
hospital
PW-7 HC He was part of the investigating team who
Bhagwan arrested, personally searched and recorded
Sahay disclosure statement of accused Ablam
which are Ex. PW7/A, Ex. PW7/B and
Mark 7/A.
PW-8 Insp. Sanjay He is the SHO of the PS who reached at
Sinha the spot at first instance.
PW-9 HC Sunil He was part of the investigating team who
Kumar registered the present FIR and personally
searched the accused Trilok @ Chintu and
Vikram @ Vikki.
PW-10 SI Ram He is the first Investigating officer of the
Kishore present case.
PW-11 Insp. Ajay He obtained ownership document of auto
Katewa bearing no. DL1RS0099 from Registering
authority, Burari, Auto Unit, Delhi.
PW-12 Insp. Amit He is also the Investigating officer of the
Pratap Singh present case.
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:23:44
+0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 28 of 31
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF THE
PROSECUTION.
Exhibit Description of the Proved by/
Nos. Exhibits attested by
Ex. PW1/A Statement of complainant PW-1 Sh. Abrar
AlamEx. PW1/B Site plan of the place of PW-1 Sh. Abrar
incident AlamEx. PW1/C Sketch memo of buttondar PW-1 Sh. Abrar
knife AlamEx. PW1/D Seizure memo of knife PW-1 Sh. Abrar
AlamEx. PW1/E Seizure memo of auto PW-1 Sh. Abrar
bearing no. DL1RS0099 AlamEx. PW1/F Seizure memo of mobile PW-1 Sh. Abrar
make Oppo Gold and Alam
white colour
Ex. PW1/G Seizure memo of mobile PW-1 Sh. Abrar
make Oppo F-11, Pan Alam
card, Aadhar card and Rs.
350/- of the complainant.
Ex. PW1/H Arrest memo of accused PW-1 Sh. Abrar
Trilok. AlamEx. PW1/I Arrest memo of accused PW-1 Sh. Abrar
Vikram @ Vikki. AlamDigitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:23:50
+0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 29 of 31
Ex. PW1/J Personal search memo of PW-1 Sh. Abrar
accused Trilok. Alam
Ex. PW1/K Personal search memo of PW-1 Sh. Abrar
accused Vikram @ Vikki. AlamEx. PW3/A Mobile bill of Oppo F-11 PW-3 Sh. Puneet
Pro. GuptaEx. PW3/B Mobile bill of Oppo F-3 PW-3 Sh. Puneet
Plus. Gupta.
Ex. PW5/A Disclosure statement of PW-5 Insp. Babu
accused Vikram @ Vikki. Lal
Ex. PW5/B Disclosure statement of PW-5 Insp. Babu
accused Trilok Chand. Lal
Ex. PW5/C Seizure memo of bag PW-5 Insp. Babu
colour bag. Lal
Ex. PW5/D Pointing out memo of PW-5 Insp. Babu
place of occurrence Lal
Ex. PW5/E Site plan of pointing out PW-5 Insp. Babu
memo of accused. LalEx. PW5/F Pointing out memo of PW-5 Insp. Babu
place of occurrence. LalEx. PW6/A MLC of injured Abrar PW-6 Rajinder
Alam. Singh, Record
Clerk
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2026.04.20
15:23:56 +0530
S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 30 of 31
Ex. PW7/A Arrest memo of accused PW-7 HC
Ablam. Bhagwan Sahay
Ex. PW7/B Personal search memo of PW-7 HC
accused Ablam. Bhagwan Sahay
Mark Disclosure statement of PW-7 HC
PW7/C accused Ablam. Bhagwan Sahay
Ex.PW10/A Rukka PW-10 SI Ram
Kishore
Ex.PW11/A Letter for providing PW-11 Insp. Ajay
ownership information Katewa
regarding the vehicle
bearing no. DL1RS0099
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS
Material Description of exhibit Proved by /
object no. attested by
Ex.P-2 Knife PW-1 Sh.
Abrar Alam
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
(Geetanjali)
2026.04.20
Addl. Session Judge (FTC)-0315:24:03 +0530
South East District,Saket Courts
New Delhi/20.04.2026S.C. NO. 70/2020 FIR NO. 187/2019 PS KALINDI KUNJ STATE VS. VIKRAM @ VIKKI & ORS.
Page no. 31 of 31