'v)5' _(For Exemption)

%:>!. M.A.
CRL. M. NO. (For eoiidonatiuii of litiiiiy)
(t or Bail)
CRL. M. NO.
mm
CRL. APPEAL NO.

OFFICE NOTE REGARDING CRIMINAL APPEAL (S.B.)

The Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi has forwarded a Memo of Appeal of the
aceused/appellant V/ who has pieferied an Appeal
Under Section 374"read wth 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the
Judgement/Order datcm jnKj^n ^ oiSlAiTi VlH f Kn YaJj
,C£M.Ua}lrMLJl£^ Pfssed in case F.LR. No.
PoSe Station /langQ Under Section 39 2-// 39 7/ 3V, S
cohvicting the appeffent to •h'>r M \A^
novi^. ^
^ '■ 1: The memo of appeal is accompanying by a certified copy of the Judgement/Order.
. 2. The appeal is within the prescribed period of limitation / jjarred by—hmrtatttrn
■ by ch^y( •
■ 3. The limitation'being 60 days in accordance with Article 115 (b)(1) Limitation Act, 1960.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 2-~)jn.mJ')jall /L

TIME TAKEN IN FILING THE APPEAL
.lANUARY:
FEBRUARY-
MARCFI
APRIL
MAY_
JUNE cU
jui.Y ■
AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

DCfOBER

NOVEMBER^
DECEMBER

APPEAL FILED IN THIS COURT IN 6 .(days)

Date of submitting the memo of Appeal to the Superintendent, Central Jail : /

No Court fees is required to be affixed on this memo of Appeal received from jail in
accordance with Section (XVIII) of the Court Fee Act.
11. Tile Memo of Appeal is not accompanies by a certified copy of the .Judgement/Order.
, Til-. As required by Rule Chapter l-A(b) of the H.C.R.C. Volume V, the appellant is
,, . reqiuired to have stated in the memo of appeal affidavit that no such appeal in the same
matter has previously been filed. In the absence of such a statement the memo of appeal
r .r; ' cannot be entertained.

■ ■ I'he appeal is in order and may be registered as Criminal Appeal( S.B.)and posted before
the Court for orders/ admission.

■^ii Ivt

A.O.J. (Crl.),

AdUfCrl.)

4 A ^ U. -n
 DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

33-38, LAWYERS'CHAMBER,

DELHI HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI-110003.

Dispatch No. S23-'^- Dated: ^

To,
ie Register General,
High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi.

Sub
MUKESH KUMAR
Petition in respect of convict/Prisoner

GOVIND PRASAD 13
S/O/W/0 lodged in Jail No.

231/2014 394/397/411/34 IPG

in case FIR No. u/s.

P2 suBji MANDi Criminai Appeal

11273/2017
File. No.

Respected Sir,

I am directed to enclose herewith an application/petition (in original) in the above mentioned,

matter received from the Superintendent, Jail No. Central Jail, Tihar/Distt. Jails, Rohini Vide
F.13/Sa-13/AS(CT)/2017/427
dispatch No.
1
A

MR. HARSH PRABHAKAR 9999309014

Sh./Ms.

Advocate is appointed in the matter to initiate appropriate proceeding,as per law.

Your;

End: As Above. SUPERIN CLSC

Copy forwarded for Information and necessary action to;

1. The Standing Counsel (Criminal), Chamber No. 437, Lawyers Chamber, High Court of
Delhi, New Delhi.

2. The Superintendent, Jail No.13 Mandoii with request to inform convict/prisoner MUKESH
KUMAR S/O/W/0 GOVIND PRASAD the details of Legal aid Adv. appointed by DHCLSC.

3. Sh/Ms MR. HARSH PRABHAKAR, D-434, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI 9999309014

Intimate the proceedings/disposal of this application/petition to, the Prisoner/accused

under intimation to this office.
4. The Ld. Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, Delhi High Court, New
Delhi.

5. Accused MUKESH KUMAR

GOVIND PRASAD
S/0

13 Mandoii
through Superintendent/Jaii No.
SUPER1NTENDENT:DHCLSC
20-July-2017

■10 received c
9^
Standing Counsel (cn T
"'Q'l Court, N. Delhi
 GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

OFFICE OF THE SUPERISTElIttHT OF-PRISON

CENTRAL JAIL NO. 13, MANDOU DELHI
e-mail; ■;ni-n13-tihar@gov.ln Phone I^o. 011-65800162
F.13/SCI-13/AS(CT]/2017/_LB3-^ Dated: cQ^ / 0:^/2017

THE SUPERINTENDENT

V Delhi State Legal Services Authority

sr Jail Section, Tihar Jail Complex
New Delhi.

b
SUB: FnRWARDING OF APPTTrATTDN/PETITION UNDER
■SECTION 374f21 Cr. P.C. AGAINST THE lUDGMENT—&
ORnFR ON SENTENCE PASSEH RV THE I.D. TRIAL COURT IN
RESPECT OE CONVICT MUKESH S/0 IT. SH. GOVIND
PRASAD.

Sir,

Please find enclosed herewith [06] sets of the

application Under Section 374(2} Cr. P.C. against the Judgment
& Order on Sentence passed on 27.05.2017 & 02.06.2017
respectively passed by Sh Yimal Kumar Yadav, A.S.J, Tis Hazari
Court, Delhi in Sessions case No. 78/14, FIR No. 231/2014 of
PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi, U/s. 392/397/34 IPC.

The application / petition in respect of the above named

convict is being forwarded herewith for kind perusal and
further necessary action at your end.

Yourslfaithfully

DY. SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL JAIL N0.13
MANDOLI, DELHI
End: As Above.
Oy. Superintendent
Gentral Jail No. 13
Mandoll Delhi

\
 I . fc
.
I

NOMINAL ROLL

S/0 LT. SH. GOVIND PRASAD AGE 28 YEARS

NAME MUKESH KUMAR

RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS HAZRAT NIZAMUDDIN RAILWAY COLONY,PUL DAFFRIN, DELHI

GROUNDS FOR FORWARDING. FORWARDING ALONG WITH APPLfCATION'/PETITION TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
NOMINAL ROLL OD DELHI ■
FIR NO. UNDER SECTION POLICE STATION
CASE DETAILS 394/397/411/34IPC SUBZIMANDI
231/2014
5 CONVICTING COURT SH. VIMAL KUMAR YADAV,A.S.)., TIS HAZARI COURT,DELHI
T DATE OF SENTENCE 02.06.2017
U/S 392 IPC - R.I FOR 03 YEARS & FINE OF RS. 5000/- I/D 06 MONTHS S.I
QUANTUM OF SENTENCE U/S 394 IPC - R.I FOR 04 YEARS & FINE OF RS. 5000/- I/D 06 MONTHS S.I
BOTH THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY '
STATUS OF APPEAL FRESH APPEAL IS BEING FILLED
■ DETAILS OF IIIDICIAL CUSTODY PERIOD
FROM TO YEAR(S] MONTH(S] DAY(S]
UNDER tRIAL 18.05.2014 05.12.2015 01 06 17

02.06.2017 28.06.2017 00 00 26
CONVICT
SENTENCE UNDERGONE INCLUDING UNDER TRIAL 07 13
10 01
(IF ANY]AS ON 28.06.2017 ■
00 00 04
11 TOTAL REMISSION EARNED
UNEXPIRED PORTION OF SENTENCE 02 04 13

'HYSICAL CONDITION normal

14 LABOUR ALLOTTED NO LABOUR ALLOTED

15 PERFORMANCE DURING LABOUR N/A

16 DETAILS OF INTERIM BAIL / BAIL / PAROLE / NIL

FURLOUGH AVAILED
STATUS OF PREVIOUS PAROLE / FURLOUGH NIL
17
APPLICATION
18 STATUS OF CO-ACCUSED N/A
REPORT OF MISCONDUCT (IF ANY] DURING NIL
19
INTERIM BAIL / PAROLE / FURLOUGH
20 DETAILS OF PENDING CASES,IF ANY NIL

DETAILS OF CONVICTION IN OTHER CASES (IF NIL

21
ANY]
PREVIOUS PUNISHMENT IF ANY A. NIL
22 A. (DURING TRIAL PERIOD]
B. NIL
B. (AFTER CONVICTION]
'23 1 LAST ONE YEAR JAIL CONDUCT SATISFACTORY

ASST.superintendent DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT

Central Jail No.l3, Mandoli, Delhi Central Jail No.l3, Mandoli, Delhi

24
(TARIQ SALV
Date SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON

New Delhi Central Jail No.l3, Mandoli, Delhi

Jail No. 13
KJfandoll Delhi

:\
If

%
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2017
1

DC
LEGAL AID MATTER MC

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently confined at
CentralJall No 13,
Mandoli, Delhi) .Appellant

VERSUS

The State(NCI of Delhi) .Respondent

INDEX

S. No. PARTICULARS Page No.

1. Notice of Motion • 1
2. Urgent Application 2
3. Memo of Parties 3
4. List of Dates and Events 4
Appeal u/s 374 Or PC against the conviction and
5. 5-14
sentence, with affidavit.
Application U/s 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of
-Sentence along with the affidavit. 15-22
Application seeking exemption from filing the
(DCertified copies of Judgment, Order on Sentence,
depositions of PW'S and exhibits with affidavit '
23-24 i
i

8. Declaration of no outside counsel with Affidavit 25

Copy of the impugned Judgment and order on
9. sentence dated 27.05.2017 & 02.06.2017
■■
respectively.

L'7'l
Uant;

Dy
C ntralfell No. ^ j
"of Mukesh Mandoli Delhi
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently Confined at
Central Jail No. 13,
Mandoli, Delhi)
 c

'k

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

* (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently confined at
CentralJail No.13,
Mandoli, Delhi) .Appellant

VERSUS

The State(NCI of Delhi) .Respondent

NOTICE OF MOTION

To
The Standing Counsel,
The State(NOT of Delhi).

Please take note that the above stated matter will be listed on
_/_/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is, therefore,
requested that you kindly enter your appearance on the said date.

•i-rX ltj:
Appellant:
Art®

iten
Wo
lukesh M^ndofi O'--
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently Confined at
CentralJail No. 13,
Mandoli, Delhi)
•%
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- (Criminal Appellate Juriisdictio'n)
~ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2qT7

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently confined at
Central Jail No.13,
Mandoli, Delhi) ...Appellant

VERSUS

The State(NOT of Delhi) ...Respondent

URGENT APPLICATION
To

The Hon'ble Registrar General,

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi

Respected Sir,
Kindly treat the accompanying petition as urgent as per the
rules and guidelines of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The ground of
urgency is that:-

The petition is for appeal against the impugned judgment of

the Ld. Sessions Court. The petitioner isan impoverished inmate and has
sought help from the Legal Aid Cell of the Prison. He implores that his
appeal may kindly be heard at an early date. Furthermore, the present
petition through the legal section is prepared solely on the basis of the
available judgment since no other relevant documents such as statement
of witnesses and charge-sheet was available.

Forwarded By: Appellant: /.

^
6 VfL : X: y ' ^t/p$^ndenf
Vineet Malhotra Jail No. -j 3
(Jail Visiting Counsel) S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad^""""
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (Presently Confined at
Central Jail No. 13,
Mandoli Delhi)
 ^ ,\
'\

\ \
.rA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

' (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mukesh
S/p Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently confined at
Central Jail No.13,
Mandoli, Delhi) .Appelant

VERSUS

The State(NOT of Delhi) .Respondent

MEMO OF PARTIES

Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
R/o Railway Colony,
Morigate, Duffrin, Delhi
(Presently Confined at
Central Jail No. 13
Mandoli, Delhi)

Permanent R/o.
Gopal Pur,
Dist. Sihore,
Tehsil Narsulaganj,
P.S: Narsula Ganj,
Madhya Pradesh
Appeiant
im
Versus

The State of the National Capital Territory of Delhi

Respondent

Forwarded By; L>TX

A

Vineet Malhotra
LTI of Mukesh ^
(Jail Visiting Counsel)
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad ^
(Presently Confined at
CentralJail No. 13,
Mandoli, Delhi)
/ V
7^<>V)
 n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
' ^ (Criminal Appellate Jurisdictio'n)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently confined at
CentralJail No.13,
Mandoll, Delhi) ...Appellant

VERSUS

The State(NCI of Delhi) ...Respondent

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

DATES LIST OF EVENTS

18.05.2014 DATE OF ALLEGED COMMISON OF OFFENCE
16.05.2014 APPELLANT WAS ARRESTED.
19.05.2014 APPELLANT WAS LODGED IN CENTRAL JAIL TIHAR
DELHI.

Aug-2015 APPELLANT WAS PLEASED TO GRANT BAIL BY THE LD.

TRIAL COURT.

27.05.2017 APPELLANT WAS HELD GUILTY, CONVICTED BY THE

LD. TRIAL COURT.

02.06.2017 APPELLANT WAS SENTENCED TO Rl FOR pouZ

YEARS AND FINED BY THE LD.TRIAL COURT.
_._.2017 HENCE THE PRESENT CRIMINAL APPEAL

Z-.T-r
pe
At

Dy- ndent

"oTTVIukesh Mandofi Deihi

S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently Confined at
CentralJail No. 13,
Mandoli, Delhi)
r
f!

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(Criminal Appellate J^bdiciio'n)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2017

LEGAL AID MAT

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently confined at
CentraiJail No.13
Mandoli Delhi) ...Appellant
VERSUS

The State(NCT of Delhi) ...Respondent

In case

Sessions Case No. 78/2014

Unique Identification No. 02401R0364792014
FIR No. 231/2014
Convicted U/S 392/394/34 of IPC
Police Station Subzi Mandi
Sentenced on 02-06-2017
Sentenced by Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, ASJ, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi
Sentenced to Rl for 4 years and an aggregated fine of
Rs.10,000/-.
APPEAL U/S 374(2) CR.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 27-05-2017 AND 02-06-2017 OF THE TRIAL COURT OF SH.
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV. Ld. ASJ. TIS HAZARI COURTSIN CASE SO
NO 78/2014 PERTAINING TO FIR NO 231/2014 OF PS SUBZI MANDI
U/S 392/394/34 IPG.

To
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi and
His Companion Judges of this Hon'bie
High Court
The Humble application of
The Appeliant named above;
Most Respectfully Showeth:
1. The appellant herein is challenging the conviction and sentence
contained in the judgment and orders dated 27-05-2017 and 02-06-
2017of the trial court of Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Ld. ASJ, Tis Hazari
Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No 78/2014 pertaining to case
FIR No 231/2014 of PS Subzi Mandi U/s 392/394/34 IRC.
/
/

p. '
2. The prosecution story in brief is as underneath:
i • )

a. That the policemen of PGR van No. S-44, consisting its In-
Charge Head Constable Sunder Pal (PW-7) alongwith driver
Constable Vijay and gunman Constable Phool Kanwar (PW-6)
when reached near Phool Mandi, Rain Basera, Hamilton Road at

about 06:10 PM heard a noise and stopped a person came

running to them and informed that three boys have robbed and

stabbed him and ran towards Phool Mandi. Information in this

regard reported to the police vide DD No. 18/PP. thereafter, they

all followed the assailants to Phool Mandi and all the three

assailants were apprehended at the instance of the victim

Virender Kumar. The recoveries of robbed articles as well as

surgical blade from the accused persons were made except

accused Mukesh as nothing incriminating was found on him the

relevant entries were made in the register maintained in the PGR

vehicle, photocopy of which is Ex. PW7/A.

b. That the police control room was also informed about the
incident. All the three assailants and victim were then removed to
Aruna Asaf Ali hospital, where ASI Yogesh from the local police
station reached and took over the charge of the case. The
relevant documents i.e. arrest memo, personal search memo, site
plan etc. were prepared and the disclosure statements of the
accused persons have also been recorded. On conclusion of the
investigation, a charge sheet under section 392/394/397 IPG
have been filed against the accused persons.
p.

c. That after compliance of section 207 Cr. P. C, the case was

j J

committed to the court of sessions on being a sessions trial and

charge under section 392/394/34 IRC was framed against all the
accused persons and as the accused Johnson had used surgical
blade and caused injuries to victim while committing the offence,
thus section 397 IRC was also invoked and the charge was
framed against him, to which the appellant plead not guilty and
claimed trial.

d. That the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of the

charges and thereafter the appellant made his statement u/s 313

Cr RC and led the defense evidence by bringing one Hira Lai in

their DE. Eventually vide the impugned judgment and order, the
Ld Trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under section

392/394/341 RCand sentenced him to:

i. Rl for Three(3) Years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed in

default of which a further S.I. of Omonths for the offence

punishable U/s 392 IRC and Rl for Four (4) years and pay a sum
of Rs. 5,000/- in default of which a further SI for 6 months for the

offence punishable U/s 394 IRC.

3. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence contained in

the impugned judgment and order, the appellant herein prefers this
appeal on time, on the following amongst other grounds:
f.
1 'V

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

a. Because the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court is based

on conjectures and surmises and is not extracted from the facts

and circumstances of the case. The prosecution has failed to

prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it would have been

appropriate for the Ld. Trial Court to exonerate and acquit the
appellant on benefit of doubt taking into consideration the

lacunas in the case.

b. Because it is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has

been made a scapegoat by the Police which would be

highlighted in furtherance through the depositions of the

prosecution witnesses. First and foremost, the prosecution had
failed miserably to prove the assertions against the appellant of
his involvement in the alleged robbery.

c. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the case of
the prosecution is highly improbable and there are certain

circumstances which make it highly unbelievable.

d. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the falsity
of the victim's story is evident from the ways it has been
testified that the TSR was hired by the accused persons
 including the appellant is itself is not possible as it cannot be
' • -

imagined that a TSR can be hired forcibly against the wishes of

the TSR driver in the city of Delhi.

e. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the person

who made the call to the PGR is not clear and for that matter

whether a PGR call was made or not is under cloud in as much

as evidence of PW-7 head Constable Sunder Pal, Who was In-

Gharge of the PGR van has stated that he was informed orally

about the incident and not by telephone whereas PW-6

Constable Phool Kanwar i.e. gunman in the PGR in his cross

examination says that he was stopped by the victim. These two

factors completely rules out the story of the phone call made to

the police control room.

f. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the PW-5

i.e. Dr. Ruchita in her cross examination has admitted that she

has not noticed any blood on the shirt of the victim whereas the

blood is bound to be there as one of the so-called injuries to the

victim was on his nose and the victim has stated that the blood

has came out of that injury as well and it has been stated so by
the.victim.

g. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the arrest
of the appellant is under cloud and doubtful in as much as PW-

8, the victim has stated in his cross examination that all the
 10

three accused persons were not nabbed by the PGR officials as

only two could be caught by them whereas the third one was

called at the police station at about 09:00 P.M. On the date of

the incident itself. Moreover, the PW-8 also failed to name the

two persons nabbed by the PGR officials. Hence the benefit of

doubt could be given to the appellant.

h. Because the Ld. Trial Gourt failed to appreciate that there are

certain flaws in the investigation for instance the blood stained

shirt of the victim was not seized despite the fact that the blood

stains were there and no explanation has been put forth in this

context. Hence, the benefit of the faulty investigation be given to

the appellant as held in case titled as Kailash Gaur Vs State of

Assam.

i. Because the Ld. Trial Gourt failed to appreciate that there is no

corroboration to the fact that the PGR officials had handed over

some recovered articles which was allegedly recovered from

the accused persons to the investigating officer and it is highly

improbable that the blood stains would be present on the blade
which is stated to have been recovered from the pocket of
accused Deepak.

j. Because.the Ld. Trial Gourt failed to appreciate that a surgical

blade is a very small piece of metal and possibility of blood
stains on that small surgical blade, despite being kept in the
 11

pocket, is nearly impossible. In these circumstances, wherever

I

the blood stains were found, and noticed by the experts of the

FSL. This reflects that the Investigating agency has created

false evidence against the accused persons In order to falsely

Implicate them.

k. Because the Ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate that no

Independent witness was Included at the time of arrest of the

appellant especially since the prosecution has allegedly claimed

to have recovered alleged articles from possession of the

appellant.

That reliance Is placed In the case titled Kehar Singh vs State

( Delhi Admn.) herein it is held that;

"It is very difficult to believe that citizen in

this capital did not come forward to be a
witness for seizure memo, the arrest of the
accused in the circumstances appears to be
only a show and not an arrest In actuality".

1. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that there was a
fight over the Issue of this fare Inasmuch as the victim happens
to be a TSR driver and the accused persons were dealing In
supply of water In pouches which they brought In the TSR of the
victim and the exorbitant demand of fare of Rs. 150 as against
the genuine fare of Rs. 50/-, which was offered to be paid by the
accused persons, led to a fight and the complainant/ victim, with
the connivance of the police officials has framed the accused
persons In this false case.

m. That the learned Trial Court erred by convicting the appellant as

It did not follow the established principle of law, which states

 12

that when there are two theories, one in favor of the accused

and the other in the favor of the prosecution then in that event,

benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and acquit

him considering the lacunae in the case.

n. That the petitioner is at a precociously young age of thirty years

with a prime responsibility towards his parents and family. As a

result of this frivolous case imposed upon him, his family is

facing the ignominy from the relentless society. A prolonged

incarceration would not only put a negative and vicious impact

on his subtle and fragile psyche but also impede his

transformation and development into a law abiding and

righteous person.

0. That furthermore, an elongated period of imprisonment would

aggravate the anguish of the petitioner and his eventual return

to the main stream of society would possibly translate into a

nightmarish isolation from the main stream of society.

4. That it is humbly submitted to permit the appellant to add more

grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal as he is not having

access to the deposition of all the witnesses.

5. It is declared that no appeal against the impugned judgment and

order has been filed in any other court or in this Hon'ble Court.
 T1 . "4

i \

15. That the appellant craves leave to add to, delete modify or alter any

of the aforesaid grounds of appeal.

PRAYER

Therefore in light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances it is

most reverently prayed that an order may kindly be passed:

To set aside the impugned judgment on conviction and order on

sentence dated 27-05-2017 & 02-06-2017 passed by Sh. Vimal

Kumar Yadav, Ld. ASJ ,Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SO No 78/2014

pertaining to FIR No. 231/2014 and consequently this Hon'ble Court

may be pleased to acquit the appellant.

II. To pass any other order(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems

expedient in order to secure the Ends of Justice.

Forwarded By: T

Vineet Malhotra Mukesh r ;;

(Jail Visiting Counsel) S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (Presently Confined at
Central Jail No. 13,
Mandoli, Delhi)
 14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

^ ^ (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:

Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently confined at
CentralJail No.13,
Mandoii Delhi) ...Appellant
VERSUS

The State(NCI of Delhi) ...Respondent

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL
I, Mukesh S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad, the appellant named above,
presently lodged in Central Jail No 13, Mandoii, Delhi do hereby solemnly
affirm and.state as under:

1. Thai the accompanying appeal under section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.

challenging the impugned judgment and order on conviction and
sentence has been drafted and typed under my instruction and I am
fully aware of the contents mentioned therein and the same are true
and correct.

2. That I have understood the contents of the accompanying application

. as well the affidavit in vernacular and the same are veracious. I
declare that the contents of the appeal are correct to the best of my
knowledge and nothing material pertaining to this case has been
concealed from this Hon'ble Court.

3. That I have not moved any other ^milar petition before this Hon'ble
Court or any other High Court^r^hej)^'ble
.L-Vtz:
Supreme Court
7-<2
of India.
'DEPCllpNJ
Dy(S«!p3rintendent ,
central Jail W|of
Mandoii ue '5/0 ShTnHlS^^vind Prasad
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi dated this the 22"^^ day of June 2017 that the
contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and nothing material to tl^h^been concealed
u

D NE

Centrsi vi'H! 'rU:-. ; j \ jv ii—pr vpy—

Mandoii Dolhi LYU3fMuke»^1^^^\
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
 15
f1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

■ ' ^ (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
CRIMINAL M.B. NO.. OF 2015
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF201S)_
LEGAL AID MATTER

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently confined at
CentralJail No.13,
Mandoll Delhi) .Petitioner

VERSUS

The State(NCT of Delhi) .Respondent

In case
Sessions Case No. 78/2014
Unique Identification No. 02401R0364792014
FIR No. 231/2014
Convicted U/S 392/394/34 of I PC
Police Station Subzi Mandi, Delhi
Sentenced on 02-06-2017
Sentenced by Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, ASJ, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi
Sentenced to Rl for 4 years and an aggregated fine of
Rs.10,000/-.

PETITION UNDER SECTiON 389 OF THE Cr.P.C SEEKING

SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL IN THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT

To
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Deihi and
His Companion Judges of this Hon'bie
High Court

The Humble Application of

The Appellant named above;
Most Respectfully Showeth:
1 CRUX OF THE ORDERS PASSED EARLIER
That is the 1®' application U/s 389 of the Cr.P.C. of the petitioner
since his confinement in the Jail.
2. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER IN THE OFFENCE AS MENTIONED
IN THE JUDGMENT :
It has been alleged that the appellant has committed offence(s) u/s
392/394/34 of IRC.
 16

3. ANTECEDENTS OF THE PETITIONER:

That the appellant is a man of clean antecedents.
4. PRESENT RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER:
R/o Railway Colony, Morigate, Pul Duffrin, Delhi
5. RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AT THE TIME OF OCCURRENCE OF
THE INCIDENT:
R/o Railway Colony, Morigate, Pul Duffrin, Delhi
6. ADDRESS OF NATIVE PLACE:
Gopal Pur, Distt. Sihore, Tehsil Narsula Ganj, P.S; Narsula Ganj,
7. Madhya Pradesh
8. PERMANENT ADDRESS:
Gopal Pur, Distt. Sihore, Tehsil Narsula Ganj, P.S; Narsula Ganj,
Madhya Pradesh.

9. FAMILY COMPOSITION OF PETITIONER :

That the petitioner don't have any more blessings of his parents as
the mother of the petitioner expired when the petitioner was minor
and the father of the petitioner expired in year 2011. The petitioner is
having wife and one daughter age about 9 years.
10. OCCUPATION OF APPELLANT PRIOR TO HIS CONVICTION:
That the appellant was working as a water vender at Old Delhi
Railway Station.

11 CAN THE PETITIONER BE ABLE TO FURNISH HIS SURETY IN

THE EVENT OF BAIL BEING GRANTED TO HIM:

That the petitioner hails from a poor segment of society, but will be
able to furnish a local surety of minimum amount, if bail is granted to
him.

12- WHETHER THE PETITIONER EVER JUMPED BAIL OR WAS

DECLARED PROCLAIMED OFFENDER:
That the petitioner has never contravened the laws and has never
been declared a proclaimed offender.
13 BRIEF FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS PER
PROSECUTION:
That facts and the story of the prosecution are not repeated here for
the sake of brevity and the same may kindly be read from the copy
of the Judgment. The contents of the accompanying appeal may be
read as part and parcel of this application which are not repeated
herein for the sake of conciseness.
14. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER AND GROUNDS FOR
BAIL:

a. That till the time of filing the instant appeal along with

suspension of the sentence, the petitioner had spent almost 21

months under imprisonment out of the sentence of four years.

His character has been exemplary during the incarceration

period and nothing adverse has been recorded against him. It

would be appropriate to suspend his sentence until the decision

of the appeal as in light of the observations of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India. Reliance is placed in various cases :

In the case titled Kashmira Singh vs The State of

Punjab AIR 1977 SO 2147 where the Lordships
observed thus:

"The practice not to release on bail a person who

has been sentenced was evolved In the High
Courts and In the Supreme Court on the basis that
once a person has been found guilty and
sentenced to life Imprisonment he should not be
let loose, so long as his conviction and sentence
are not set aside, but the underlying postulate of
this practice was that the appeal of such person
would be disposed of within a measurable
distance of time, so that If he Is ultimately found to
be Innocent, he would not have to remain Jail for
an unduly long period. The rationale of this
practice can have no application where the Court
Is not In a position to dispose of the appeal for five
or six years. It would Indeed be a travesty of
Justice to keep a person In Jail for a period of five
 18

to six years for an offence which is uitimately

found not to have been committed by him".
b. That Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. SHALI in case titled JASBIR

SINGH vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI bearing CRL.A. No.

349/2011 Vide his order dated 2 July, 2012 ;

..."The third appiication fiied by the appellant

bearing Cri.M.B.no.2235/2011 for suspension of

sentence and enlargement on bail was considered

by this Court inasmuch as the appellant had

contended in the said appiication that he has served

more than six years of the total sentence and out of

six years, 15 months were undergone by him, after

the date of conviction and sentence passed by the

learned Special Judge. Accordingly, it was

contended by Mr.Nigam, the learned counsel that in

terms of the case titled Daier Singh Vs. State of

Punjab 2007(1) C.C. Cases (HC) 252, the appellant

has satisfied the twin conditions specified therein of

having undergone more than half of the total

sentence out of which 15 months were undergone

by him, after the date of conviction and sentence

and, therefore, he be extended the benefit of

suspension ofsentence and enlargement on bail, as

there is no immediate prospect of the appeal being

taken up for regular hearing..."
 19

c. Reliance Is placed in case titled 'Chaman La! & Ors.

Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation vide order dated

04.01.13 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Shall in Criminal

M.B. Nos.1044/2011, 1045/2011, 1046/20111047/2011

in Criminal Appeal No.757 of 2011.

..."There is also another fact that there is a seal

of Judiciai approval on the case of the
prosecution by the trial court but at the same
time, this is also a fact that their appeal stands
admitted and they have been visited only with a
maximum sentence of five years out of which
they have already undergone two years of
sentence by now. The court is not able to hear
the appeal of the appellants despite its best
efforts on account of heavy pendency of fresh
admission matters and the new listing as a
result of which the regular list moves at a snail
pace, i am quite sure that as the things are
placed, as on date because of the various
factors which includes heavy filing of criminal
matters, paucity of judiciai time, paucity of
Judges, the appeal of the appellants is not likely
to be listed for another couple of years in the
regular list for final hearing and when it may
come up for hearing by that time, the appellants
would have undergone substantial portion of
sentence, if that be the situation and ultimately
at that point of time, the court comes to the
conclusion regarding their innocence by giving
them the benefit of doubt, the incarceration
which they would have suffered would be
irreversible and no amount of money or
compensation or action on the part of the State
would be able to reverse that. Keeping in view
this factor, it prompts the Court to consider the
option of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellants."...
 20

d. That the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt and the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial

Court is based on conjectures and surmises. First and

foremost, the prosecution had failed miserably to prove the

assertions against the petitioner of his involvement in the

alleged offence.

e. That the petitioner is at a precociously young age of thirty

years with a prime responsibility towards his family and minor

daughter. As a result of this frivolous case imposed upon him,

his family is facing the ignominy from the relentless society. A

prolonged incarceration would not only put a negative and

vicious impact on his subtle and fragile psyche but also

impede his transformation and development into a law abiding

and righteous person.

f. That the petitioner has been granted the bail by the Ld. Trial
Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner never
misused the liberty granted to him and the petitioner regularly
appeared before the Trial Court.

g. That the petitioner is having deep root in the society and there
is no apprehension of absconding.

h. That the petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms and

conditions imposed upon him and further undertakes to stay at
the above mentioned Delhi address and undertake to never
misuse the liberty if granted. That the petitioner further
undertakes that he shall not leave the city without prior
 21

permission of this Hon'ble court and shall report to the 10/

' SHO concern on every Saturday.

i. That furthermore, an elongated period of imprisonment would

aggravate the anguish of the petitioner and his eventual return

to the main stream of society would possibly translate into a

nightmarish isolation from the main stream of society. Hence,

an entreaty is put across before this magnanimous Court to

kindly consider this petition and kindly suspend his sentence

and grant thereby providing him with an opportunity to

resurrect his career that got tarnished due to this false and

fabricated case.

j. That the petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms and

conditions that might be imposed upon him by this Hon'ble

Court.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, in view of the above mentioned facts and

circumstances the appellant most humbly prays to this Hon'ble
Court to:

I. Suspend the petitioner's sentence till the pendency of the present

appeal and release him on bail.

II. Pass any other order(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems expedient ir
order to secure the Ends of Justice

Atteated
Fo,Fwarded
Dy ran dent
Vin^t Malhotra ' LjToflViLikesh No. 1J
(Jail Visiting Counsel) S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasacl^'^^ De.hi
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (Presently Confined at
CentralJail No. 13,
Mandoli, Delhi)
 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

' ^ (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
CRIMINAL M.B. NO. OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently confined at
CentralJail No.13,
Mandoli, Delhi) ...Appellant

VERSUS

The State(NCT of Delhi) ...Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mukesh S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad, the appellant named above,
presently lodged in Central Jail No 13, Mandoli, Delhi, do hereby solemnly
affirm and state as under;

1. That I am the petitioner of the accompanying petition U/s 389 of the

Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and grant of Bail and the
same has been drafted at my instance and the contents mentioned
are true and correct.

2. That I have not moved any other similar petition before this Hon'ble
Court or any other High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India.

lerbifendcp
tFitrai No - V. ^
Mandoli Deini cTJ-oiMukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad

VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi dated this the 22"^ day of June 2017 that the
contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and nothing material to this has been concealed
ur-7

D/f. §upe.?ffitendent
Sentrsnail Nk). 13
Mandoli Delhi
LTI of Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
 23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

' ^ (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
CRiMiNAL M.A. NO. OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF: I^JIc57

Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently confined at
Central Jail No.13,
Mandoli Delhi) .Appellant
VERSUS

The State(NCT of Delhi) ...Respondent

APPLICATION U/S 482 OF THE Cr.P.C SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM

FILING THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF JUGDMENT. ORDER ON
SENTENCE. DEPOSITION OF WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS

Most respectfully Showeth:

That the appellant submits that he has applied to the office of the l/C
copying agency for supply of the certified copies of the Judgment, Order
on Sentence, deposition of Prosecution Witnesses and the exhibits and the
same has not been made available to him till date.

That the appellant undertakes to deposit the same, whenever the

aforesaid documents are made available to him.

PRAYER
In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is most
respectfully prayed that the appellant may please be exempted from filing
the certified copies of the Judgment, Order on Sentence, deposition of
Prosecution Witnesses and the exhibits in the interest of justice.

Att®

Dn up? nd nt
entral No
Mandoli Delhi of Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently Confined at
Central Jail No. 13,
Mandoli Delhi)
 24

IN HE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

■ -' (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
CRiAAiNAL M.A. NO. _ OF 2017
IN
CRiAAiNAL APPEAL NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently confined at
Central Jail No.13,
Mandoli Delhi) .Appellant

VERSUS

The State(NOT of Delhi) .Respondent

AFFIDAVIT
I, Mukesh s/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad, the appellant named above,
presently lodged in Central Jail No 13, Mandoli, Delhi do hereby solemnly
affirm and state as under:

1. That I am the petitioner of the accompanying application under

section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking exemption from filing the certified
copies of Judgment, Order on Sentence, deposition of witnesses
and the exhibits and the same has been drafted at my instance and
the contents mentioned are true and correct.

2. That I have not moved any other similar petition before the Ld. Trial
Court or any other High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India.

Dy/9bper^r»deni 1/:
C©Mra!Jail No. "i 4
Mandoli Delhi LTTsTMukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad

VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi dated this the 22"^^ day of June 2017 that the
contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and nothing material to this has been concealed.
h. ~r':y
LsTO.
Att©
rr
\^\
^ntrgj Jaii No. ■
MandofI D?'hi LTI of Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
 25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
CRiAAINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
(Presently confined at
Central Jail No.13,
Mandoli Delhi) ...Appellant

VERSUS

The State(NOT of Delhi) ...Respondent

DECLARATION OF NO OUTSIDE COUNSEL

1 the undersigned, an inmate, who is the petitioner in the

accompanying matter, declare that I have no private Counsel for moving

this petition in this Hon'ble High Court and that I cannot afford one. I seek

the kind indulgence of the DHCLSC to provide me a competent counsel to

represent me in this appeal and application as well. I shall continue to be

represented by nominated counsel of the Delhi High Court Legal Services

Committee and if for any reason I am inclined to engage the services of a

private counsel, I undertake that I will not have two counsels

simultaneously, but I shall intimate through my private counsel that I will

not continue with the DHCLSC counsel by the means of a no objection

certificate submitted to the DHCLSC.

LvT-J
Attests lent
■tr-J-

Dy. £#enn|shdcr ■
Ce&4! No.
Mandoli Delhi tukesh
S/o Sh. Late Govind Prasad
 IN THE COURT OF SH.IVIMAL KUMAR YADAV
S;PEC1AL JUDGE(POCSO A(tT)/ASJ(CENTRAL): DELHI

SC No. 78/2014
New Case No. 28000/2016
iD No.: 02401R0364792014
FIR No. 231/2014
PS : Subzi Mandi
U/s: 392/394/34, IPG
and 397,!PC Stale

Versus

1) Mukesh
S/o. Late Govind Prasad
R/o. Har.rat Nlzamuddin
Railway Colony, Pul
Duffrin, Delhi.
2) Deepak
S/o, Late Siya Rarn
R/o. Hazrat Nizamuddin
Aawaraaard Railway
Station, Delhi.
3) Johnson
S/o. Late Jai Prakash
R/o. Hazrat Nizamuddin
Railway Colony, Pul
Mithai,. Delhi. ;

Date of Institution 22.08.2014

Date of judgment reser\^ed onj 02.05.2017
Date of judgment 27.05.2017

J U DG

!• The policemen on PGR van No, S-44, consisriric Is In-Charge

Head Constable Sunder Pal (PW-7) ajongwith driver Constable Vijay and

:c No. ^•SUC0.'2O16 Siato V. Mukesh & Ors. Page No. t ui 75

'V..,

cA I I
■c--rTrT
! f:- wib Ut'."'
 a

gunman Constable PhooJ Kanwar (PV\|-6) when reached near Phool Mandi,
I
Rain Basera, Hamilton Road at abtput 06.10 P.M. heard a noise and
I
stopped a person came running to thejri and informed that three boys have
robbed and stabbed him and ran towards Phool Mandi. information in this
j . .
regard reported to the police vide DD No. 18/PP, Thereafter, they all
followed the assailants to Phool Man di and all the three assailants were

apprehended at the instance of the viptim Virender Kumar. The recoveries

of robbed articles as well as surgical blade fromi the accused persons v\/ere

made except accused Mukesh as notjiing incriminating was found on him.

The relevant entries were made in the register maintained in the PGR

vehicle, photocopy of which is Ex.PWTj/A. The police control room was also
informed about the incident. All the tj-iree assailants and victim were then
i

removed to ArunaAsaf Ali hospital, wl|ere ASI Yogesh from the local police

station reached and took over the charge of the case. The relevani

documents, i.e. arrest memo, personal search memo, site plan etc. were

prepared and the disclosure statements of the accused persons have also
i
1
!

been recorded. On conclusion of the! investigation, a charge sheet under

section 392/394/397, IPG have been fijed against the accused persons.

2. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was

committed to the Court of Sessions on being a sessions trial and charge

i
under sections 392/394/34, IPG agaiiist all the accused persons and as the

accused Jhonson had used surgicaMblade and caused injuries to victim

SC No. 28000/2016 State V. IViukesh & Ors. Page No. 2 ol 15

TV

\\

-sr; . ft. V 1
A.
II
//

;-
while committing the offence, thus secjtion 397, IPC was also invoked and
j ■
charge was framed against him, which was read over to them, to which

they all pleaded not guilty and claimed lial.

3' Of the 10 witnesses arrayed in the list of witnesses in order to

drive home its case by the prosecution, all 10 were examined and the

evidence was thus, concluded, Statement of the accused persons were

recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Tie accused persons confronted the

evidence on record and opted to bring evidence in defence, Hira Lai was

examined as DW-1 on behalf of accused persons,

4. . I have heard the contentidns raised by the Additional Public

Prosecutor for State and Counsel for accused and perused the record as

well, I
5. It is contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor for State

that cogent evidence is there against a :l 3 accused persons with regard to

their complicity in the act of robbery as not only the victim Virender Kumar,

but the PGR officials with the help ofjwhom, the accused persons were
nabbed immediately after the inciden ; have stood by the case of the

■prosecution, but have also identified t le accused persons and the case

property i.e. mobile phone and the si jrgical blade used in the offence,

leaving no doubt about the involvement of the accused persons. The

clothes of the victim which he was wear ng at the time of incident have also

been identified. Those clothes are a tejlltale testimony of a violent offence

SC No. 28000/2016 State V, Mukes h & Ors. Page No. 2 ot 15

C-.._
in which the victim sustained injuries en his person whiie being robbed by

the accused persons. The FSL resuit Ex.PWll/H further suppiemenis and

corroborates the testimony of the witnesses and cements the case of the
I

prosecution against the accused persdns as the resuit refiects that the pant
i

and shorts/nikkar and surgical bladje, aii had traces of human blood
belonging to group 'A' which purportedly is the blood group of the victim.
The Counsel for the ac cused persons, on the other hand,

contended that the case of the prosecution is highly improbable and there
1

are certain circLimsiances which mak^ it highly unbelievable. To elaborate

I
I
1

he has asserted that the way it has be|en testified that the TSR was hired by
j
the accused persons is in itself is not possible as it cannot be imagined thar
a TS.R can be hired forcibly against the wishes of the TSR driver in the city
I
of Delhi. The person who made the call to the PGR is not clear and for thai
j
matter whether a'PCR call was mad'e or not is under cloud inasmuch as
evidence of PW-7 Head Constable Sunder Pal, who was In-Charge or die

"PGR van has stated that he was infonmed orally about the incident and not

by telephone whereas PW-6 Constable Phool Kanv^/ar i.e. gunman in the

PGR in his cross examination says that he was stopped by the victim.

These two factors completely rules oijjt the story of the phone call made to
j
the police control room. It is adcjitionally submitted that the doctors
I

examined as PW-5 i.e. Dr. Ruchita ha's not noticed any biood on the shirt of
I
I
the victim whereas blood is bound to be there as one of the so-called

SC No. 28000/2016 State ■/. /Wu[(es/7 & Ors. Page No. 4 ot 15

Ad ^i
 o

injuries to the. victim was on his nos 3 and the victim has stated that the

blood has came out of that injury as well and it has been stated so by the

victim.

The arrest of the acc jsed persons is also under cloud

inasmuch as PW-8, the victim has stated in his cross examination that all

the three accused persons were not nabbed by the PGR officials as only

two could be caught by them whereas the third one was called at the police

station at about 09.00 P.M. on the date of the incident itself.

1

8. There are certain flaws! in the investigation for instance the

I
blood stained shirt of the victim was! not seized despite the fact that the
I

blood stains were there and no explanation has been put forth in this

context. The evidence further reflects that one of the accused persons

Deepak had also sustained injuries in his hand, but there is no record of
I
any such injury which otherwise coulcl have brought some credibility to the
case of the prosecution, but in the ab; ence of the same, the credibility itself

suffers. There is no corroboration to the fact that the PGR officials had
1

I
handed over some recovered articlesi which, was allegedly recovered from

the accused persons to the Investigating Officer and it is highly improbable

i
that the bloodstains would be present on the blade which is stated to have

been recovered from the pocket of accused Deepak. If is asserted by the

Gounsel for the accused persons that a surgical blade is a very small piece

of metal and possibility of blood stain^ on that small surgical blade, despite
I

SC No. 28000/201S Steiti! V. MuifOsh & 0r3. Page No. 5 of 10

n li I I t.y
being kept in the pocket, is nearly ipipossible. In these circumstances,
wherever the blooci stains were found and noticed by the experts of the

FSL. This reflects that the investigating agency has created a false

evidence against the accused in order to falsely implicate them.

9. Finally, it is contended th at there was a fight over the issue of

the fare inasmuch as the victim haopens to be a TSR driver and the

accused persons were dealing in su[mly of water in pouches which ihey

y

brought in the TSR of the victim an d, the exorbitant demand of fare of

Rs.150/- as against the genuine fare of Rs.50/-, which was offered to be

paid by the accused persons, led to a[fight and the complainant/victim, with
the connivance of the police officials jhas framed the accused persons in

this false case,

10. In order to drive home i s case under section 392, 394 and

397 IPG, with which the accused persons have been charged, the

prosecution has to establish the followi ng facts;-

11- In order that theft may cdnstitute robbery, prosecution has to

establish -

(a) if in order to the committing of theft; or

(b) in committing the theft; or
(c) in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft;
(d) the offender for that end i.e. any of the.ends contemplated by (a) to (c);
(e)voluntarily causes.or attempts to c^use to any person death or hurt or
wrongful restraint or fear of instant, death or of instant hurt or instant
wrongful restraint.

12. In other words, theft would only be robbery if for any of the ends

SC No. 28000/2016 state V. Muti^sh & Ors. Page No. 6 of 15

i is I gjik-

..'ft-
 C)'

mentioned in (a)to (c) the offendef vol|mtarily causes or attempts to cause

to any person death or hurt or wrc|ngf>|l restraint or fear of instant death or
of instant hurt or instant wrongfui restraint. If the ends does not fall within
or attempts to cause to any person
(a) to (c) but, the offender still cayises
death or hurt or wrongful restraintj or fear of instant death or of instant hurt
or instant wrongful restraint, the gffence would not be robben/. That (a) or
(b) or (c) have to be read conjunctivel / vt/ith (d) and (e). it is only when (a)
!
or (b) or (c) co-exist with (d) and (e) or there is a nexus between any of
them and (d), (e) would amount to rotjbeiy; reference can be made to the
judgment in State of Maharashtra v. .Joseph Minge! Koli, (1997) 2 Crimes
' I

228 (Bom).

13, The reason put-fourth that the case of the prosecution being
highly improbable is primarily on the following three counts tnat the TSR
could not.not be hired forcefully again 31 the wishes of the TSR driver as it is
the matter of common knowledge, that Auto-rickshaw driver of Delhi are
veiy unruly and did not allow the pasisengers to board their Auto-rickshaw
unless they are willing to go, to tl"le destination of the choice of the
In these
passengers only if, suits to the Ti and not otherwi be.

circumstances, how can accused ptsrsons could forcefully hire the Auto-
rickshaw. The conteritions of'the Ld. Counsel for accused is not wholly
incorrect, The Auto-rickshaw drivers are riotorious in this contexi, bui ii is
equally correct that there are a good number of auto-rickshaw drivers who
Page No. 7 0/(5
SC No. 28000/2016
state V. Mi^kesh & Ors.

u*.

-Ir,

"VTr;"' ■ . ■ ■

k\ -3 'g ii
 do not ask the passengers as to where they have to go and simply allow
the passengers to board the Auto-rickshaw and dont even ask a word and
simply down their meter and take the passengers to their destination
wherever they say. In these circumstances, unless there is some evidence,
in this context,' the arguments raised on behalf of the accused persons

remains bald assertions and cannot be given any importance or weightage.

14. On the scale of improbability, the other fact put-forth by the Ld.
Counsel for the accused persons is the absence of any blood stains on the
shirt of the Victim and in this context, Ld. Counsel for accused, has drawn

the attention of the Court to the testimony of PW5 Dr. Ruchita, where in the

cross-examination she has stated that there was bleeding from the wounds

of tiie Victim which were stitched but she did not notice the blood on the

shirt of the Victim. It is pertinent to notice here that the victim was injured

with the surgical blade by one of the accused persons on his nose and

thighs, it is contended that in such circumstances, when the bleeding was

•there from the wounds, the blood was oozing out from the nose, must fall

on the shirt, If, the Doctor did ,not notice the blood on the shirt then the

story of the prosecution's case comes under clouds. However, it is evident

in itself, is not convincing enough for the reasons that the Doctor has

merely stated that she did not notice any blood on the shirt of the Victim

which does not mean that blood was there on the shirt of the Victim or thai

. it was not there as it may or may not have been there. There is not definite

SC No. 28000/2016 State V. MuKesh & Ors. Page No. 8 ot 15

f'-t .v.- '

TC.TP71
'i ■>
 word about this in the testimony ot PW5 - Dr. Ruchita, it is pertinent to
mention here that inju^ paused te the victint was with a surgical blade
which was recovered by the police and the injury on the nose of the Victim
was 1 cm. X .2 cm. The major par. o, the nose is the nasal bone and the
injury is only skin deep; then the amount of blood may not so much that it
may fail over the face and body and on the clothes of the Victim. Then
again the testimony of PW5 - Dr. Ruchita, clearly reflects that the injuries
were there on the person of the Victim. Mere, absence of the blood that .00
on the shirt is not enough to falsify or disapprove the case of the
prosecution, so far as the injury to the victim Is concerned, inasmuch as not
only the MLC supports this fact but the Victim and other witnesses have
also stated about it.

15, Testimony of PW7 HC Sunder Pal Singh, who was In-cha-ge

on the PGR vehicle, with the assistance of the Victim and other policemen
caught hold the accused persons has clearly testified about tne injunes
■QSS-
sustained by the Victim on the nose and the thigh, in the ci
on
examination, he clearly stated that be had noticed the blade cut mark
the nose and on the left thigh, The contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the

accused persons in this context is that how the injury on the thigh could be
noticed by HC Sunder Pal Singh as the incident had taken place at about
06.00 p.m. in the evening. 'It is pertinent here to mention that the incident
took place on 18.05.2014 and at 06.00 p.m. in those summer months,

SC No. 23000/2016 Stato v. Mukesh & Ors. Page No. 9 at 15

T -.-c. .t
.-rf.—

IS

-m.V C.

-g:
ample sunlight is available in Delhi. Since, the blood was com
out ftom the injury from the thigh as can be seen from the blood stains on
the pant of the Victim, therefore, it is not unusual for a police man to no
, incidentaiiy, the weapon of offence, the surgical blade was recovered
it

from the pocket of the accused Deepak almost immediately after the
Offence and at that time also it had:blood stains. This aspect has also been
question-marked by the Ld. Counsel for the accused on the scale of
probability and improbability by asserting that the surgical blade is very
small metal piece and blood stains from the same would be wiped If it was
Kept in the pocket or taken out. On the face of it, the contention on behalf
of Ld. counsel for accused persons appears to have some substance out
then It is not necessary and mandatory that the blood stains would be
wiped away and merely on this ground, the accused persons can gel any
leverage or advantage. The pant of the victim, having blood stains was
seized and produced in the Court as well as which was telltale marks on it,
substantiating that the injuries sustained by the victim on his lelt tnigh.
Therefore, this contention is also of no avail so far as the cause or liie
accused persons is concerned.
• Another contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that

the injured person was having injury on his thigh from which the blood is
going out could not have chased any person or accused for a distance of
40 feet to 150 feet. The accused persons were chased and caught by the

SC No. 28000/2016 state V. MuKesii & Ors. Page No. ol 15

f |l>'
1 uTd
 -i.-. ™ 7
: ~ :::
—«•"■«" ""'"""""" ,

... ............« "•

blow by surgical blade too trivial. ^ Therefore, it cannot be ruled out
^ ri hpinpri the PGR officials in apprehending
Victim could not have chased and helped the puk
the accused persons,■ Thus,
Thus the
the scale
scaie of improbabilities tilts against the
accused persons.

17 certain flaws in me investigation have also been sougbt to be

apprehended and arrested together as per the testimony of PW8 V,render

Singh, the victim. Whereas, the statement of PGR officials reflect that all
the three accused persons were apprehended together. However, the
anomaly appearing in the testimony of PW8 - Virender Kumar that the third
accused Mukesh was brought to the PR later on, at about 09,00 p.m.: has
not .been put to the 10 or anything with this nature has come in the
testimony of any of the PGR;officials who has actually apprehended the
Page No'. 11 of 15
sc No. 28000/2016 State v. Mukesh & Ors.

fit'

h\ ^
•#

. ,a
accused persons and have been ex^amined p\A/fi — Ct Phoot Kawar and

PW7- HC sunder Pa, Sinph. Bo.hl PW6 and PW7 had rna,n.a,ned
the three accused persons i.e. Deepal<, Ivtukesh
apprehended by thent with the assistance of the
I . the
and
\/irtim
Joh
PW8 - Virender

Kumar. There is no suggestion given to either to these two witnesses

accused persons
apprehended were if.notit wouid
together, apprehended
have beenbytrue,
themthen,or thetheybd.Oefenee
were not
counsel must have been briefed by the accused persons and the quest.ons
would have to come in the cross iexamination. ,n the cross-exam,natron o,
PW7 - H.C sunder Pal Singh, it has come in the last lines that he had
nabbed the two accused persons; and one was nabbed by Ct, Phool Kavrar,
thereby, confirming that all the three accused persons were apprehended
by the PGR officials. PW8- Virender Kumar stated that police had nabbed
two accused persons immediately, whereas, third accused was brought .c
PP later on at about 09.00 p.m.; This does not mean that the third was ,tot
apprehended with the other two. This puts a question mark on the case
put-forth by the prosecution, but then in the absence of confronting the PGR
officials or 10, this alone could hot be blown out of proportions to disbelieve
every witness I.e. PW8 who had otheiwise, stated about the robbery and
being assaulted during the robbery with the help of a surgical blade.
3_8, Thus, what emerges on record is that the accused persons,

SC No. 2800012016
state V. Mukesh & Ors. P^9e No. 12 of 15

•V

II I
r !•T'
••

who conjointly and in tandem with each other, robbed the victim PW 8
Virender Kumar and in the process,one of the accused persons had caught
hold of him from behind and snatched mobile phone and his black coloured
parse containing a sum of Rs,90:0/-'and some papers and one of the
assailants i.e. accused Deepak gdve a blow on the nose and left thigh of
me victim with a surgical blade,:which was recovered from his pocket
immediately after his apprehension on that ven/ day, almost immediately
after the Incident. There ,s no doubt about the complicity of the accused
persons in view of the fact that they have been apprehended almost
immediately after the incident and|they have been identified by not only the
victim but the PCR officials i.e. PW-6 Consfable Phool Kanwar and PWT
Head constable Sunder Pal also,, leaving no doubt about the identity of the
accused persons. The purse ahti mobile phone produced and laentified as
well as Ex.P-2 collectively. The victim has also identified his clothes, having
blood stains which is Ex.P-3 and a surgical blade which was used in tne
commission of the offence as Ex.P-1. The robbed articles were recovered
from the accused persons and were seized by the police as has come m
testimony of PVV-6 Constable Phool Kanwar and PW-7 Head Constable
Sunder Pal. Accused Deepak was not only carrying the surgical blade, but
the robbed mobile phone make Nokia of black colour was also recovered
from him whereas purse was recovered from tfie accused Jhonson,
containing Rs.900/- whereas nothing was recovered from accused Mukesh,
Pago No. 13 of 75
S.C-N!:h^8^p/2016 state V. Mukesh 3: Ors-

,, r rTG,TFn
••

bu, his complioity .S ve^ ™ch in the ohenoe as a„ the three accused
persons whileblade
ynesurgica, actingandconiointly
Clothesinottandem withhave
the Victim each been
otheridentihed
robbed by PW-b
constable Phool Kanwar and Pyv-T Head Constable Sunder Pa, also.
These tacts are sufficient to consttute the offence of robbery and as^ui.
during the robbery by the accused persons and that brings section 392/394,
IPG read with section 34, IPG qua the aforesaid, ail tne three accused
persons who are ail equally iiabiie for these offences. Hun was caused
during the connmission of robbed and Section 394, IPG holds responsible
everyone rnvolved.for causing hurt as per the language of the section itself,
ig. Whether Section 397, IPG is attracted or not, for which
accused Deepak has been charged.. The decisive factor is the use of
deadly weapon and in this case,, a surgica, blade has been used to cause
injury to the victim on his nose and left thigh while committing the robbery.
Whether or not a surgical biade^ is a deadly weapon holds the key in this
context. A surgical blade is used by the professional doctors/suigeons lo
carry out surgery! it is though;a small metal piece, but very strong and
sharp. Whether this could be deadly or not depends upon the persons
using it and the portion where the surgical blade is used. The looks of the
surgical blade are disguising as! it may appeared to be too small and trivial
to fit in the definition of a deadly weapon. To some extent, this argument
. can be entertained that it is npt per see a deadly weapon, but use can

3C N6.^8Q00/2Q16 ' S(a(e v. Mukesh & Ors. No

-'
•rV T.
-A•.' T ■■>1 ^"
' •

-- ''--A 3 liJ
IT t I
Stsk.;.,.- ^ ..-TfS
■■■

C- r-m'T '/ j. ^f.'o

 40
••

make it deadly. If a vital part of jthe bpdy is cut with the help of a surgical
blade, the result may be fatal. The bljade has been used in the offence is
i I
not in dispute now. ' i

20. As such, it is the use of the blade which may result in to

fatality but the surgical blade itself does not seemingly fall in to the scope

and ambit of a deadly weapon ahd as!such this fact is enough to take out

the act of the accused Deepak out of the scope of Section 397, IPG. As

such, in view of the discussion herein above, all the accused persons are

held guilty for the offences punishable under section 392/394, IRC read with

Section 34 IPG and convicted thereof whereas accused Deepak stands

acquitted from the charge under section 397, IPG.

Announced in the open Court

on this 27th day of May, 2017 (VIMAL KUMAR YADAV)
SRECIAL JUDGE(POCSO ACT)/ASJ
CENTRAUTHC, DELHI .
- I

iC . I

tq.'-" I

AM I n

if*. 8 ?

SC No. 28000/2016 V. MuKes\i iS Ors. 15 of 15

& En^fW- C'.

I/■
 IN THE COURT OF SH. VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
SPECIAL JUDGE(POCSO ACT)/ASJ( CENTRAL); DELHI

SC No. 78/2014
New Case No. 28000/2016 !
ID No.: 02401R0364792014
; ■ : FIR No. 221/2014
PS : Subzi Mandi
U/s: 392/394/34, IPG
!

Versus

1) Mukesh
S/o. Late Govind Prasad
R/o. Hazrat Nizamuddin
Railway Colony, Pul
Duffrin, Delhi.
2) Deepak
S/o. Late Siya Ram
R/o. Hazrat Nizamuddin
Aawaragard Railway
Station, Delhi,
3) Johnson
S/o. Late Jai Prakash
R/o. Hazrat Nizamuddin
Railway Colony, Pul
Mithai, Delhi.

ORDER ON SENTENCE
I I
i I

1- It is contended on belialf of the convicts that they a,e

young man, having their whole lite ahead of them and have also to
look after their respective families.: It is further submitted that the
convicts Mukesh and Deepak haye spend around 1 year and 3
months in custody and for that matter convict Jhonson too had spent

SC No. 28000/2016 Statew. Mukesh & Ors. Page No. 1 of 4

!

e; a

■¥J'
f
sometime in custody during investigation and the
considering the,r young age at the time ot ottence, cou ie^ »th
tact that the reformative theory of punishment is ,n vogue all ov ti
„or,d and india is no exception^ which entities the conv..^to be
considered for lightest possible,sentence, it ,s further su , . ^
the convicts deserve to be given an opportuntty to ^
are and can be useful citizens,and should not be removed from tne
socety especially from the cgre, protection and -btP-on^p o
their family and friends. With these contentions, ,t ,s sought
convicts may be considered: tor lightest possible sentence anu
posslbily for the benefit of probation, which they deceives in view of
the fact that the convicts are all below 30 years of age, having family
responsibilities.
2 While seeking a- commensurate punishment for the
convicts. It Is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
that the convicts had not only robbed the victim, but also caused
injuries with the help of a surgical blade in order to take advantage of
the vulnerability of the victim consciously and deliberately, theretore,
they do not deserve leniencyi With these contentions it Is submitted
that convict dosorvos to bo punish.-^d suitably.
3. Sentencing is the most ignored aspect ot criminal
law. Absence of any set parameters result into yarlance and
therefore the sentences bear individual stamp of the senteucei.
No uniformity is there and it varies from court to court. However,
while considering an appropriate sentence for a convict, lot ot
factors come into play such as the age, gender; educational

SC No. 28000/2016 Slate V, Mukesh & Ors. ''

. .V ^Si 'd '-

background, socio-economic status of the convict and the role of
the convicts and the victim ahd its impact on the society and the
circumstances under which be offence took place etc. The
sentence needs to be adequate and in consonance with the
offence committed, it shouldj neither be harsh nor should it be
too light. Striking such a delicate balance is very crucial for a
judge in the role of a sentencer.
4^ The sentence is required to be in consonance with the
offence which not only takes cbe of the grievances of the victims, but
the rage of the society as well, and it also taken into account the
situation of the convict and the circumstances in which it took place.
The mitigating circumstancejs, if any, should be given due
consideration and the socio-economic and educational background of
the victim, the^ facts and circumstances in which the offence took
place and the role of the conviict, if any, and society shall also to be
undertaken while awarding the sentence. The possibile fall outs of
the sentence on the victim, society and for the convict and their
families are all required to be weighed and measured, so far as
possible. ;
5 The act of the convicts is blatent disregard of the social
and legal norms. They had] not only robbed the victim, but also
injured him. There could not be any possible justification for such an
act. All the convicts were acting conjointly and therefore all of them
are equaly liable for committing the robbery and causing injury to the
victim who happens to be a T,SR driver, who was hired by them, tiius
the facility and trust have bejen breached and ravished. Except the

stale V. Mukosh & Ors. Page No. 3 ol 4

SC No. 28000/2016

ik l.v. i m!
n

y'-"
 4

age and clean antecedents, there appears no mitigating circumstance

in favour of the convicts. The|refore, considering the matter in its
entirety, all three convicts are hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-
each, in default of which they sh|all undergo simple imprisonment for 6
months for the offence under section 392 IPC. All the three convicts
are further sentenced to undergo .rigorous imprisonm.ent for a period
of 4 years and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of which
the\/'shall undergo sim,ple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence
under section 394 IPC. Both the sentences snail run. concurrently.'
The convicts are entitled to the ijcri' iO i i! as s ;i of under section 428

Cr.P.C.

6 Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to

the convicts fress of cost.
After due compliance., fiie be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court "
on this 02nd day of June, 2017 (VIMAL KUMAR YADAV)
SPECIAL JUDGE(POCSO ACTJ/ASJ
■ENTRAL/THC, DELHI
r*

o.

.•-A.
9^ \7

\\ f-

/ItI

■■S

SC No. 2HOOO/2016 Siain V. hlukesti & Ors. Page No. ■c o! d

if

Uw'i ^
16 4 '3Vf^
 iM-n"
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Civil Appeal/Cvll Revision/Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction /
Original . J
Civil Writ / Suit No. . . Ii ri

Ok" H Petitioner

VERSUS
TATe -Respondent

INDEX
S. No. Particulars Court Fee Pages

1. .tt; ■ - r- S

3.

DEST:
ORIGIN:
Pouch Num;
DTDC Express Limited dtdc in
m
Sender's Code Pick-up Ref. No: Recipient's zr|C^
Comp
(Consignor) Name:^^ Address
/ Name:
state; . . ^

PIN Code:
Recipient's G5T1N*
V dtdcflli?
(faidhPT*!
Stat
Value of Goods
Description of Content
; GSTIN*:

if consigninent Dox I ' Non-Dox

The Total Value of consignment for carriage I E-Way bill

nsignmenl I Please y") _ R Value Added Ser CN Expiry Dt.:
•i^irn NonCommprciairn .^ -NotAya}
erage: Owner I I Carrier Paper Work Enclosures
>..■ i.r
Consignment Number
no: 16 D*«rUol lor ri.iViind
deloiled riik turcher^t chirTappllcabte
rl»H surchar^o

: Surface □ AircargoD Express□ Ulch^ Amountt?!

35643981

dtdc
Mod. oiPaymenl: Cash n CardH WalletpIH Receiver's Name:
Booking BranchIFranchisee Code Relationship:
FormmMgJoi
AM/PM
Ph. No.: htlp/lmw.dtdc.in'sub
AM/PW
TIME producls/DTDCblue.l'
leht note is n^ ataX invoice. A lax invoice will be made
roc or it's channel partner as the case may be, upon request.
Company Stamp & Signature^

Sliyents -send "TRACK CONSIGNMENT No" »o 92300 9Z300 I EmafUcustomersupport.d.dC^ www.dtdc.in I,SENDER COPY I duty 2017 Release
Dated: this day of 20

m"*'
?V w
Advocate For

Petitioner/ Respond^t
0®v
 H6
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.
CRL. A NO. 749/2017

IN THE MATTER OF

MUKESH KUMAR PETITIONER

VERSUS
STATE RESPONDENT

STATUS REPORT

Hon'ble Sir,
r'

V
It is most respectfully submitted before the Hon'ble Court that
the present petition is filed by accused Mukesh Kumar S/o Et. Sh Govind
Prashad R/o Railway Colony, Morigate, Pul Duffrin, Delhi to set aside and
quash the judgement dated 27.05.2017 and order on sentence dated
02.06.2017 passed by Shri Vimal Kumar Yadav, Ed. ASJ, Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi in case FIR No. 231/14 U/s 392/394/34 IPC, PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
The brief facts ofthe case are as below:-

On 18.05.2014 a PCR Call vide DD No.18 PP was received from HC

Sunder Pal No. 1538/PCR, I/C Suger 44 regarding snatching of Mobile phone
and lupess at PP Tis Hazari Court, P.S Subzi Mandi, Delhi and the same was
maiked to ASI Yogesh for necessaiy action. ASI Yogesh along with Ct Amit
No. 2466/N reached at Arun Asif Ali Govt Hospital and collected the MEG
No 1415/14 Dt. 18/05/14 of victim Virender S/o Et. Sh Prem Narayan R/o G-
13/15, Gali No. 1, Savroop Nagar, Delhi, whereon Doctor mentioned A/H/0
assault by 03 unknown person and nature of injuiy simple shaip.

ASI Yogesh recorded the statement of the complainant, where in he

stated that he has been living at above mentioned address and he is a TSR
Driver. Today (18/05/14) in the evening at about 6 PM he was going towards
Pul Dafrm via Pul Mithayi. When he reached in front of a Eiquir Shop at
 Khanna Market, Pul Mithayi, Delhi, three persons got his TSR stopped and sat
in his TSR. They told him to drop them at Ren Basera, Phool Mandi. When he
along with those persons reached at Phool Mandi, all three persons pulled him
out of the TSR. One of them caught him from his back, whose name came to
know as Mukesh S/o Lt. Sh Govind Prashad R/o Railway Colony, Pul Dafrin,
Mori Gate, Delhi and the second one, attacked over his thigh & nose with a
Blade and picked his mobile phone make Nokia from the pocket of his shirt,
whose name came to loiow as Deepak S/o Lt. Shiyaram R/o 14/90, Gall No14,
Block-14, Dakshinpuri, Delhi and the third one picked his purse of black
colour having photocopy of his Badge and Rs 900/- from the back side pocket
of his worn pant, whose name came to Icnow as Johnson S/o Lt. Sh Jai
Narayan R/o Jhuggi No. 22, Railway Colony, Pul Mithayi, Delhi. When he
cried, all three persons fleed away towards Phool Mandi from the spot.
Meanwhile a PCR Van came there and he told the incident to the PCR Staff.
The PCR Staff caught all three persons in Phool Mandi. Personal Search of all
three persons was made by the PCR Staff and his mobile phone was recovered
from the right side pocket of accused Deepalc and a surgical blade, by which
he gave injuries to the complainant, was also recovered from the right side
pocket of accused Deepak and the complainant's purse having his badge and
Rs 900/- was recovered from the pocket of accused Johnson. All three persons
and the complainant was taken to Arun Asif Ali Govt Hosptial by PCR Staff.
All above thi-ee person gave injuries to the complainant and snatched his
mobile phone and purse from him.

All the three persons were taken in police custody by ASI Yogesh and
HC Sunder Pal No. 1538/PCR handed over the recovered case property to ASI
Yogesh and the case property & clothes of the complainant were taken in
police possession through seizure memo. On the statement of the complainant
Virender Kumar S/o Lt. Sh Prem Narayan R/o G-13/15, Gall No. 1, Sawroop
Nagar, Delhi case FIR No. 231/14, U/s 394/411/34 IPG was registered at P.S
Subzi Mandi, Delhi. Site Plan was prepared on the instance ofthe complainant
and the statement ofthe witnesses were recorded. All the three persons namely
Deepak, Johnson & Mukesh were airested and interrogated, who accepted the
 kg
allegations leveled against them. All the persons were produced before the
Hon'ble Court and sent to JC Remand. The recovered Surgical Blade & Cloth
of the complainant were sent to FSL, Rohini. During the investigation Section
397 IPC was also added. After completion of the investigation, the Charge
Sheet was filed before the Hon'ble Court U/s 394/397/411/34 IPC.

During Trial statements of the witnesses were got recorded before the
. Hon'ble court and all the witnesses were cross-examined. FSL Report was
received from FSL, Rohini, wherein the Blood on the clothes and on surgical
blade was found in same Blood Group.

^ After Conclusion of the trial, the Ld. Trial Court passed the judgement
Dt. 27.05.2017 convicting the accused persons and vide order Dt. 02.06.2017
all three accused persons were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years
and to pay a sum ofRs. 5,000/- each, in default of which they shall undergo SI
for 6 months for the offence U/s 392 IPC, RI for a periods of 4 years and to
pay a sum of of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to undergo SI for 6 months, for the
offence U/s 394 IPC. There is no discrepancy in the judgement of the Hon'ble
Trial Court. However the undersigned is ready to abide by any direction
passed by the Hon'le Court.
Submitted Please

atidrTHoi^L olficer,
cW ■ S. Subzi Mandi,
New Delhi.