* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 17.11.2025

+ CRL.A. 395/2017

SALIM .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Rashid Hasmi Advocate alongwith appellant

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State

With SI Rajesh Kumar, PS Mukherjee Nagar, SI Hemant Kumar, PS Jafrabad

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2016 and the order on sentence dated 14.12.2016, passed by the learned ASJ-02 (North-East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 37/12, arising out of FIR No. 35/2010 registered at P.S. Jafrabad under Sections 382/34 IPC. By the impugned judgment, the appellant Salim was held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC, and was acquitted of the charge under Section 397 IPC, the co-accused Dildar was acquitted of all charges.

2. Vide the order on sentence dated 14.12.2016, the appellant was sentenced to undergo four years’ Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default, to further undergo three months’ Simple Imprisonment, for the offence under Section 392 IPC. The Trial Court directed that the appellant be given the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

3. During the pendency of the present appeal, the sentence imposed upon the appellant was suspended by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2017, and the appellant was accordingly released on bail.

4. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 09.02.2010, complainant Riazuddin (PW-1) was allegedly robbed of Rs.5,000/–, two State Bank cards, two SIM cards, two credit cards, one driving licence and a few MCD papers, near Chouhan Bangar Pulia. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant Salim, along with co-accused Dildar, waylaid the complainant, and that Salim took out a “churi” and threatened to kill him. The complainant thereafter informed the police by calling 100 number.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses. PW-1, the complainant, narrated the details of the alleged incident. PW3 runs a shop near the place of incident who stated he knows nothing of such incident and that he doesn’t know anyone named Salim. He was stated to have turned completely hostile. PW-5 H.C. Ramzan Khan and PW-6 ASI Krishan Pal deposed regarding arrest and recovery proceedings. PW-4 SI Sumitra Devi proved registration of the FIR and the relevant DD entries. The remaining witnesses were formal or police witnesses.

6. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances and claimed false implication No defence evidence was led.

7. The Trial Court, upon appraisal of the evidence, held that the complainant had identified the appellant in Court as one of the assailants and accepted the prosecution version to the extent that the robbery had been committed by two persons. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted under Section 392/34 IPC, while being acquitted of the charge under Section 397 IPC.

8. Upon re-appraisal of the record, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the conclusions of the Trial Court insofar as the conviction under Section 392/34 IPC is concerned.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions from the appellant, submits that the appellant is not involved in any other case. He further submits that the appellant does not wish to press the appeal on merits and confines his prayer to seeking release on probation. It is submitted that the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court has not yet been deposited, however, the appellant undertakes to deposit the same within the period stipulated by this Court, in the event he is granted the benefit of probation.

10. Learned APP for the State, Ms. Shubhi Gupta, on instructions, confirms that the appellant is not found involved in any other criminal case. She further submits that the Probation Officer’s report, which has