State vs Virender on 26 February, 2026

Delhi District Court

State vs Virender on 26 February, 2026

               IN THE COURT OF DR. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI
              ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE - 05 (SHAHDARA)
                    KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI


SC No. 847/2016
CNR No.DLSH01-001966-2016


State                Versus       Virender
                                  S/o Sh. Rajpal
                                  R/o Bhadana Ka Makan,
                                  Adesh Nagar, Banthla, Loni,
                                  Ghaziabad, UP.
                                  Presently at:
                                  R/o House of Usha, Near Sheetla
                                  Mata Mandir, Tigdi Gol Chakkar,
                                  Noida, UP.

                                                          ........... Accused


FIR No.: 666/15
Police Station: HARSH VIHAR
U/s 394/397/452/34 IPC & Section 174-A Part II IPC



Date of institution of case                          :       03.03.2016
Date when the case was received by this Court        :       20.11.2017
Date of reserving for order                          :       03.02.2026
Date of passing of Judgment                          :       26.02.2026

                              JUDGMENT

BRIEF FACTS

1. The story of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.12.2015, on
receipt of DD No.5B, ASI Gyasuddin alongwith Ct. Lalit reached at the

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No.signed
Digitally 1 of 42
by SUMEDH
SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

2026.02.26
SETHI 17:09:48
+0530
spot i.e. Khasra No.17/05, F-23, Milan Garden, Mandoli Industrial
Area, where they met with Aakash Arora. One person in injured
condition was lying outside the factory and two other persons were
present there in injured condition alongwith one other person. PCR van
reached at the spot. One person was sent to GTB hospital through PCR
van. Ct. Pawan and Ct. Sudesh reached at the spot. ASI Gyasuddin sent
two other injured persons to GTB Hospital through Ct. Pawan and Ct.
Sudesh. Ct. Lalit remained at the spot. Thereafter, ASI Gyasuddin had
reached GTB hospital and collected the MLC No. B-5705/15 regarding
unknown S/o, with alleged history of beaten by public at 12.15 AM. He
had also collected MLC No.B-5706/15 of one Babloo S/o Shivdas
Pandey with alleged history of physical assault at 12.15 AM at Milan
Garden, Delhi and also MLC No. F-9350/15 of Anil S/o Lalta, with
alleged history of physical assault at 12.15 AM at Milan Garden, Delhi.
After treatment of injured Babloo, his statement was recorded by ASI
Gyasuddin. ASI Gyasuddin alongwith complainant Babloo reached at
the spot where one car having registration no. UP-14C-7408 was lying
overturned in damaged condition behind the factory. The car was of
make Maruti 800 having sky blue colour. After verification, it was
revealed that the said Maruti 800 car was stolen vide E-FIR
no.24131/15 dated 29.12.2015, Gali no.2, West, Rohtash Nagar. ASI
Gyasuddin called the Crime team at the spot and the iron rod, danda,
two reels of wire alongwith car having original registration no. DL-
6CD-0534 alongwith stereo remote lying near the car were seized by
police. On the statement of Babloo, FIR No.666/15 for the offences
punishable under section 394/397/411/511/34 IPC was registered.
Statement of witnesses was recorded and site plan was prepared. Efforts

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 2 of 42
SUMEDH Digitally
by SUMEDH
signed

KUMAR KUMAR SETHI
Date: 2026.02.26
SETHI 17:09:55 +0530
were made to search the second absconding accused. Case property was
deposited in the Malkhana. Ct. Pawan had brought the injured unknown
to police station whose name was revealed as Virender S/o Rajpal R/o
Adesh Nagar, Bhadana ka makaan, Tigori road, Banthla, Loni,
Ghaziabad, UP. Accused Virender was arrested in the present case. The
second accused namely Nanhe could not be traced. Accused Virender
was sent to JC.

2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
the accused Virender under section 393/394/397/452/34 IPC. Ld. MM
after complying with the provisions of section 207 CrPC committed the
case to the Sessions court as the offence punishable under section 397
IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions court.

CHARGE

3. Charge under section 394/397/452/34 IPC was framed on
06.06.2016 against the accused Virender to which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution
evidence. Accused Virender absconded later on and was declared
proclaimed offender vide order dated 29.10.2024. All the public
witnesses were examined. Accordingly, the file was consigned to
Record room with directions to prosecution to get the same revived
after the appearance of accused Virender before the Court. Thereafter,
on 12.12.2024, accused Virender was produced before the court after
his fresh arrest vide DD No.25A dated 12.12.2024 and kalandra under
section 41.1 (c) CrPC was filed in court. Accordingly, the original case
was restored.

SC No. 847/2016

State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 3 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:10:04 +0530

4. The supplementary charge-sheet qua offence under section 174-A
IPC was filed against accused Virender on 09.01.2025. Charge under
section 174A Part-II IPC was framed against accused Virender on
28.01.2025.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 19 witnesses
in total.

6. PW-l Babloo deposed that he works in the wire factory of Akash
Arora, Milan Garden, Mandoli Industrial Area, Delhi. He further
deposed that on 30/31.12.2025, he alongwith his two associates namely
Anil and Karun were present in the factory and were awake and the
main gate of the factory was locked from inside. They heard the noise
as “Khat”. They all came to the main gate of the factory and they found
that two persons at the gate who had broken open the Kundi of the main
gate with the help of iron rod had entered inside the gate. He further
deposed that this incident took place at about 12.00 or 12.30 mid-night.

He further deposed that one person was having iron rod in his hand and
the other was having danda. He further deposed that accused Virender
was having iron rod in his hand. Thereafter, accused Virender gave fist
blow on his face, as a result he fell down on the ground. PW1 further
deposed that his co-workers Anil and Varun were at some distance from
him at that time who also came to him. The other person who was
having danda in his hand gave fist blow on the face of Anil. Both of
accused persons threatened them to keep quite otherwise they will kill
them. Thereafter, the accused, present in the court, (Virender) gave a

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 4 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:10:13 +0530
rod blow on his right hand and asked them to stand on one side. Both
the accused including accused, present in the court (Virender), started
taking away two reels of aluminum wire from the factory. The person
having danda stood at the gate. PW1 and Anil snatched the iron rod
from accused present in court. Then, accused scuffled with PW1 and
Anil. The other person having danda ran away from the factory leaving
danda. PW1 further deposed that he and Anil had beaten the accused
Virender with the same rod with which accused had hit PW1 Babloo.
Both the aforesaid reels were snatched from accused. Karun made a call
to owner of factory namely Akash Arora and PW1 and Anil had raised
alarm. At the same time they found a Maruti car behind the said factory
in which both the accused persons came there. He further deposed that
when the accused, present in the court, was being beaten by them, he
was trying to run away towards the said car but he could not succeed in
running away and was apprehended. The registration number of said
Maruti car was UP 14C-7408. It was a 800 Maruti car of blue colour.
They were in anger, therefore, they damaged the said car also. After
some time, the owner of factory Sh. Akash Arora also reached there
who made a call at 100 No. and PCR reached there. The PCR official
took accused Virender to GTB Hospital whereas PW1 was taken to the
Police Station Harsh Vihar by the police. His statement was recorded by
IO in the PS. His statement is Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, he was taken to
GTB Hospital as he sustained injuries in this incident. The aforesaid
wire reel were taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo
Ex.PW1/B. Police prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/C at the instance of
PW1. Police also seized the iron rod vide memo Ex.PW1/D. The danda
was taken into possession by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. The

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 5 of 42
SUMEDH Digitally
by SUMEDH
signed

KUMAR KUMAR SETHI
Date: 2026.02.26
SETHI 17:10:22 +0530
said Maruti car along with remote of stereo of the said car were also
taken into possession by police vide memos Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G
respectively. Accused Virender was arrested by police in this case vide
Ex.PW1/H. The MLC is proved as Ex.PW1/I. This witness identified
the aforesaid Maruti car, the spot and the wire reels in photographs etc.
This witness also identified the case property i.e. iron rod as Ex.P-1.
Witness further deposed that he was hit with only iron rod and not with
any danda. The other victim was hit with danda. Witness also identified
the danda as Ex.P-2. PW1 also identified two plastic reels having
aluminum wires as Ex.P-3. (The weighing machine was also obtained
from the DGHS dispensary located in court complex and weight of each
reel along with wires rolled around was obtained and each reel weighed
11 kg and 500 gm with a variation of 1 gm here or there). PW1
identified the remote as Ex.P4. He also identified the photographs of car
as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW4/A (colly.). The testimony of this witness has
gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.

7. PW2 Pankaj Maheshwari deposed that he is the registered owner
of vehicle No. DL-6CD-0534 make maruti 800 colour marine green. He
further deposed that he had parked the said vehicle outside his house on
28.12.2015 at about 9:30 p.m and one the next date i.e 29.12.2015 at
about 4:00 p.m, his vehicle was missing and stolen by somebody. He
lodged an e-FIR bearing No. 024131 dated 29.12.2015 at PS e-Police
Station. Thereafter, the photographs of a car make Maruti 800 bearing
No. UP-14C-7408 (false number) placed on record were shown to this
witness and witness identified the said Maruti car to be the same which
belonged to him. Photographs are Ex.PW2/A. Witness had got the said

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 6 of 42

SUMEDH Digitally
by SUMEDH
signed

KUMAR KUMAR SETHI
Date: 2026.02.26
SETHI 17:10:32 +0530
vehicle released on superdari vide order dated 23.01.2016 and he had
sold the same. Witness identified the photographs Ex.PW2/A and
Ex.PW4/A (colly.) and he had identified his Maruti 800 car from the
said photographs. MHC(M) had not produced the
panchnama/CD/negatives/superdarinama as per the directions of the
court dated 23.01.2016. The testimony of this witness has gone
unchallenged and uncontroverted.

8. PW-3 ASI Rishi Pal deposed that on 31.12.2015, he was working
as Duty Officer in PS Harsh Vihar. A rukka was sent by ASI Gyasuddin
through Ct. Lalit on receipt of which he registered FIR bearing по.
666/2015 of the present case. FIR is proved as Ex.PW3/A. His
endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW3/B. He also gave certificate under
section 65B Evidence Act Ex.PW3/C. The further investigation of the
case was handed over to ASI Gyasuddin.

9. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused witness
deposed that Ct. Lalit came to the PS at 4.20 AM and left after about
30-35 minutes. He deposed that he had also recorded DD No.5B dated
31.12.2015 at about 12.46 AM Ex.PW3/DA. He denied the suggestion
that he deposed falsely.

10. PW4 HC Sanjay Kumar deposed that on 31.12 2015. he was
posted as photographer in Mobile Crime Team, District North-East and
on that day, he alongwith the Incharge Mobile Crime Team Unit SI
Mukesh Chauhan and SI Madan Lal Fingerprint expert had gone to F-
23, Khasra no. 17/5, Mandoli, Harsh Vihar. The Incharge Crime Team

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 7 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:10:42 +0530
inspected the crime spot and this witness had taken 30 photographs
from his official digital camera. The positives of the said photographs
are Ex.PW4/A (colly.) (1 to 30). He had also brought the certificate
under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW4/B.

11. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused he
deposed that the information was received by him at about 2.00 AM
from the Control Room. They immediately left for the spot and reached
there at about 2:30 am where they met 2-3 persons at the spot. IO ASI
Gyasuddin and some other police officials were also present there. He
remained there for about half an hour. His statement was recorded at the
place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at
the spot.

12. PW5 Akash Arora deposed that he owned a factory at Khasra no.
17/05, at F-23, Milan Garden, Mandoli Industrial Area and in the
factory they do the work of varnish polish on aluminum wires. He
further deposed that he had received a telephonic call in the night of
31.12.2015 from one of his employees namely Karun, who told him that
some criminals (Badmash) had trespassed and forcibly entered inside
the factory and were trying to take away some reels of aluminum wire.
At that time, his other employees namely Anil and Bablu were also
inside the factory. He immediately called at 100 number and he
thereafter, reached his factory. When he reached there, he saw the latch
(kunda) of the gate broken and 2 reels of aluminum were lying outside
the factory, one iron rod and one danda were also lying outside the
factory. He further deposed that accused present in the court was also

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 8 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:10:51 +0530
found lying on the ground in injured condition. When he looked around,
he saw one Maruti 800 bearing no. UP14C 7408 was overturned. When
he talked to his employees, they told him that two criminals had entered
the factory and they were trying to run away with the aluminum reels
and that the said criminals were beaten by the same iron rod and danda
which was being carried by them when they had entered the factory.
They also told him that one of the criminal had managed to escape.
Thereafter, the PCR arrived and had taken the injured to the hospital.
He further deposed that other police officials had taken his other
employees namely Anil and Bablu who were also injured in the
incident, to the hospital. IO recorded his statement. This witness had
identified the iron rod as Ex.P1 and wooden danda as Ex. P2. He also
identified two plastic reels containing aluminum wires duly polished as
Ex.P3. This witness had also identified the photographs on record as the
photographs of his factory.

13. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused he
deposed that he did not remember the telephone number from which he
had received information from his employee Karun. He reached at his
factory in about 15-20 minutes. He denied the suggestion that he was
not the owner of the factory. He further deposed that 3-4 police officials
had reached at the factory within 5-10 minutes of his reaching there.

The photographs were taken in his presence. The Crime team had
arrived after about one and half hour after the accused and his injured
laborers were taken to the hospital. Till the time, he went to the
hospital, the photographer had not arrived. He immediately followed his
laborers to the hospital and returned again to his factory after leaving

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 9 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

2026.02.26
SETHI 17:11:00
+0530
them in the hospital. He remained in the hospital for about 10-15
minutes and returned to his factory. He further deposed that the Crime
team was comprised of 4-5 officials. The photographer had not obtained
his signatures. He had not shown the ownership documents to the Crime
team. He had not produced the employment details of his employees
Anil, Bablu and Karun in the court. He denied the suggestion that they
were not his employees and that is why he had not produced their
details. He further deposed that when he returned from the hospital, his
employee Karun was present in the factory and police had obtained his
signatures on his statement. (The statement of witness under section
161 Cr.PC was shown to him and the witness stated that this was his
statement given to the police and further deposed that it is correct that it
did not bear his signatures). He denied the suggestion that he had not
given any statement to the police and the same was recorded by them
on their own. He did not know till what time the police remained at the
spot. He denied the suggestion that he never visited his factory upon
receiving information from his employees. He further denied the
suggestion that he had not seen his employees or the accused in injured
condition. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the case
property at the spot. He further denied the suggestion that he was
deposing falsely being owner of the factory. He denied the suggestion
that he was not the owner of aluminum reels. He stated that it is correct
that he had not brought any document regarding ownership of the case
property. He did not know to whom the seal was handed over by the
police.

14. PW6 Karun deposed that on the night of 30/31.12.2015, he was

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 10 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:11:09 +0530
present in the factory of aluminum wires owned by Akash and at that
time, Bablu Pandey and Anil, the other employees of the factory were
also present with him. He alongwith other employees were working in
the factory when they heard a noise at the main gate and somebody
broke the latch (kunda) of the main gate which was locked from inside.
Two persons entered the factory. He further deposed that the accused
present in the court was carrying an iron rod and the other person was
carrying a danda with him. He further deposed that the accused first
gave a fist blow to Bablu, thereafter, Anil was also given a blow on his
face. The accused persons threatened them to keep quite. Accused
picked up two aluminum reels one in each hand. PW6 with other
employees ran after the accused and apprehended him at the gate. Bablu
apprehended the accused first. Bablu snatched the rod from the hands of
the accused and Bablu beat the accused with the same iron rod. He and
his other co-employee Anil ran after the associates of accused. One car
Maruti 800 of blue color bearing no. UP-14C-7408 was parked behind
the factory. The associates of the accused ran towards the car and they
ran after him. The associates of the accused ran away from spot leaving
the car behind. PW6 and other employee returned and beat up the
accused. They also overturned the car to prevent it from being carried
away by somebody. He had made a call to his owner and the police
vehicle also arrived. The police had first taken the accused to the
hospital and thereafter, Anil and Bablu were also taken to the hospital.
He remained behind at the factory. He further deposed that the owner of
the factory also came to the spot and 2-3 persons from the
neighborhood also arrived there. Police had met him and made inquiries
from him and recorded his statement.

SC No. 847/2016

State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 11 of 42
SUMEDH Digitally
by SUMEDH
signed

KUMAR KUMAR SETHI
Date: 2026.02.26
SETHI 17:11:17 +0530

15. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused he
deposed that he was working in the factory of Akash since the year
2008. He was paid regular salary in cash but no salary slip or I.D. Card
was issued. He further deposed that the incident had taken place on
31.12.2015. He had made call on number 9711133272 to Aakash at
about 12.00 midnight. The owner reached the factory at about 12:45
am. He further deposed that police arrived after the arrival of owner.

The owner of the factory had gone to the hospital alongwith Anil and
Bablu after about 10-15 minutes of his arrival. Police had taken the
statements of Bablu and Anil first. He further deposed that he had taken
leave for two days and returned to factory on 03.01.2016 and thereafter,
his statement was recorded. Police had taken possession of the case
property comprising of two aluminum reels, rod and danda on the same
day. He further deposed that in his presence, the case property was not
converted and sealed into a pulanda by covering of cloth but all of it
was taken by police in his presence. Police had remained at the spot for
about 20 minutes and second time also police remained at the spot for
10-15 minutes. He further deposed that in his presence, the photographs
were not taken by any official. Police might have done some other
writing work outside the factory but as he was frightened he remained
in the factory. He denied the suggestion that he was not the employee of
Akash Arora. He further denied the suggestion that he was not present
at the spot at the time of incident or that he was a planted witness. He
further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

16. PW7 Ct. Ashish deposed that on 31.12.2015, he was working as
DD Writer in PS Harsh Vihar and HC Rishipal was the duty officer. He

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 12 of 42
SUMEDH Digitally signed by
SUMEDH KUMAR
KUMAR SETHI
Date: 2026.02.26
SETHI 17:11:30 +0530
further deposed that at about 12:46 am, he recorded DD no. 5B
Ex.PW3/DA and the information was conveyed to ASI Gayasudin on
phone as per instructions of duty officer. The testimony of this witness
has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.

17. PW8 Dr. Himanshu deposed that on 15.01.2016, he was posted as
SR Ortho in GTB Hospital. He further deposed that record of patient
Babloo S/o Sh. Shiv Das was produced before him. He had examined
the MLC of the patient and opined the nature of injury as simple on the
MLC Ex.PW1/I. The testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged
and uncontroverted.

18. PW9 Dr. Chukka Praveen Kumar deposed that he was deputed by
the Medical Superintendent, GTB Hospital to depose on behalf of Dr.
Wasim JR as well as Dr. Reena, CMO. He had identified the signature
and handwriting of Dr. Wasim JR as well as Dr. Reena as he had seen
them signing and writing. MLC Ex.PW1/I bears the signatures of Dr.
Wasim JR and signature of Dr. Reena. The testimony of this witness
has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.

19. PW10 Dr. Abhishek Kumar deposed that on 31.12.2015, he was
posted as CMO in GTB Hospital and on that day, at about 02.02 AM,
patient Anil S/o Lalta, aged 26 years, male was brought in the hospital
by Ct. Pawan with alleged history of physical assault. He further
deposed that Dr. Wasim who was working as JR with him, examined
the patient and prepared the MLC F-9350/15 (Ex.PW10/A) and he
identified the signature of Dr. Wasim at point A. He further deposed

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 13 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:11:39 +0530
that after examination of the patient he was discharged from the
hospital. He further deposed that on the same day, at about 01.49 AM,
one unknown patient was also admitted in the hospital by HC Mahender
of PCR with alleged history of assault (beaten by public) and Dr.
Wasim who was working as JR with him examined the patient and
prepared his MLC vide MLC No.5705/15 (Ex.PW10/B) and he
identified the signature of Dr. Wasim. The patient was referred to
Surgery and Neuro-trauma for further management. The testimony of
this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.

20. PW11 Dr. Amit Gamit deposed that he was posted at GTB
Hospital as SR Neuro Surgery. He had been deputed by the MS GTB
Hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. Amit, SR Neuro Surgery who had
given the opinion regarding nature of injury in the MLC No. F-9362/15
dated 31.12.2015 Mark X, as he had left the services of GTB Hospital.
He identified the signatures of Dr. Amit, SR Neuro Surgery on the
MLC Mark X as he had seen the signature and handwriting of Dr. Amit
SR Neuro Surgery from the record available in the GTB Hospital. The
testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.

21. PW12 Anil Kumar deposed that he used to work in the wire
factory of Sh. Akash Arora at F-23, Milan Garden, Mandoli Industrial
Area, Delhi. He further deposed that it was in the night of
30/31.12.2015, he alongwith Bablu and Karun were present in the
factory and the lights of the factory were on and main gate of the
factory was locked from inside and at about 12.15 am in the night, the
gate of the factory opened with the noise of khat. Two people entered

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 14 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:11:47 +0530
the factory one was having a danda and the other was having iron rod in
his hand. He further deposed that both the said persons threatened them
and started giving beatings to him with danda and iron rod. Thereafter,
the person who was having iron rod in his hand picked up the reels of
aluminum wire and started taking away the same. Bablu caught hold the
said person and then he and Karun also came to the help of Bablu and
grappled with the said person and Bablu snatched the iron rod from the
said person and Bablu attacked said person with the said rod and the
said person fell down in the gali. He further deposed that the person
who was having danda ran away from the spot after leaving the same at
the spot. The wire rolls fell on the ground. Thereafter, the person having
rod stood up and tried to run away from there but he was apprehended
by them. Thereafter, call was made to the owner of the factory. Police
came at the spot and injured person who came with rod in his hand was
sent to the hospital. He further deposed that the witness himself and
Bablu were also sent to GTB Hospital for treatment. This witness had
identified the accused Virender in the Court as the same person who
entered into the factory with rod and tried to run away with the reels of
aluminum wire and gave beatings to them. He also identified the iron
rod as Ex.P1, the wooden danda as Ex.P2, two plastic reels containing
aluminum wire duly polished as Ex.P3. Ld. Addl. PP for the State also
cross examined this witness on some material facts.

22. On cross examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness
stated that it is correct that Maruti car 800 bearing no. UP14C-7408 was
parked behind the factory and the other person who was having wooden
danda tried to escape in the said Maruti Car but they (witness and his

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 15 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:11:57 +0530
other co-employees) had over turned the said Maruti Car and the said
person has ran away from the spot. This witness had identified the
Maruti car make 800 in the photographs of the Maruti car placed on
judicial record as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW4/A (colly.). The testimony of
this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.

23. PW13 Ct. Pawan Kumar deposed that on 30/31.12.2015, he was
posted as Constable at PS Harsh Vihar and in the intervening night of
30/31.12.2015 from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am, he was on night emergency
duty. On receipt of information regarding quarrel at about 1.00 AM, he
reached at Khasra No. 17/5, F-23, Milan Garden, Mandoli Industrial
Area, Delhi where he found one person lying in injured condition at the
gate of the factory and blood was oozing out from his head. He further
deposed that PCR Van came there and the said person was taken to
GTB Hospital and other person namely Anil was present at the spot and
he had taken him to GTB Hospital on his private motorcycle and got his
MLC No. F-9350/2015. Thereafter, IO left him at GTB Hospital with
the direction to guard the injured who was brought to the hospital by the
PCR Van. He further deposed that on 31.12.2015 at about 11.00 AM,
he had brought the said person to PS Harsh Vihar and handed over him
to the IO. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement in this
regard. This witness also identified accused in the Court as the same
person who was found lying in injured condition at the gate of the
factory and was taken to GTB Hospital and whom he produced before
the IO on 31.12.2015. The testimony of this witness has gone
unchallenged and uncontroverted.

SC No. 847/2016

State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 16 of 42

SUMEDH Digitally
by SUMEDH
signed

KUMAR KUMAR SETHI
Date: 2026.02.26
SETHI 17:12:05 +0530

24. PW14 SI Madan Lal deposed that on 31.12.2015, he was working
as Finger Print Expert, Mobile Crime Team, N/E District and on receipt
of a call vide DD No. 5B at about 12.46 AM, he alongwith Ct. Sanjay
photographer and I/C Crime Team went to the place of occurrence at F-
23, Khasra No.17/5, Milan Garden, Harsh Vihar and the crime scene
was inspected from 2.30 AM till 3.00 AM. He prepared his report
Ex.PW14/A and the same was handed over to the IO. The testimony of
this witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.

25. PW15 Ct. Lalit Kumar deposed that on 31.12.2015, he was
posted at PS Harsh Vihar and on that day, on receipt of DD No. 5A at
around 12.46 am, he alongwith ASI Gyasuddin reached F-23, Khasra
No. 17/05, Milan Garden, Mandoli Industrial Area. They reached there
at around 1.00 am. He observed three persons were lying injured
opposite the factory of Aakash Arora. The gate of the factory was lying
broken and he had also seen two bundles of wire, one iron rod and one
wooden danda also lying at the spot. The injured were shifted to GTB
Hospital by the PCR. The other two injured persons were also taken to
the hospital by Ct. Pawan and Ct. Sudesh. Crime Team was called at the
spot. He further deposed that behind the factory of Aakash Arora, he
had seen one Maruti Car 800 of blue colour which was having the
number plate of UP-14 C-7408 lying overturned and all the glass panes
were broken. One stereo was also lying outside the car. IO left him at
the spot and himself proceeded to the hospital. After sometime, IO
returned to the spot alongwith one Bablu. The site was got
photographed by the Crime Team and it was also inspected. The two
wire reels each weighing about 12.2 kgs were taken into possession and

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 17 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:12:14 +0530
sealed with the seal of GS. The iron rod which was bent on one side and
pointed from the other side and was about 2 feet in length was also
taken into possession and duly sealed with the seal of GS. The wooden
danda which was about 30 inches in length was also taken into
possession and duly sealed with the seal of GS. The stereo remote lying
outside the car was also taken into possession and duly sealed with the
seal of GS. The chasis and engine number of Maruti Car was checked
and the real number of the car was found to be DL-6C D-0534 and the
same was found to have been stolen from the area of PS Shahdara and a
case e-FIR No.24321/15 was found to be already registered. The car
was also taken into possession. IO prepared a tehrir and same was
handed over to him. He further deposed that he took the same to the PS
and got the present case registered. He returned to the spot and handed
over copy of FIR and tehrir to the IO. Thereafter, they returned to the
PS and case property was deposited in the Malkhana. The injured
person/accused after the treatment came to the PS whose name was
revealed as Virender @ Ajay and accused was sent for treatment in the
PCR. Accused was arrested and his arrest memo Ex.PW1/H was
prepared. Accused was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW15/A.
Accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded
vide Ex.PW15/B. Thereafter, accused had taken the police officials to
the place of occurrence and a pointing out memo was prepared vide
Ex.PW15/C. The plastic wheels containing the aluminum wire were
taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. The iron rod was
taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. The danda was
taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. The Maruti Car
was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F and stereo

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 18 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:12:22 +0530
remote was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/J.
Witness correctly identified accused Virender in the Court. Witness
correctly identified the iron rod as Ex.P1, the wooden danda as Ex.P2,
two plastic reels containing aluminium wires as Ex.P3, the stereo
remote as Ex.P4. Witness also correctly identified the Maruti car and
other recovered case property from the photographs available on
judicial record as Ex.PW2A and Ex.PW4A (colly).

26. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused he
stated that he went to the spot on his motorcycle but he did not
remember its registration number. He further deposed that some public
persons were present who were 5-10 in number but they were not
known to him. There were three PCR officials present in the PCR. No
blood stains were found at the spot. He had entered the factory. He did
not know the measurement of the factory. He did not remember the
number of documents prepared by the IO. He deposed that he told by
idea that the danda was of 30 inches. He further deposed that there were
blood stains present on the said danda but he cannot say to whom this
blood belonged. Crime Team reached at the spot at about 1.00/1.30 am
but he did not remember how many officials they were. He had himself
checked the engine and chasis number of the car but he did not
remember the same. The chasis and engine number of the vehicle were
mentioned in the seizure memo. He denied the suggestion that the car
recovered from the spot is not the same as is shown in the photographs.
He further stated during the cross examination that IO had asked the
public persons to give statement in his presence but none agreed. IO did
not record the names and particulars of such persons as they did not

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 19 of 42

SUMEDH Digitally
by SUMEDH
signed

KUMAR KUMAR SETHI
Date: 2026.02.26
SETHI 17:12:31 +0530
disclose the same. He further deposed that when the accused was taken
in the PCR he did not disclose his name. Accused was semi-conscious
at that time. He further deposed that he did not know who is the owner
of factory. He finally left the spot at about 5.00 am and reached the PS.
He took the tehrir at about 2.00 am. He further deposed that statement
of Ct. Sudesh and Bablu were recorded in his presence outside the
factory. IO did not obtain the details of workers working in the factory,
in his presence nor had collected any register or other details. He did
not know whether factory owner had reached the spot till the time he
was present at the spot. He alongwith IO returned to the spot and
deposited the case property in the Malkhana. He denied the suggestion
that the accused was not present at the spot and all the proceedings were
done by the IO while sitting at the PS. He also denied the suggestion
that he had never visited the spot or he was deposing falsely.

27. PW16 Ct. Sudesh Kumar deposed that on the intervening night of
30/31.12.2015, he was posted at PS Harsh Vihar and was on night
emergency duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. At about 1.00 am, he reached
at F-23 Khasra No. 17/05, Milan Garden Mandoli Industrial Area Delhi.
Ct. Pawan had also reached there. He further deposed that the PCR Van
had also reached there. He had seen one person lying injured in the gali
outside the factory F-23 who was having bleeding injuries on his head.
Two other injured persons were also lying at the spot. He had taken the
injured whose name was later on came to be known as Bablu, on his
private motorcycle to GTB Hospital for his medical treatment. IO
recorded his statement.

SC No. 847/2016

State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 20 of 42

SUMEDH Digitally
by SUMEDH
signed

KUMAR KUMAR SETHI
Date: 2026.02.26
SETHI 17:12:41 +0530

28. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused the
witness deposed that he started from the PS immediately on receipt of
information and reached the spot at about 1.00 am. He did not
remember the number of motorcycle since he had sold it and got a new
one. He deposed that he had not entered the factory. Some factory
people were present there and no public persons were found as it was
already midnight. He did not know the name of other injured. He did
not return to the spot from the hospital. He himself had not made my
departure entry. In his presence, no statement of any injured was
recorded by the IO. IO recorded his statement at the PS. He denied the
suggestion that he never visited the spot or he had not taken injured to
the hospital or that he was deposing falsely.

29. PW17 ASI Gyasuddin deposed that on the intervening night of
30/31.12.2015, he was posted at PS Harsh Vihar and on that day, he
was on emergency duty alongwith Ct. Lalit from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am.
He further deposed that on receipt of DD No.5B Ex.PW3/DA, he
alongwith Ct. Lalit had gone to F-23 Milan Garden Mandoli Industrial
Area, in the factory of Akash Arora. He met Akash Arora at the gate of
the factory and he had also seen one injured person lying outside the
gate of factory and two other injured persons lying outside the factory.
He had seen two wire reels, one danda, one iron rod and one remote
also lying at the spot. He had also seen one Maruti 800 car of sky-blue
colour overturned behind the factory. The said car was damaged. PCR
Van arrived at the spot. Ct. Pawan and Ct. Sudesh also arrived from the
PS. The person who was severely injured was sent to the hospital
through PCR and two other injured persons name Bablu and Anil were

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 21 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:12:49 +0530
also sent to GTB Hospital through Ct. Pawan and Sudesh. He further
deposed that Ct. Lalit was left at the spot to guard the same. He has
sent the intimation to Crime Team. From the spot, he left for GTB
Hospital where he collected MLC No.5705/15 which was made in the
name of some unknown person and also collected MLC No.5706/15
which was in the name of Bablu. He further deposed that Bablu was
discharged from the hospital and he accompanied him to the spot. He
met the Crime Team at the spot which inspected the spot and had taken
photographs. Ct. Pawan and Ct. Sudesh remained at the hospital. He
had taken into possession the two plastic reels and the same were
measuring about 7″ X same were weighing about 12 kgs each. Both the
reels were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He had
also taken into possession iron rod which was about 2 feet in length,
one end was pointed, one end was flat/chapta, and was having a
partition in between. Same was converted into a pullanda and sealed
with the seal of GS and taken into possession vide seizure memo
Ex.PW1/D. Similarly, one wooden danda which was about 29″ in
length and was having a thickness of about one inch was also taken into
possession and converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of GS
vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. One stereo remote of silver black colour
was also converted into a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of GS
and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/J. Seal after use was
given to Ct. Lalit. The overturned Maruti Car of sky-blue colour which
was having a broken number plate of UP-14 C-7408, was also taken
into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F. PW17 put his
endorsement Ex.PW17/A on the statement of Bablu and same was
handed over to Ct. Lalit who went to the PS and got the present case

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 22 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

2026.02.26
SETHI 17:12:58
+0530
registered. Copy of FIR is proved as Ex.PW3/A and certificate under
section 65B of the Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW3/C. He prepared
site plan Ex.PW1/C at the pointing out of Bablu. Ct. Lalit returned to
the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and tehrir to him. He recorded
the statement of witnesses. They returned to the PS with case property
and same was deposited with the MHC(M). Ct. Pawan reached the PS
alongwith the injured whose name on inquiry was revealed as Virender
R/o Loni. Accused was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo and
personal search memo Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW15/A. Accused also made
disclosure statement Ex.PW15/B. Accused had taken them to the spot
and pointing out memo regarding the place of occurrence was prepared
which is proved as Ex.PW15/C. Accused also accompanied him in
search of co-accused Nanhe but he could not be found. Accused was
produced before the Court and remanded to JC. He had also recorded
the statement of PW Karun as well as Pankaj Maheshwari, owner of
car. He had also received the Crime Team Report which is proved as
Ex.PW14/A and recorded the statements of Crime Team witnesses. The
photographs of the crime scene and the vehicle are Ex.PW2/A and
Ex.PW4/A (colly.). He had also collected the previous crime record of
the accused Ex.PW17/B and Ex.PW17/C. He also collected the
certificate under section 65-B of the Evidence Act in this regard, which
is proved as Ex.PW4/B. Accused was examined vide his MLC
Ex.PW10/B and Mark X, as he had also received injuries during the
incident as the injured persons/witnesses had also beaten the accused.
He recorded the statement of witnesses. After completion of
investigation, he filed the challan before the concerned court. He further
deposed that the recovered Maruti Car was found to have been stolen by

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 23 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:13:06 +0530
the accused and e-FIR No. 24131/15 of PS Shahdara was already
registered. Witness has correctly identified the iron rod as Ex.P1, danda
as Ex.P2, aluminum wire as Ex.P3 (colly.), one stereo remote as Ex.P4.
This witness also identified the Maruti Car from the photographs on
record.

30. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, PW17
deposed that call was received by him at about 12.45 am which was
regarding apprehension of thief. He further deposed that they went to
the spot by a private motorcycle but he did not remember its registration
number. He deposed that they reached the spot at about 1.15 am. He
remained at the spot for about one hour. He had prepared seizure memo
after return from the hospital. Only the recovered articles were lying
outside the factory. Crime Team reached the spot at about 2.00/2.30 am
after his arrival from the hospital. He further deposed that at the time
when unknown person was sent to the hospital, he was unconscious. He
reached the hospital at about 1.30/1.45 am. He had recorded the
statement of Bablu in the hospital. When he came to the PS, he was
walking. He did not know at what time accused was discharged from
the hospital. Accused reached the PS at around 11.30/12 noon. SI
Madan Lal and Ct. Sanjay of Crime Team were present and they
conducted proceedings in the presence of this witness. He had put the
FIR number on the pullanda of reels. No FIR number was mentioned on
the reels. He measured the danda with the help of ‘inch-tape of
recksine’. He did not know the name of the factory being run by Akash
Arora at the spot. He had seen the ownership documents of the factory
but did not seize them. He did not inquire as to since when the factory

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 24 of 42
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:13:14
+0530
was being run at that place. About 7-8 workers were employed in the
factory and none was found to be having any I-card. They were not
having attendance register. Car was taken to the PS on the same day. It
was not in working condition and was taken by a private crane hired by
them but he did not know the name of any such company. He did not
record the statement of driver of crane nor had taken his particulars. He
deposed that it is correct that some other factories are also present in the
surrounding area near the spot. All were closed at that time. He
remained at the spot till about 5.30/6.00 am after returning from
hospital. He recorded statement of Anil and Akash at the spot and
statement of SI Madan Lal, Ct. Sanjay, Ct. Pawan and Ct. Lalit in the
PS. He recorded the statement of Pankaj Maheshwari at his house on
28th January. Car of Pankaj Maheshwari was stolen on 29.12.2015. He
denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were conducted while
sitting at the PS and the signatures of accused were obtained on blank
papers and accused was falsely implicated in this case. He denied the
suggestion that nothing was recovered from the spot and the same have
been planted.

31. PW18 HC Deepak Kumar deposed that on 12.12.2024, he was
posted at PS Geeta Colony as HC. He came to know that accused
Virender was declared PO in the present case vide order dated
29.10.2024. Vide DD No. 25A dated 12.12.2024, he alongwith SI
Rajeshwer Rao was in search of accused Virender. When they reached
had at Yusufpur, Greater Noida, UP, one secret informer informed them
that accused Virender, would come at Tigri Gole Chakkar, Greater
Noida, UP. They reached at Tigri Gole Chakkar. The secret informer

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 25 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:13:22 +0530
signaled towards the accused and left. They made inquiries from the
person who revealed his name as Virender S/o Rajpal R/o Usha ka
makan, Near Sheetla Mata mandir, Tigri Gole Chakkar, Greater Noida,
UP. He informed the accused that he was declared PO in case FIR
No.666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar vide order dated 29.10.2024. He prepared
the Kalandra u/s 35.1(d) BNSS Ex.PW18/A. He arrested the accused
vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/B. He also conducted the personal search of
accused vide personal search memo Ex.PW18/C. He got the accused
medically examined in SDN Hospital. Thereafter, he produced the
accused before the concerned Court. This witness correctly identified
the accused in the court.

32. During cross examination of this witness by accused, he denied
the suggestion that accused could not appear before court in the present
case as he was undergoing custody in some other case. He further
denied the suggestion that accused did not have any information of
being declared a PO. He denied that accused was falsely arrested and
produced before the Court. He stated that it is wrong to suggest that no
case is made out against the accused.

33. PW19 SI Rajeshwar Rao deposed that on 12.12.2024, he was
posted at PS Geeta Colony as SI and was part of a team constituted to
search and arrest the absconders. He came to know that one accused
namely Virender was declared PO in the present case vide order dated
29.10.2024. Vide DD No. 25A dated 12.12.2024, he alongwith HC
Deepak went in search of accused Virender. When they reached at
Yusufpur, Greater Noida, UP, one secret informer informed them that
accused Virender, would come at Tigri Gole Chakkar, Greater Noida,

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 26 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:13:30 +0530
UP. Thereafter, they reached at Tigri Gole Chakkar. The secret
informer signaled us towards the accused and left the spot. They
apprehended him. They made inquiries from accused Virender S/o
Rajpal R/o Usha ka makan, Near Sheetla Mata mandir, Tigri Gole
Chakkar, Greater Noida, UP. HC Deepak informed the accused that he
was declared PO in case FIR No.666/2015 PS Harsh Vihar vide order
dated 29.10.2024. HC Deepak prepared Kalandra u/s 35.1(d) BNSS,
already Ex.PW18/A. HC Deepak arrested the accused vide arrest memo
already Ex.PW18/B. He also conducted the personal search of accused
vide personal search memo already Ex.PW18/C. HC Deepak got the
accused medical examined in SDN Hospital. Thereafter, they produced
the accused before the concerned Court. This witness correctly
identified the accused in court.

34. During cross examination of this witness by accused, he denied
that accused could not appear before the Court in the present case as he
was undergoing custody in some other case. He denied the suggestion
that accused did not have any information of being declared a PO. He
denied the suggestion that accused was falsely arrested and produced
before the Court.

35. The accused had admitted the genuineness of e-FIR No.024131
dated 29.12.2015 Ex.C-1. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was
closed.

STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED

36. Statement of accused Virender under section 313 CrPC was
recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence and stated that it is a

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 27 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:13:40 +0530
false case and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Accused had opted not to lead any defence evidence.

37. Arguments have been heard from Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld.
Counsel for the accused Virender. Material on record perused and
submissions considered.

ARGUMENTS

38. It has been argued by ld. APP that the accused stands identified
by the witnesses and the medical evidence on record coupled with the
deposition of the injured are enough to convict the accused for the
offences with which he is charged.

39. It has been argued by ld. Counsel for the accused that:

i) The identity of the vehicle allegedly used by the accused is
doubtful for want of production of car and its superdarinama.

ii) PW1 Bablu who is the key witness for the prosecution was not
cross examined despite being the main complainant.

iii) There has been no mention of efforts made to arrest the co-

accused despite allegations stating that there was one more person
accompanying the accused.

iv) PW5 Akash could not prove that he was the owner of the factory
in question.

v) The accused was also injured during the alleged scuffle but his
injuries had not been examined by any of the doctors.

vi) The injury suffered by the witnesses is simple in nature and
therefore, the aggravated form of the offence with which the accused is

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 28 of 42
Digitally signed
by SUMEDH
SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

2026.02.26
SETHI 17:13:49
+0530
charged is not made out.

vii) For the offence of trespass, no CCTV footage has been procured
and no public witnesses have been examined.

viii) For the offence under section 174-A IPC, only arresting
witnesses have been examined and no witness relating to declaration of
the accused as a proclaimed offender has been examined.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

40. This court finds that, briefly stated, the allegations against the
accused are that he alongwith his accomplice, who could not be caught,
broke into the factory of PW5 Aakash Arora and hit PW1 Bablu with an
iron rod and PW12 Anil with a danda and after threatening them, he
tried to take away some wire bundles kept in the factory. However, a
scuffle broke out between the accused, his accomplice and the three
persons present at the factory after Bablu and Anil snatched the iron rod
from the accused. The accomplice of the accused fled from the spot,
leaving the danda there. The accused was beaten up with the same rod
and a call was made to PW5. The accused tried to run towards the
Maruti Car parked behind the factory which he and his accomplice had
allegedly used to come to the spot, but was apperehended. The
witnesses, out of anger, also damaged the car.

Injuries suffered by the witnesses and the accused:

41. The MLC of injured Bablu Ex.PW1/I shows that the injuries
suffered by him were simple in nature. As per his testimony, the
accused had hit him with the iron rod on his face. PW1 had also
deposed that PW12 Anil was hit on his face by the accomplice of the

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 29 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

2026.02.26
SETHI 17:13:58
+0530
accused with the danda. MLC of the accused Ex.PW10/B also shows
certain injuries suffered by him. The same are again explained in the
testimony of PW1 and PW12 and are commensurate with the version of
the witnesses to the effect that PW1 used the same rod to inflict such
injuries upon the accused.

Motive:

42. The motive behind the alleged acts of accused appears to be
acquisition of the wire rolls kept in the factory. The same is clearly
brought out in the depositions of PW1, PW6 and PW12. Nothing
material has come on record to contradict the version of these
witnesses. The iron rod allegedly used in the incident was bent on one
side and flattened. The said rod allegedly recovered from the spot is
seen alongwith a danda and two rolls of wires in the third photograph
i.e. Ex.PW4/A (colly.) taken at the scene of crime i.e. the factory. The
‘broken kunda’ seen in photograph no.20 supports the motive attributed
to the accused and the shape of the rod appears to be such as would be
useful in breaking the kunda.

Intention:

43. The intention of the accused can again be discerned from the
testimony of PW1, PW6 and PW12. His presence at the spot of the
incident late at night, the presence of the bent rod and danda on the
spot, the two bundles of wires lying on the floor and the injuries caused
to the PW1 and PW12 show that the intention of the accused was to
break into the factory, beat up the witnesses and get away with the wire
rolls after threatening them. Further, the intention to cause grievous

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 30 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:14:06 +0530
injury is also discernible from the fact that PW1 in his deposition has
stated that the accused hit him on his face with the iron rod and also hit
him on his hand.

Identity and Role of the accused:

44. PW1, PW6 and PW12 have identified the accused as the person
who had entered the factory with the iron rod in his hand and hit PW1.
The depositions of all these witnesses remains consistent in this regard.
In the testimony of PW1, it has been mentioned that the name of the
accused present in court ‘was known to him as Virender’. However, this
point stands clarified from the depositions of PW6 and PW12. It is not
as if the accused was known to PW1 from before but it appears that he
got to know about the name of the accused around the time of the
incident. Irrespective, the identity of the accused stands clearly
established from the depositions of PW1, PW6 and PW12 and from his
apprehension from the spot. How and when the witnesses got to know
about his name is not of much significance when he has been identified
as the person who broke into the factory and used the iron rod to hit
PW1 as well as tried to carry the two wire rolls away.

45. Having firmly established the centerpiece of the prosecution
story, this court finds that the other pieces of the puzzle seamlessly fit in
place around this center piece.

Other evidence:

46. First up, the timing of the FIR corresponds to the alleged time of
incident. There is no delay in registering of the FIR or receipt of the

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 31 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:14:13 +0530
information.

47. The versions given by the police witnesses match with each other
with no material difference being pointed out. The defence has also not
been able to bring out any material contradiction or discrepancy with
regard to the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence or the wire rolls
from the spot. This lends further credibility to the version of the
prosecution.

Absence of cross examination of PW1: (Effect thereof)

48. One crucial aspect requiring deliberation is that PW1 who is the
main complainant i.e. Bablu has not been cross examined despite
opportunity and such opportunity to cross examine the witness stood
closed on 02.05.2019. A perusal of the order sheet of the said date
shows that the examination of the witness was concluded on that date
on the request of the witness himself as he was feeling harassed by
coming to the court many times. The proxy counsel for the accused on
that date had sought adjournment due to non availability of main
counsel. Vide detailed reasoning given in the said order, the ld.
Predecessor has rejected the ground for adjournment and even offered
to pass over the matter for the appearance of the main counsel but this
opportunity was not availed by the ld. Proxy counsel. As a matter of
fact, even the accused felt exasperated due to the witness not being
cross examined and submitted that he wants the discharge of his
counsel and wishes to avail the services of a legal aid counsel.
Directions were also given for forwarding the request of the accused to
the Secretary DLSA. However, on 15.05.2019, the accused made an

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 32 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:14:20 +0530
entirely different submission that he wishes to continue with his
previous counsel. The counsel then verbally made submission that he
would move appropriate application under section 311 CrPC. However,
no such application was made. It is settled law that cross examination of
the complainant is a vital right that accrues to an accused. However, the
accused cannot be allowed to fritter away the opportunities for availing
this right and then seek to take advantage of the fact that the witness
could not be cross examined. Allowing this would tantamount to an
abuse of process of the court and would allow an accused to take the
benefit of his own wrong. Therefore, in view of the special
circumstances that led to the witness being discharged unexamined, this
court is of the opinion that the witness not being cross examined ought
not to prejudice the case of the prosecution in the present matter.

49. Even otherwise, even if the entire testimony of PW1 was
discarded for the mere reason that he was not cross examined, then also
the case of the prosecution stands firmly on the testimonies of PW6 and
PW12 who have substantially corroborated what PW1 had said. Thus,
the lack of cross examination of PW1 cannot in any manner be of any
benefit to the accused.

Identity of the vehicle allegedly used by the accused:

50. One of the points raised by the defence is that the identity of the
vehicle which the accused allegedly used for coming to the spot of the
incident could not be established as neither the vehicle was ever
produced physically before the court nor the superdarinama of the same
was filed on record. However, in this regard, it is noteworthy that in the

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 33 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:14:30 +0530
examination in chief of PW1 this point has been specifically dealt with
and the request for production of the vehicle physically has been
specifically denied in the wake of directions given by the Hon’ble
Courts higher above from time to time for proving the identity of such
articles/vehicles through photographs rather than requiring the retention
and production of such vehicles physically. The superdarinama is of no
consequence as the photographs of the vehicle i.e. Ex.PW2/A (colly.)
and Ex.PW4/A (colly.) were brought on record. In the examination in
chief dated 02.05.2019, it has also been specifically recorded that the
vehicle stood identified by the witness on 02.11.2016 on seeing the 34
photographs of the car in question.

51. Even otherwise, the car is not a central character in the story of
the prosecution. The version of the prosecution stands established with
regard to the breaking of the ‘kunda’ of the factory, the accused hitting
the complainant and trying to take away the wire rolls. Irrespective of
whether the accused would have committed these acts by reaching the
spot in the said car or through any other mode, such mode would not
have any bearing on the acts themselves.

52. Be that as it may, the recovery of the remote of the car stereo
Ex.P4 from the spot also proves the presence of the car at the spot and
completes the chain of the prosecution story.

Apprehension of the co-accused (Effect of failure):

53. One point that was raised by ld. Counsel for the accused pertains
to failure on part of the investigating agency to apprehend the other

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 34 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:14:38 +0530
person who was allegedly accompanying the accused. The court sees
not reason why this would in anyway benefit the case of the defence.
Moreover, the IO, PW17 has specifically stated that he tried to
apprehend the co-accused namely Nanhe with the assistance of the
present accused but he could not be found. PW1, PW6 and PW12 have
also categorically stated that the second person who was armed with
danda fled from the spot. There is no inconsistency or contradiction
with regard to the involvement of the second person which would raise
doubt against the guilt of the present accused in anyway.

PW5 not being the owner of the factory:

54. PW5 was cross examined at length regarding whether he was the
owner of the factory in question and was unable to show any documents
in this regard. He also could not show any employment details in
respect of PW1, PW6 and PW12. This point raised by the defence is of
no consequence as ownership of the factory is immaterial for the
purposes of the offence with which the accused has been charged. It is
noteworthy that the offence of robbery is a form of theft and theft as
defined in section 378 IPC is an offence against ‘possession’ and not
ownership. The prosecution witnesses clearly bring out how the accused
tried to take the wire rolls out of the possession of the witnesses who
were manning the factory. There is nothing on record to counter such
possession. Likewise, the offence of trespass as defined in section 441
IPC is also an offence against possession and for this reason, the
ownership of the property is immaterial. The employment details of
PW1, PW6 and PW12 are also of little relevance as it is not uncommon
for people being employed in such factories without proper

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 35 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:14:47 +0530
documentation or records.

Injury suffered by the accused:

55. Another defence raised is that even the accused had suffered
injuries and that these injuries were not investigated. In the opinion of
the court, this rather goes against the accused as opposed to favoring
him in any manner as it only corroborates the version of the witnesses
that during the scuffle, PW1 used the same rod that was brought by the
accused to hit the accused himself. These injuries are not beyond the
prosecution version but rather in consonance with it.

CCTV footage & Public witnesses (Absence thereof):

56. The lack of public witnesses has been consistently turned down
as the sole ground for an acquittal when there is other glaring evidence
on record against the accused. There will be no useful purpose served
by citing multiple authorities on this point. Likewise, absence of CCTV
footage is also of little consequence when three witnesses have deposed
consistently regarding the incident and identified the accused as being
involved in the offences committed.

Injuries suffered by the complainant are simple in nature:

57. The ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant
PW1 suffered simple injuries and therefore, the offence punishable
under section 397 IPC is not made out. However, the said offence has
three alternate requirements that are:

1. Use of deadly weapon, or

2. Causing grievous hurt to any person, or

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 36 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

2026.02.26
SETHI 17:14:54
+0530

3. Attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to any person.

In the present case, while the injuries suffered by the complainant
are simple in nature, the act of hitting the complainant in his face and
on his hand with the iron rod of the description given above definitely
shows an attempt to cause grievous hurt. However, assuming for a
moment that there is no attempt to cause grievous hurt, then, this court
will have to deliberate upon whether there was ‘use of deadly weapon’
by the accused during the incident.

Whether the accused ‘used’ a ‘deadly weapon’?

58. The iron rod allegedly used by the accused was bent on one side
and pointed from the other side and was about 2 feet in length. With
regard to such weapons, it has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the case of ‘Bijender @ Naushad Vs. State decided on
13.02.2014′ that:-

“16. In Adesh Kumar (supra), the charge against the
appellant was that he had used a knife for
committing robbery. The witness did not tell the
court as to what kind of knife was used by the
appellant nor did he depose with respect to the size
of its blade. In the circumstances it was held that the
weapon used by the appellant could not be said to
be a deadly weapon. This judgement, in my view,
would be per incuriam since the attention of the
court was not drawn to the binding decision of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Phool Kumar (supra).
Moreover, in a subsequent decision in Salim Vs.
State 1987 (3) Crimes 794, this Court held that to
categorise knife or to fix its size for it to be a deadly

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 37 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

2026.02.26
SETHI 17:15:00
+0530
weapon may not be appropriate. It was further held
that to say that a knife, to be a deadly weapon
should be of a particular size would not be a correct
statement. Similar view was taken in State of
Maharashtra Vs. Vinayak 1997 Crl.L.J. 3988 where
also the High Court held that irrespective of its size
any knife is a deadly weapon.

In Md. Aslam (supra), the Court took the view that
in order to bring a case under Section 397 of IPC it
has to be shown that the accused had used the
weapon in respect of achieving the object and mere
being found in possession of a deadly weapon is not
enough to convict him under the said Section.
However, in the present case, the iron rod which the
appellant was having in his hand was clearly visible
to the complainant and her sister. Moreover, at the
time the iron rod was visible to the complainant and
her sister, the appellant also asked them to keep
quiet and pushed the complainant while fleeing
from the spot. In my view, when a weapon in the
hands of a person carrying it is visible to the victim
of the crime, it does have the intended effect of
intimidating the victim and such an act also contain
an implicit threat to use the weapon against the
victim in case he resists the offender from executing
his plan. Therefore, carrying a deadly weapon
which is visible to the victim at the time of
commission of robbery amounts to its use within the
meaning of Section 397 of IPC. In any case, the
view taken by the Apex Court in Phool Kumar
(supra) does not permit taking a contrary view in
this regard.

SC No. 847/2016

State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 38 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:15:09 +0530

17. Coming to the question as to whether the iron
rod can be said to be a deadly weapon or not,
admittedly, the expression „deadly weapon‟ has not
been defined anywhere in the Code. The natural and
grammatical meaning of „deadly weapon‟ would be
a weapon which can cause death of a human being.

It has come in the evidence that the iron rod which
the appellant was having in his hand had pointed
ends on both sides. The length of the iron rod was
53 cms. as noted in the seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. In
my view, though every iron rod may not qualify as a
deadly weapon, an iron rod which is 53 cms long
and has pointed ends on both sides can certainly
cause death of a human being, if it is used as a
weapon of offence at a vital part of the body such as
head of a human being. In Saligram Vs. State of
M.P. 1990 Supp(1) SCC 60, one of the appellants
before the Apex Court was carrying an iron rod
whereas the other one was armed with a sword. The
Hon‟ble Apex Court inter alia observed that they
were armed with deadly weapons, the implication of
the judgement being that iron rod could also be a
deadly weapon. In Thoti Manohar Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh (2012) 7 SCC 723, two of the
appellants were armed with iron rods whereas one
was armed with a billhook when they trespassed
into the house of the deceased. It was observed that
the weapons they carried were lethal in nature.
Therefore, the appellant who used the aforesaid iron
rod at the time of commission of robbery has rightly
been convicted under Section 397 of the Code.”

(Emphasis supplied)

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 39 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:15:19 +0530
Thus, the rod of the description used in the present case can be
termed as a deadly weapon especially when used to hit the complainant
in his face. The deadly nature of the weapon is also established from the
testimony of PW1 to the effect that the accused threatened the witnesses
to keep quiet otherwise they would kill the witnesses. This shows the
intention on part of the accused to use the rod as a deadly weapon.
Thus, the offence punishable under section 397 IPC stands established
not only by virtue of attempt to cause grievous hurt but also by virtue of
use of the iron rod as a deadly weapon.

Offence punishable under section 174-A IPC:

59. To establish the aforesaid offence, the prosecution has only
examined the witnesses who were involved in the arrest of the accused
after he was declared proclaimed offender. Ld. Counsel for the accused
contended that none of the witnesses who had attempted to execute the
warrants or the process under section 82 CrPC against the accused were
examined. However, in this regard, the ld. APP has argued that the
order dated 29.10.2024 was passed by ld. Predecessor only after being
convinced that the accused had absconded and also recorded his
satisfaction based on material which was produced before him
including the reports on the warrants as well as under section 82 CrPC
and recording the statement of the process server. The order dated
29.10.2024 has not been challenged till date. Therefore, this court is of
the opinion that examination of the arresting witnesses is sufficient to
bring home this charge against the accused as nothing material has been
brought forth in their cross examination.

SC No. 847/2016

State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 40 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:15:26 +0530
Conclusion:

60. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances present on
record, this court is of the opinion that accused Virender was involved
in the incident of breaking open the kunda of the factory where PW1,
PW6 and PW12 were present with the intention and preparation to
cause hurt to the occupants of the factory, thereby committing offence
punishable under section 452 IPC. After breaking into the factory, the
accused caused hurt to PW1 by hitting him with an iron rod on his face
and his right hand while he was trying to commit robbery in respect of
the wire rolls kept in the factory, thereby committing offence
punishable under section 394 IPC. Also, by virtue of use of the iron rod
as deadly weapon in the attempt to inflict grievous hurt to PW1 at the
time of committing robbery in the factory in respect of the wire rolls,
the accused also committed offence punishable under section 397 IPC.

The presence of an accomplice has also been clearly brought out by the
prosecution witnesses and it is apparent that both these persons were
harboring common intention to commit the aforesaid offences. While
the accomplice got away, the accused was caught. Nothing material has
come in the statement of the accused to explain the circumstances
brought against him by the prosecution or to explain his presence in the
factory late at night or how he was apprehended from the spot. It is not
the case of the defence that the accused and the witnesses were known
to each other or were having previous enmity, resulting in the accused
being falsely implicated. Similarly, nothing has been brought on record
by the accused to explain why only he would be falsely implicated by
the police officials. Thereafter, during the proceedings, the accused
stopped appearing and was declared proclaimed offender. He was only

SC No. 847/2016
State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 41 of 42
Digitally signed
SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

2026.02.26
SETHI 17:15:34
+0530
arrested subsequently, thereby committing offence punishable under
Part II of section 174-A IPC.

61. Consequently, accused Virender stands convicted for commission
of offences punishable under section 452, 394 and 397 read with section
34 IPC and Part II of section 174-A IPC.

Announced in open Court
on the 26th day of February 2026 SUMEDH by
Digitally signed
SUMEDH
KUMAR SETHI
KUMAR Date:

SETHI 2026.02.26
17:15:40 +0530

(Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi)
Addl. Sessions Judge-05
Shahdara District
Karkardooma Courts,Delhi.

SC No. 847/2016

State vs. Virender
FIR No. 666/2015
PS Harsh Vihar

Page No. 42 of 42