3 Mar 2020
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 393
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2020-0017West Delhi, DelhiJudgment 3 March 2020
State vs Delhi Police Head Constable
The Delhi High Court (Vibhu Bakhru, J.) on 3 March 2020 allowed the State's appeal and set aside the ASJ's acquittal of Head Constable of PS Kirti Nagar, restoring his conviction under Section 409 IPC for criminal breach of trust. The court recorded that a 9 mm service pistol with 10 live cartridges issued to him on 2 July 2003 was never returned despite repeated visits by police officials, and held his shifting defence versions had little credibility. It reduced the sentence from three years to six months' rigorous imprisonment, noting he had paid the full monetary value of the weapon and faced disciplinary proceedings. The respondent's name is spelled [name withheld] in the cause title and [name withheld] in the memo of parties. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 3 March 2020 in CRL.A. 1405/2019, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Vibhu Bakhru, J.) recorded the conviction of the Head Constable, PS Kirti Nagar, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 04 CW 0024
- Case reference
- CRL.A. 1405/2019 / AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 393
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Vibhu Bakhru, J.), 3 March 2020
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Head Constable, PS Kirti Nagar, Delhi Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “This Court finds that the learned ASJ had grossly erred in concluding that the respondent had set up a probable defence. The defence set up by the respondent has little credibility. As noticed above, he appears to be adopting different …” (at para 56)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction entered by High Court. Sentence: imprisonment; maximum substantive term of 0.5 years.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Delhi High Court judgment dated 3 March 2020 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“This Court finds that the learned ASJ had grossly erred in concluding that the respondent had set up a probable defence. The defence set up by the respondent has little credibility. As noticed above, he appears to be adopting different …” (para 56)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.