##PAGE1##

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 23.12.2025

+ CRL.A. 475/2024 & CRLM (BAIL) 863/2024

SH. RAVI .....Appellant

Through: Mr Siddarth Yadav, Mr Anmol Kumar

and Ms Jyoti Yadav, Advocates

versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State with

SI Rajesh Kumar

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 17.07.2023 and the order on sentence dated 28.11.2023,

passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (North-West), Rohini

Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.682/17, arising out of FIR No. 785/2016

registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar under Sections 392/394/397/411/34

IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act. By the impugned judgment, the appellant Ravi

was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 392/397/411 IPC

and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and was acquitted of the charge under Section

Signature Not Verified

CRL.A. 475/2024 Page 1 of 8

Digitally Signed

By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI

Signing Date:23.12.2025

16:02:14

394 IPC. The co-accused Gautam was acquitted of all charges.

2. Vide the order on sentence dated 28.11.2023, the appellant was

sentenced to undergo five years’ Rigorous Imprisonment, with a fine of

Rs.3,000/- , in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

three months, for the offence under Section 392 IPC. Further, he was sentenced

to undergo seven years’ Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and

in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the

offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. He was also directed to undergo one

year’s Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to

undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 411

IPC. Lastly, he was sentenced to undergo two years’ Rigorous Imprisonment

for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court directed that

all sentences shall run concurrently and extended the benefit of Section 428

Cr.P.C to the appellant.

3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 25.09.2016 at about 10:30

PM, the complainant Vishal (PW-2) was returning to his house after purchasing

food when he was intercepted near Shiv Palace, Vijay Vihar Phase-II, Delhi, by

two persons riding a motorcycle. It is alleged that the appellant Ravi, who was

riding pillion, threatened the complainant with a knife and robbed him of his

OPPO mobile phone. While the other accused managed to flee on the

motorcycle, the appellant was apprehended at the spot by the complainant with

the assistance of public persons, and the robbed mobile phone and knife were

recovered from his possession.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. PW-2,

Signature Not Verified

CRL.A. 475/2024 Page 2 of 8

Digitally Signed

By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI

Signing Date:23.12.2025

16:02:14

the complainant, supported the prosecution version and identified the appellant

in Court as the assailant who had robbed him at knife-point. PW-3, the

employer of the complainant, proved ownership of the robbed mobile phone.

The remaining witnesses, including police officials, deposed with regard to the

registration of the FIR, arrest of the appellant, recovery of the mobile phone

and knife, and the investigation carried out in the case.

5. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all

incriminating circumstances and claimed false implication, stating that he was

not present at the spot at the time of the incident. No defence evidence was led.

6. The Trial Court correctly held that the prosecution proved beyond

reasonable doubt that the appellant Ravi was apprehended at the spot in

possession of the robbed mobile phone and a knife, and was accordingly

convicted under Sections 392, 397 and 411 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms

Act, while being acquitted of the charge under Section 394 IPC. Upon re-

appraisal, this Court finds no infirmity in the