Delhi District Court
State vs Prince on 5 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: MS. SAYESHA CHADHA, DJS
FIR No. 29/2011
PS : Kotwali
U/s 448/380/411/34 IPC
State vs. Prince and Anr.
Date of Institution of case: 04.07.2011
Date when Judgment reserved: 03.06.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 05.06.2025
JUDGMENT
A. Case No. : 302325/2016
B. Date of Institution of Case : 04.07.2011
C. Date of Commission of Offence : 20.02.2011
D. Name of the complainant : Manoj Jain
E. Name of the Accused : 1. Prince S/o Sh.
& his parentage and residence Fateh Singh,
2. Gagandeep S/o Sh. Fateh
Singh, both R/o B-7/A, Gali
No.3, Bhajanpura, Delhi.
F. Offences complained of : U/s 448/380/411/34 Indian
Penal Code
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final order : Conviction
I. Date of such order : 05.06.2025
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
1/19
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 20.02.2011, at
about 04:30 pm, accused persons in furtherance common of
intention entered in the building no. 507, Ground Floor Ka Asharfi,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi belonging to complainant Manoj Jain with
intent to commit theft by breaking open locks and committed theft
in the said building and stole the article mentioned in the document
mark ‘A’ and later accused persons were found possession the
articles mentioned in the seizure memo mark ‘B’ and retained the
same knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen
property and thereby committing an offence punishable u/s
448/380/411/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as
IPC).
2. Upon conclusion of investigation, a final report was filed
before the court on 04.07.2011 against the accused persons.
Cognizance of offence punishable U/s 448/380/411/34 IPC was
taken. Accused persons appeared and copies of charge sheet were
supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C). Thereafter,
charge for offence punishable u/s 448/380/411/34 IPC was framed
against both accused to which they pleaded not guilty and opted for
trial
3. Thereafter, the prosecution was given the opportunity to
substantiate the allegations against the accused. The prosecution
examined 7 (seven) witnesses in support of its case:
4. PW-1 Ram Kumar has deposed in his examination-in-chief
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
2/19
that in the intervening night of 21/02/2011, his duty hours were
05:00 PM to 01:00 AM. On that day, at about 07:50 PM, he
received Rukka from HC Rajbir. On the basis of said Rukka, he
registered the FIR No. 29/11 Ex.PW-1/A and endorsement of the
Rukka Ex.PW-1/B. He handed over the same Rukka and copy of
FIR to HC Rajbir for IO SI Abdul Wahid for further investigation.
He brought the original copy of FIR.
5. PW-2 HC Manoj Jain has deposed in his examination-in-
chief that on 20.02.11, he used to run a shop at the abovesaid
address. He used to use building no. 507, Katra Ashrafi, Chandni
Chowk as godown and put his clothes there. The said godown was
taken on rent by him. At about 05:30 pm, chowkidar of market
namely Bhanu Shankar Pandey made a call to him and told him
that accused Gagandeep and Prince had broken open the locks of
his godown and thrown all the articles. He has correctly identified
accused. He made a call at 100 number. He reached at the godown
and checked his belongings and found one sanduk box containing
bahikhata / accounts book and 20 rolls of clothes missing. Some
articles belonging to Rakesh Kumar were also found missing from
the rear portion of the godown. The rear portion of the godown was
being used by Rakesh Kumar. He put his signatures at point A on
complaint Ex. PW-2/A. He handed over 3 receipts of rent relating
to godown to the IO which were seized by him vide seizure memo
Ex. PW-2/B. Receipts are Ex.PW-2/C, PW-2/D and PW-2/E. IO
also seized one part of ply vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/F. He also
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
3/19
put his signatures at point A on the pointing out memos Ex.PW-2/G
and PW-2/H. Place of offence was pointed out by the accused
persons. He also put his signatures at point A on the disclosure
statements of the accused persons Ex. PW-2/1 and PW-2/J. He also
put his signatures at point A on the arrest memos and personal
search memos of both the accused persons Ex.PW-2/K, PW-2/L,
PW-2/M and PW-2/N. His missing sanduk/box was also recovered.
He has correctly identified one Sandook/box, one wooden piece, 4
iron angles about 9 Inches each, 2 iron wrecks about 7 inches each.
Ex.P-1.
6. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for
the accused persons, PW-2 admitted that both accused are grand
sons of his landlord. He admitted that accused persons have tea
shop adjacent to his godown. He admitted that if accused persons
closes the door of entry for their shop then he cannot enter in his
godown. There was wooden partition between my godown and the
godown of Rakesh. The length and width of his godown was
12X10 Feets. The electricity meter in the godown is in the name of
accused persons. They do not use electricity in the godown. He
deposited the rent to the landlord till 2009. Thereafter, no rent was
deposited. He voluntarily stated that landlord did not accept the
rent. He admitted that he neither deposited the rent in the court nor
sent the same through money-order to landlord after he refused to
accept the same. He came to know about the incident at about
05:00 PM to 05:30 PM. He takes about 1 hour from his house for
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
4/19
going to his shop. He admitted that he was informed by Bhanu
Partap Pandey, Watchman of the area, that Gagandeep had broke
open the locks of his godown and had taken out his articles. He
informed Rakesh Malhotra also regarding missing of his goods
from his godown on the next date of the incident. He informed
Rakesh Malhotra next date ace till that time, he was not aware that
Rakesh Malhotra was in the possession of the godown. He admitted
that he and Rakesh Malhotra are members of market association.
Police reached at the spot after half an hour. Police remained at the
spot for about half an hour. Police did not record his statement at
the spot. He admitted that on the day of incident, no proceedings
were done by the police. On next day i.e. 21.02.11, he came to his
shop on his usual time between 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM. He did not
remember at what time police reached at his godown on 21.02.11.
Market persons collected at the spot. He did not remember where
he wrote his complaint whether at his shop or at Police Station and
at what time he wrote the same. He alongwith market people went
to PS for lodging his complaint. He did not remember at what time
he went to PS for lodging his complaint. He admitted that the
incident has not happened in his presence. There was one lock on
the gate of his godown. The lock was not found. He did not know
what proceedings were done by the police after lodging his
complaint. He voluntarily stated that he assisted to the Police
whatever they asked him for. Police prepared the site plan at his
instance. The recovery was effected on the same day. Thereafter, he
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
5/19
put his own locks on the godown. They maintained the stock
register in their godown. He knew accused persons prior to the
incident. He admitted that father of the accused persons sits on the
tea shop with the accused persons. It is admitted that accused
persons did not put their locks after breaking the same. He
voluntarily stated that accused persons have only thrown their
goods out of the godown. Watchman Bhanu Partap and Rakesh
Malhotra both were present and police came at the spot. Police
recorded his statement only once. The chowk with the godown was
approximately 30X30 feets. He did not know whether the chowk
was part of the godown or not. He admitted that he was in
possession of the godown from last 25 years. He did not remember
whether there is any rent agreement or not. The washroom was just
opposite to his godown. He cannot tell the measurement of the
latrine. He admitted that there was no washroom opposite his
godown. He admitted that the salary of the Watchman was given
from the funds of Market Association. He did not remember on
how many papers police took his signatures. He did not remember
the statements of the accused persons were taken at the spot or at
PS. Statement of watchman was recorded in his presence on
21.02.11. Police never met him after 21.02.2011. The godown was
at on the rent of Rs.135/- PM. The rent receipts are given to him by
the accused persons. He cannot tell who had got repaired the wall
which was broken by the accused persons as that portion belongs to
Rakesh Malhotra and not to him. He made the complaint to police
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
6/19
on 21.02.2011. He had not seen the thief from his eyes. He had
received the call from Chowkidar Bhanu Shankar Pandey at about
5.30 pm on 20.02.2011. He admitted that his statement Ex.PW2/A
name of accused Prince was not mentioned. He had not filed any
separate list of items stolen from his property. He voluntarily stated
that all the items are mentioned in the complaint to the police. He
denied that nothing had been stolen from my shop. He denied that
he made false allegations against accused persons. He denied that
none of the accused had ever stolen any property from his godown
and that they had never taken any property belonging to him. He
had not seen any of the accused removing the material from his
shop. He denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of
any of the accused and that he shown a false recovery from their
possession. He denied that he had made a false complaint against
the accused person as they had asked him to vacate the godwon
which belong to them. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
7. PW-3 Rakesh Kumar Malhotra has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that on 21.02.11, he came to his shop situated
at the abovesaid address. He used to run godown from H. No. 507,
rear portion ground floor, Katra Ashrafi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. At
about 12:30, it came to his knowledge that accused Gagandeep and
Prince had broken open the locks of his godown. He has correctly
identified accused. At about 01:00 pm, he made a call at 100
number. He found the articles missing i.e., 20 thans of Satan cloth
bearing stamp of AZO, accounts book of his firm, some iron racks
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
7/19
and 3 bories containing shirting cloth. He put his signatures at point
A on his complaint Ex. PW-3/A. He handed over 2 receipts of rent
relating to godown to the IO which were seized by him vide seizure
memo Ex.PW-3/B. Receipts are Ex. PW-3/C and PW-3/D. IO also
seized one part of ply vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/F. He also put
his signatures at point B on the pointing out memos Ex. PW-2/G
and PW-2/H. Place of offence was pointed out by the accused
persons. He also put his signatures at point B on the disclosure
statements of the accused persons Ex. PW-2/1 and PW-2/J. He also
put his signatures at point B on the arrest memos and personal
search memos of both the accused Ex.PW-2/K, PW-2/L, PW-2/M
and PW-2/N. Four stands / racks and two iron plates were also
recovered. MHC(M) produced one Sandook (Box), one wooden
piece, 4 iron angles about 9 inches each, 2 iron wrecks about 7
inches each Ex.P-1. Witness correctly identified the same.
8. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for
the accused persons, PW-3 admitted that he had not told the police
officials at the time of recording of his statement regarding the total
number of locks which he had put in his shop and which had been
broken. He admitted that he had not seen any of the accused
breaking the locks of his shop. He admitted that FIR was not
lodged on my complaint. He denied that no one had told him that
accused persons had broken the locks and due to said fact he had
not mentioned in his examination-in-chief, the name of the person
who had so told him. The police officials had prepared site plan in
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
8/19
his presence, however, his signature were not taken thereon. He had
not given any bills of the stolen articles to the IO. He denied that
none of his material was stolen as stated by him and he concocted
story in this regard. He denied that he alongwith Manoj Jain had
falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case. The IO
had recorded his statement at the spot. He denied that he had
become a witness just to falsely implicated the accused persons in
theft even though no such theft had taken place. He admitted that
the godown in question had been taken on rent from the grand
father of accused Gagandeep. He denied that he had falsely
implicated the accused persons as the father of accused Gagandeep
and accused Gagandeep had asked them to vacate the godown. He
denied that he was deposing falsely.
9. PW-4 HC Rajbir Singh has deposed in his examination-in-
chief that on 21.02.11, he was called by the IO at property no. 507,
Katra Asharafi, Chandni Chowk. IO handed over him one rukka for
registration of case. He came back at the spot and handed over
original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. IO arrested accused
persons. IO recorded his statement.
10. PW-5 Bhanu Shankar Pandey has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that he was doing the work of Chowkidar and
till dated its being 20 years and he was continuing the same job for
past 20 years. The date of incident was 20.02.2011. The incident
was of about 04:30 pm in the evening. He had seen that locks of
godown at building No.507 of Ground floor were broken.
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
9/19
Thereafter, he had informed the owner of that godown namely
Manoj that locks of his godown were broken through telephone.
Two persons namely Prince & Gagandeep who were owner of the
tea shop were present near the godown. He has correctly identified
accused. Police had recorded his statement after inquiry from him.
11. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. APP for the
State, PW-5 admitted that he had mentioned in his statement that in
the corner room of building No. 507 ground floor godown accused
Prince and Gagandeep were taken goods / Samaan from that
godown. He knew accused persons prior to incident also.
12. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for
the accused persons, PW-5 admitted that he had not made any call
at No. 100. He admitted that he had not given in written any
intimation of incident to committee. He admitted that he had not
seen any person breaking the locks. He denied that he had not seen
anybody taking any Samaan. He admitted that police had taken into
custody from the spot two trunks, big rolls of clothes and some
other materials. He had not signed any document at the time police
was taking those goods in custody. He denied that he had not seen
any person taken the Samaan and he was deposing falsely on this
aspects. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
13. PW-6 Ct. Pardeep Kumar has deposed in his examination-in-
chief that on 22.02.2011, he along with Ct. Biju and SI Abdul
Wahid joined the investigation in the present case. At that time,
accused and Gagandeep were already in custody and were kept in
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
10/19
lock up. He has correctly identified accused. During custody,
accused and Gagandeep made their disclosure statement regarding
the case property in the present case. His disclosure statement and
Gagandeep are Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively both bearing
his signatures at point A. They have stated that they kept the case
property in H. No. 507, Katra Ashrafi, Chandni Chowk. Thereafter,
he along with Ct. Biju and IO took the accused persons at
abovesaid address. At the above address, one box (sandook) on
which BT was written, four iron stand and two iron plate were
recovered at the indication of accused persons. Thereafter,
abovesaid recovered case property was seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW6/C bearing his signature at point A. After that they returned
back PS Kotwali and case property was deposited in malkhana. IO
recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC. It was noticed that case
property i.e., Sandook Box, one wooden piece, 4 iron angles about
9 inches each, 2 iron wrecks about 7 inches each exhibited as Ex.
P-1 in the testimony of PW-2 Manoj Jain. Four photographs
already available in the judicial file of the above-mentioned case
property including iron plates are shown to the witness. After
seeing the same witness correctly identified the case property Ex.
P-2.
14. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for
the accused persons, PW-6 admitted that the complainant had
identified the case property and told to the IO that these are his
belongings. He did not remember whether IO had obtained the
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
11/19
signature of the complainant on seizure memo or not. He denied
that no property was recovered in his presence or in the presence of
the IO and that is why the seizure do not bear the signature of the
complainant. He admitted that seizure memo Ex.PW6/A do not
bear the signature of complainant. Complainant was present on the
spot when the case property was seized. He denied that
complainant was not present at the spot that is why seizure memo
do not bear his signature or that the case property do not belong to
complainant. He admitted that he does not have personal
knowledge that the case property belonged to complainant before
seizing the same. He denied that IO did not measures the
dimensions of case property in his presence. He admitted that the
said Sandook was kept in the godown in the tenant premises of the
complainant. He denied that the case property was not recovered at
the instance of the accused or same was planted upon the accused
persons in order to implicate them in a false case. He denied that all
the proceedings were carried out while sitting at PS. He denied that
accused did not steal or remove the goods of the complainant. He
denied that he was deposing falsely.
15. PW-7 HC Biju K has deposed in his examination-in-chief that
on 22.02.2011, he along with Ct. Pardeep and SI Abdul Wahid
joined the investigation in the present case. At that time, accused
and Gagandeep were already in custody and were kept in lock up.
He has correctly identified accused. During custody, accused and
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
12/19
Gagandeep made their disclosure statement regarding the case
property in the present case. His disclosure statement and
Gagandeep exhibited as Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively
both bearing his signatures at point B. They have stated that they
kept the case property in H. NO. 507, Katra Ashrafi, Chandni
Chowk. He along with Ct. Pardeep and IO took the accused persons
at abovesaid address. At the above address, one box (sandook) on
which BT was written, four iron stand and two iron plate were
recovered at the indication of accused persons. Thereafter,
abovesaid recovered case property was seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW6/C bearing his signature at point B. After that, they
returned back PS Kotwali and case property was deposited in
malkhana. IO recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC. He can identify
the case property if shown to him. The case property has not been
produced today by MHCM by stating that the case property in large
quantity and have been produced in the testimony of PWS has been
Ex.P-1. MHCM produced the photographs of the case property.
The photographs shown to the witness. Witness correctly identified
the case property i.e. Iron engle, sandook/box, one wooden piece, 4
iron angles about 9 inches each, 2 iron wrecks about 7 inches each
in photographs Ex.PW-2.
16. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for
the accused persons, PW-7 admitted to say that the both accused
persons were in the custody at the time of my appointment. He
admitted to say that the disclosure statement of both the accused
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
13/19
persons regarding the case property were not given in his presence.
He denied that the case property was not recovered in his presence
from both the accused persons. He admitted that he had not seen
the case property prior to its recovery from the accused persons. He
came to the knowledge that the property seized belongs to the
complainant after the same was recovered at instance of both the
accused persons and was correctly identified them. He admitted
that at the time of seizing the case property, the complainant was
not present with him. He did not remember whether the case
property was identified by the complainant at any later stage. He
admitted to say that the seizure memo Ex. PW-6/C do not bear the
signature of complainant. He signed on the seizure memo Ex.
PW-6/C. He denied that the Ex. PW-6/C do not bear his signature.
He denied that no case property was recovered from the accused
persons. He admitted to say that the case property recovered vide
seizure memo PW-6/C was recovered from property .no. 507, Katra
Ashrafi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (from the roof of the toilet situated
in the Gallery/Corridor). The Shop no. 507 belongs to the
complainant. He denied that the both the accused persons are
falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of
complainant. He denied that all the proceedings were carried out
while sitting in the police station. He denied that the accused
persons had stolen the case property. He denied that he was
deposing falsely.
17. During re-examination of the witness by Ld. APP for the
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
14/19
State, PW-7 admitted that he had not signed on the disclosure
statement of the accused persons Ex.PW-2/I and PW-2/J dt.
21.02.2011. He admitted that he had signed on the disclosure
statements Ex.PW-6/A and PW-6/B dt. 22.02.2011 and both the
accused persons had made their disclosure in his presence. He
admitted that during his cross examination, he was referring to
disclosure statement Ex.PW-2/I and PW-2/J dt. 21.02.2011.
18. The prosecution evidence was closed on 21.01.2023 and the
statement of all the accused was recorded under Section 313 read
with section 281 of CrPC on 10.09.2024, wherein they pleaded their
innocence and stated to have been falsely implicated. The accused
persons have not opted to lead defence evidence. Final arguments
were heard. I have cogitated over the submissions made by ld. APP
for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREON:
19. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state
and the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and carefully perused
the documents on record.
20. In order to ensure seamless appraisal of evidence, the court
has framed following points of determination :
1. Whether on 20.02.2011, at about 4.30 pm, the accused persons in
furtherance of their common intention entered in building no.507,
Ground Floor, Katra Asharfi belonging to the complainant Manoj
Jain with the intention to commit theft by breaking open the locks
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
15/19
and were subsequently found in possession of stolen articles
belonging to the complainant.
21. The onus to prove the above point of determination shall be
on the prosecution. The prosecution has examined the complainant
Manoj Jain as PW-2 who has categorically stated that on
20.02.2011, at about 5.30 pm, he received a call from the
Chowkidar of the market, namely, Bhanu Shankar Pandey who
informed him that accused Gagandeep and Prince have broken
open the locks of his godown and thrown away his articles. He
immediately called at 100 number and reached at the godown. He
saw his belonging were missing from the rear portion of the
godown.
22. Hence, admittedly, he was not the eye witness in the present
case. His statement comes under the ambit of hearsay evidence.
Moreover, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that his
statement was not recorded at the spot and the alleged lock was not
found. He was also unaware of the proceedings conducted by the
police after lodging the complaint.
23. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Rakesh Kumar Malhotra
who has testified that on 21.02.2011, it came to his knowledge that
accused Gagandeep and Prince had broken open the locks of his
godown. Admittedly, both PW-2 and PW-3 were tenants in the
alleged godown. In his cross-examination, the said witness states
that he did not see the accused persons breaking the locks of his
shop. He has also not mentioned the name of the person who
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
16/19
informed him of the alleged incident in his examination-in-chief.
24. PW-5 Bhanu Shankar Pandey was one of the star witnesses of
the prosecution. However, he has resiled from his earlier statement
and has categorically deposed that on 20.02.2011, he had not seen
any person breaking the locks or taking away any material from the
said godown. He has also denied to have signed any documents at
the time, the goods in question were taken in police custody.
25. Ct. Biju has been examined as PW-7 who has categorically
admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of seizure of case
property, the complainant was not present with him. The case
property was recovered from property no. 507, Katra Asharfi
which, as deposed by PW-3, was taken on rent by him from the
grand father of the accused Gangandeep. Hence, the association of
the accused persons with the said godown cannot be denied.
26. There is no eye witness to the alleged incident. No locks in
broken form have been recovered from the accused persons. The
case of the prosecution was majorly based on hearsay evidence.
PW-5 Chowkidar who had informed the complainant about the
alleged incident has also categorically stated to have not seen the
accused persons committing house breaking or theft as alleged. It is
also pertinent to mention that the seizure memo Ex.PW6/C
containing the recovery of stolen articles is not countersigned by
the complainant or by any other public witness.
27. At this juncture, reference is made to the judgment of Roop
Chand v. State of Haryana 1989 SCC OnLine P&H 539 : (1989) 2
State Vs. Prince and Ors.
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
17/19
RCR (Cri) 504, wherein it has been observed:
“4. It is well settled principle of law that the Investigating Agency
should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of
contraband articles, if they are available and 5/2023 their failure to do
so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case.
In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were
available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate
themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire
confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses
examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the
persons contacted to join.
28. Reliance is placed upon the judgement of State of Punjab v.
Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed that:
“It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e.
Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the
effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has
to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and
also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact
that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider
whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of
the non-compliance. It is well- settled that the testimony of a witness is
not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to
be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the
circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent
corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has
deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to
lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses
with the search and strictly comply with these provisions.”
29. Moreover, the PW-7 has explicitly stated that the complainant
was not present at the time the alleged recovery was effected.
Moreover, the recovery was effected from the terrace of the toilet
constructed in property no. 507, Katra Asharfi. The association of
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
18/19
the accused persons with the alleged property cannot be denied as
admitted by PW-3 Rakesh in his testimony. Hence, in view of the
aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has not been able to discharge
its burden beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons are
acquitted u/s 484, 380 read with 34 IPC.
30. The charge framed against the accused persons u/s 411 IPC
vide order dated 26.04.2012 was alternative in nature. Since the
accused has already been acquitted U/s 484, 380 read with section
34 IPC, there is no requirement to give any finding on the charge of
section 411 IPC framed against him.
Announced in the open court Digitally
signed by
SAYESHA
SAYESHA CHADHA
CHADHA Date:
today. 2025.06.05
16:15:56
+0530
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
[This judgment contains 19 pages and each page bears the initials of
undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of
undersigned.]
FIR No. 29/2011
PS Kotwali
19/19