Delhi District Court
State vs Sandeep And Ors on 25 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CNR No. DLSH01-007075-2020
SC No. 212/2020
FIR No. 16620/2020
PS : Madhu Vihar
U/s : 379/411/413/34 IPC
STATE
VS.
(1) SANDEEP,
S/o Sh. Amar Singh,
R/o Village Niyora, PS Rajpura,
Sambhal, UP.
(2) RAKESH,
S/o Sh. Sukhram,
R/o Village Kheda Chabutra,
PS Gunnor, Sambhal, UP.
(3) DINESH,
S/o Sh. Ghanshyam,
R/o Village Kiradi, PS Baijoi,
Sambhal, UP. .... Accused persons
Date of Institution of case 11.11.2020
Date of case reserved for Judgment 20.11.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 26.11.2025
Decision Acquitted
State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 1 of 21
KUMAR Digitally signed by
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.11.26
16:13:25 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, on 20.07.2020, complainant Rohtash Singh got registered an online e-FIR no. 16620/2020, u/s 379 IPC regarding theft of his motorcycle bearing no. DL13SW8048/HA11ENJGG08277/ MBLHAR200JGG08243/RBK, make Hero HF Deluxe from front of his house at West Vinod Nagar, Gali No. 6, Delhi on 18.07.2020 between 2 hours to 2.20 hours. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant and recorded his statement. Accused persons Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh were arrested in FIR no. 191/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act and 411 IPC, PS PIA on 21.07.2020 and IO was informed and the said stolen motorcycle of complainant was recovered from them.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons namely Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh u/s 379/411/413/34 IPC and after filing of charge sheet, cognizance of offences was taken against the accused persons.
CHARGE
3. Charge for the offences punishable u/s 411/34 & 413 IPC was framed against accused persons namely Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh by Ld. Predecessor on 08.07.2022. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 2 of 21KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:13:29 +0530 Date: 2025.11.26 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE Prosecution examined 9 witnesses in its favour to prove the case.
4. PW1 HC Pawan Tyagi deposed that on 21.07.2020, he was posted at PS Madhu Vihar as duty officer from 04:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. At about 08:23 pm, he received an information from ASI Sudhir, PS Patparganj Industrial Area regarding the arrest of accused Sandeep, Dinesh and Rakesh in FIR No. 191/2020, u/s 411 IPC & 25 Arms Act regarding recovery of motorcycle No. DL7SCG5620 Splendor and motorcycle No. DL13SW8048 pertaining to e-FIR No. 016529/2020 dt. 20.07.2020 and e-FIR No. 016620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar, which was recorded by PW1 vide DD No. 57A, Ex.PW1/A.
5. PW2 Rohtash deposed that he was the owner of motorcycle no. DL13SW8048. In the month of July, 2020, he had parked the aforesaid motorcycle in the gali outside his house at night time. On the next day, he found his motorcycle stolen from the spot where he had parked it and he made a complaint through Internet and e-FIR was lodged. After about one and a half month, he was informed by the police that the aforesaid motorcycle had been recovered, which he took from the police station. Photographs of the aforesaid motorcycle were also taken by the police. PW2 identified the photographs of stolen motorcycle, Ex.PW1/P1-P4. He brought the motorcycle in the Court premises, whose identity was not disputed by accused persons.
6. PW3 ASI Sudhir Kumar deposed that on 20.07.2020, he was posted as ASI at PS PIA. On that day, on the instructions State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 3 of 21 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:13:33 Date: 2025.11.26 +0530 of SHO, FIR No. 191/2020 u/s 411/34 IPC and u/s 25 Arms Act, PS PIA, was registered. PW3 investigated the said FIR and recorded the disclosure statements of Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh and they all disclosed regarding their involvements in 14- 15 other cases. During investigation, six motorcycles were recovered from the possession/instance of accused persons. One of the motorcycles. No DL13SW8048 was also recovered at the instance of accused persons, which was found to be the case property of FIR No. 16620/2020, PS Madhu Vihar and PW3 informed the same to PS Madhu Vihar through telephone. PW3 further deposed that during investigation, HC Mohd. Rehman from PS Madhu Vihar had visited the PS PIA and he inquired from PW3 and he handed over the documents to him. PW3 had correctly identified accused Sandeep, Rakesh in the Court and identity of accused Dinesh was not disputed by his counsel.
7. PW4 ASI Mukesh Kumar deposed that he was posted as ASI in the EPS Crime Branch, Kamla Market, New Delhi since May, 2018. He had brought the record on the instructions of Insp. Raghuvender Singh, E-SHO of EPS Crime Branch of e-FIR No. 16620/2020, PS Madhu Vihar dt. 20.07.2020 regarding the theft of motorcycle registered online by complainant Rohtash Singh, the FIR is Ex.PW4/A. During investigation, certificate u/s 65B IEA was issued regarding the registration of FIR by the then SHO Insp. Shivaji Chauhan, whose signature was identified by PW4, having seen in the course of his official duties.
8. PW5 ASI Mohd. Rehman deposed that on 20.07.2020, he was posted as HC at PS Madhu Vihar and on that day, State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 4 of 21 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.11.26 16:13:37 +0530 investigation of the present case was marked to him. PW5 went to the spot i.e. H. No. D-284, Street No. 6, Near Nalanda Chowk, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi and recorded the statement of complainant Rohtash u/s 161 Cr.PC regarding theft of his motorcycle no. DL13SW8048, prepared site plan, Ex.PW5/A at the instance of complainant.
9. PW5 further deposed that on 21.07.2020, an information from ASI Sudhir Kumar, PS PIA was received vide DD No. 57A, Ex.PW1/A regarding the recovery of aforesaid motorcycle and he added section 411/34 IPC in the present case. PW5 further deposed that on 24.07.2020, he went to PS PIA where he met ASI Sudhir Kumar, IO of the case FIR No. 191/2020 u/s 25 Arms Act and section 411 IPC in which accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh were arrested. PW5 collected the relevant documents from IO/ASI Sudhir Kumar and recorded his statement and also of SI Narender Kumar, Ct. Shiv Kumar, Ct. Rohit and Ct. Yograj. PW5 went to Mandoli Jail where he formally arrested accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh vide arrest memos, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D and recorded their disclosure statements, Ex.PW5/E, Ex.PW5/F and Ex.PW5/G respectively. PW5 further deposed that he took the above said motorcycle from the malkhana of PS PIA vide RC No. 68/21/20 dt. 25.07.2020, Mark-X and seized the same vide seizure memo, Ex.PW5/H and deposited the same in the malkhana of PS Madhu Vihar.
10. PW5 further deposed that on 08.08.2020, complainant Rohtash Kumar got released his above said motorcycle on State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 5 of 21 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.11.26 16:13:42 +0530 superdaari and PW5 prepared the panchnama regarding the same, Ex.PW5/I and the photographs of the motorcycle were also taken. PW5 collected the previous conviction/involvement report of accused persons and placed it on file in which many FIRs were registered against accused persons in the similar offences u/s 411/379 IPC. PW5 had correctly identified photographs of the said motorcycle, Ex.PW1/P1 to P4. PW5 collected the photocopies of relevant documents of case FIR No. 191/2020, PS PIA u/s 411 IPC and 25 Arms Act. He had produced previous conviction report of accused Dinesh, Sandeep and Rakesh, Ex.PW5/J. PW5 correctly identified accused Rakesh, Dinesh and Sandeep in the Court.
11. PW6 Ct. Rohit deposed that on 20.07.2020, he was posted as Constable at PS PIA. On that day, he along with Ct. Shiv Kumar, Ct. Yograj and SI Narender Kumar was on picket duty at Road No. 56, opposite Tarang Banquet Hall, Gazipur, Delhi. At about 5.45 PM, they saw one black colour bullet motorcycle (without number plate) coming from Gazipur underpass side and going towards Anand Vihar. PW6 further deposed that SI Narender gave indication to stop the driver of the abovesaid motorcycle, but he tried to turn the motorcycle. In the process, the driver accused Sandeep, pillion riders i.e. accused Rakesh and Dinesh, sitting on middle and rear seat, fell down on the road. SI Narender along with them managed to apprehend all of them. PW6 further deposed that on conducting search of accused Sandeep and Rakesh, one buttondar knife was recovered from the possession of each of them and one loaded katta and State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 6 of 21 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:13:47 +0530 Date: 2025.11.26 two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Dinesh. PW6 further deposed that IO/SI Narender prepared the sketch of abovesaid knives, cartridges and katta and seized the same. On checking the abovesaid bullet motorcycle, it was found to be stolen from the area of PS New Ashok Nagar. SI Narender got registered on FIR No. 191/2020 dt. 20.07.2020, PS PIA.
12. PW6 further deposed that after registration of FIR, accused Sandeep, Dinesh and Rakesh were arrested vide arrest memos dated 20.07.2020, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B & Ex.PW6/C bearing his signature at Point A and signatures of Ct. Yograj and Ct. Shiv Kumar at Point B and C respectively and they were personally searched. PW6 further deposed that thereafter, disclosure statements of accused Sandeep, Dinesh and Rakesh dt. 21.07.2020, Ex.PW6/D, Ex.PW6/E & Ex.PW6/F bearing his signature at Point A and signatures of Ct. Yograj and Ct. Shiv Kumar at Point B and C respectively were recorded, in which they disclosed that they all had committed theft of many vehicles from different areas and had stolen one motorcycle bearing no. DL13SW8048 make Hero, HF Deluxe from the area of PS Madhu Vihar and could get recover the same and other stolen motorcycles from the parking area situated in the park in front of Ghazipur Sabji Mandi, Delhi.
13. PW6 further deposed that thereafter, accused persons took them to the parking area situated in the park in front of Ghazipur Sabji Mandi, Delhi and got recovered 6 motorcycles i.e. motorcycle bearing no. DL13SW8048 (stolen in the present State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 7 of 21 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:13:52 Date: 2025.11.26 +0530 case), motorcycle bearing no. DL7SAM3889 (stolen in case FIR no. e-37385/2019, PS Mandawali), motorcycle bearing no. DL13SN0614 (stolen in case FIR no. e-043348/2019, PS Gazipur), motorcycle bearing no DL7SCG5620 (stolen in case FIR no. e-016529/2020, PS Madhu Vihar), motorcycle bearing no. DL3SEM7541 (stolen in case FIR no. e-016528/2020, PS Kalyanpuri) and motorcycle bearing no. DL5SCE7279 (stolen in case FIR no. e-016565/2020, PS New Ashok Nagar) from there, which were seized vide seizure memo dated 21.07.2020, Ex.PW6/G bearing his signature at Point A and signatures of Ct. Yograj and Ct. Shiv Kumar at Point B and C respectively. 2nd IO ASI Sudhir Kumar gave information regarding the recovery of motorcycle bearing no. DL13SW8048 at PS Madhu Vihar and gave information regarding the recovery of other motorcycles in their respective police stations. His statement in the present case was recorded on 24.07.2020. PW6 had correctly identified 4 photographs, Ex.PW1/P1 to Ex.PW1/P4 as being the same photographs of the above-said motorcycle bearing no. DL13SW8048, which was got recovered by above-said accused persons. PW6 correctly identified accused Rakesh, Dinesh and Sandeep in the Court.
14. PW7 Insp. Narendra Kumar deposed that on 20.07.2020, he was posted as SI at PS PIA and on that day, he along with Ct. Shiv Kumar, Ct. Yograj and Ct. Rohit was on picket duty at Road No. 56, opposite Tarang Banquet Hall, Gazipur, Delhi. At about 05:45 pm, they saw one black colour bullet motorcycle (without number plate) coming from Gazipur State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 8 of 21 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.11.26 16:13:56 +0530 underpass side and going towards Anand Vihar. PW7 gave indication to stop the driver of the abovesaid motorcycle, but he tried to turn the motorcycle and in that process, the driver and pillion riders fell down on the road. PW7 along with other police staff managed to apprehend all of the above-said three persons i.e. driver and pillion riders of above said motorcycle. On interrogation, it came out that accused Sandeep was driving the motorcycle and Rakesh was sitting in the middle of seat and Dinesh was sitting on the last seat.
15. PW7 further deposed that thereafter, he conducted search of accused Sandeep and Rakesh, one buttondar knife from possession of each was recovered and one loaded katta and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Dinesh. PW7 prepared the sketch of abovesaid knives, katta and cartridges and then seized the same vide separate seizure memos with the seal of 'NK'. Thereafter, on checking the abovesaid bullet motorcycle, it was found to be stolen from the area of PS New Ashok Nagar. PW7 prepared the rukka and got registered the FIR no. 191/2020 dated 20.07.2020, PS PIA through Ct. Yograj. After registration of FIR, further investigation was marked to ASI Sudhir Kumar. After registration of FIR, PW7 handed over the sealed pulandas and other relevant documents to ASI Sudhir. On 24.07.2020, he went to PS Madhu Vihar where his statement was recorded by the IO/HC Mohd. Rehman. PW7 correctly identified accused Rakesh, Dinesh and Sandeep in the Court.
State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 9 of 21 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:14:00 Date: 2025.11.26 +0530
16. PW8 HC Ravi deposed that he was working as MHC(M) at PS Madhu Vihar and he had brought the original register no. 19 for the period i.e. July, 2020 and copy of relevant entry i.e. 1892 dt. 25.07.2020 regarding the case FIR No. 016620/2020 u/s 379/411 IPC is Ex.PW8/A (OSR).
17. PW9 HC Devender deposed that he was working as MHC(M) at PS PIA and he had brought the original Register no. 19 for the period i.e. July, 2020 and copy of relevant entry i.e. 142 dt. 25.07.2020 regarding the case FIR No. 191/2020 u/s 25/27 Arms Act is Ex.PW9/A. STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS u/s 351 BNSS/313 Cr.P.C.
18. Statements of the accused persons namely Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C./351 BNSS and they denied the incriminating evidence put to them and stated that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and they were falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case without any fault on their part and they are innocent.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDING ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED PERSONS
19. Ld. counsel for the accused persons argued that they are falsely implicated by the police and they are innocent and they were never convicted in any such case prior to this case and their disclosure statements were falsely recorded by the IO on his own and nothing was recovered at their instance or from their possession and false recovery of stolen vehicles is shown from the public place, which was accessible to all. There is no State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 10 of 21 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:14:04 +0530 Date: 2025.11.26 independent witness to the recovery of the stolen motorcycle and there is no video or photography of the recovery and such recovery is not admissible in law. There is no eye-witness to the theft of alleged motorcycle DL13SW8048 and they had not not stolen the same as such accused persons have no knowledge, if it was a stolen motorcycle. The accused persons are not habitual of dealing in stolen properties. Thus, prosecution could not prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
20. Ld. APP for State has argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons as there are several cases of theft and robbery registered against them and list of the same is filed by the IO including one of conviction and they have made separate disclosures regarding involvement in the theft of one motorcycle in the present case and they got recovered the stolen motorcycle of this case as well as other stolen motorcycles. The recovery is proved by the police witnesses and factum of theft is proved by the complainant Rohtash. The accused persons are habitual of receiving or retaining the stolen properties, which is evident from the cases registered against them.
21. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.
22. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses including complainant PW2 Rohtash.
23. The charge against accused persons are u/s 413 & 411/34 IPC.
State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 11 of 21 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.11.26 16:14:08 +0530 Section 411 IPC. Dishonestly receiving stolen property:- Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 413 IPC: Habitually dealing in stolen property: Whoever habitually receives or deals in property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 34 IPC. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:-
When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
24. The present case was registered on the complaint of complainant PW2 Rohtash, who alleged that he was owner of motorcycle bearing no. DL13SW8048, which was stolen from Gali no. 6, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi, outside his house in July, 2020, but he did not remember the date and he lodged e-FIR and after 1.5 months, police informed him that it was recovered and he correctly identified the photograph of said motorcycle Ex.PW1/P1 to Ex.PW1/P4.
In his cross-examination, the accused persons had not disputed his ownership nor gave suggestion that said motorcycle was not stolen. Thus, PW2 proved the theft of said motorcycle.
25. PW1 HC Pawan Tyagi proved DD no. 57A, Ex.PW1/A regarding information received from ASI Sudhir, PS PIA regarding arrest of accused Sandeep , Dinesh and Rakesh in State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 12 of 21 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.11.26 16:14:17 +0530 FIR No. 191/2020, u/s 411 IPC & 25 Arms Act regarding recovery of motorcycle No. DL7SCG5620 Splendor and motorcycle No. DL13SW8048 pertaining two e-FIR No. 016529/2020 dt. 20.07.2020 and e-FIR No. 016620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar, which was recorded by PW1 vide DD No. 57A, Ex.PW1/A.
26. PW3 ASI Sudhir was the IO of FIR No. 191/2020, PS PIA and during investigation, he recorded disclosure statements of accused Sandeep, Dinesh, Rakesh, who disclosed about their involvements in 14-15 cases and 6 motorcycles were recovered at their instance including DL13SW8048, which was the case property of FIR No. 16620/2020, PS Madhu Vihar i.e. present case and on his information, HC Mohd. Rehman of PS Madhu Vihar visited PS PIA and collected documents. PW3 correctly identified all the accused persons.
27. In his cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he had not made any public person a witness during recovery of said motorcycle, which was recovered from park, opposite Sabji Mandi and denied the suggestions that it was not recovered at the instance of accused Sandeep. No such disclosure statements were shown to this witness, which were recorded by him, in which he had recovered the present vehicle and even no recovery memo is proved from him regarding the present motorcycle and there is no public witness admittedly during the recovery proceedings. Thus, testimony of PW3 does not inspire confidence and it is difficult to place reliance on disclosures of accused persons.
State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 13 of 21 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:14:20 Date: 2025.11.26 +0530
28. PW4 ASI Mukesh proved the e-FIR registered by complainant Rohtash, Ex.PW4/A, but it is also not disputed by accused persons in the testimony of PW2 and even PW4 was not cross-examined despite opportunity in this regard on behalf of accused Dinesh and Rakesh and no suggestion is given by accused Sandeep.
29. PW5 Mohd. Rehman was the IO of the present case and he went to the spot on 20.07.2020 i.e. D-284, Gali no. 6, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi and recorded the statement of Rohtash regarding theft of his motorcycle bearing no. DL13SW8048 and prepared site plan, Ex.PW5/A at his instance and on 21.07.2020, he received information from PW3 ASI Sudhir Kumar regarding recovery of said motorcycle and on 24.07.2020, he met PW3 at PS PIA and recorded statements of witnesses including PW3 and formally arrested accused persons in this case in jail vide arrest memos, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D and recorded their disclosure statements dated 24.07.2020, Ex.PW5/E, Ex.PW5/F and Ex.PW5/G, but there is no witness to the said disclosures.
30. In his disclosure statement, Ex.PW5/E, accused Sandeep stated that he along with co-accused Rakesh and Dinesh had committed theft of motorcycle bearing no. DL13SW8048 on 18.07.2020 at night and police caught them with said motorcycle, but the said motorcycle was already recovered in FIR No. 191/2020 and there is no charge u/s 379 IPC framed against any of the accused persons in the present case and the same was not challenged as there was no eye witness to the incident nor there State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 14 of 21 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.11.26 16:14:24 +0530 is any CCTV footage or CDR to connect any of the accused persons qua theft of said motorcycle and the said disclosures of accused persons are not admissible in view of embargo u/s 25 & 26 of Indian Evidence Act.
31. The said motorcycle was seized vide memo, Ex.PW5/H and released to complainant Rohtash on Superdari vide Ex.PW5/I and PW5 filed previous involvements of the accused persons and correctly the said motorcycle from photograph, Ex.PW1/P1 to Ex.PW1/4 and he produced the previous conviction report of all the accused persons, Ex.PW5/J.
32. In his cross-examination PW5 admitted that accused persons had been convicted only in one case u/s 379/411/34 IPC of PS Kalyanpuri in FIR No. 16528/2020 on 24.06.2022 and there is only one conviction of accused persons prior to the registration of present case. As per PW5, there were 10 cases against accused together and he admitted that motorcycle bearing no. DL13SW8048 was not recovered in his presence.
33. In Ajay Sethi Vs. State of NCT of Delhi of DB of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 30.08.2017, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, upheld the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Banne Singh @ Pahalwan Vs. State of Rajasthan dated 15.01.2014, wherein it was held that:
"49. Something more is required to establish that the offender is in the habit of dealing with or receiving stolen property. Since the offence under Section 413 IPC is inter-related with and is an aggravated form of Section 411 IPC, the State would have to prove and establish that the offender was convicted repeatedly, twice or more than twice, for offence under Section 411 IPC so as to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 15 of 21 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:14:32 +0530 Date: 2025.11.26 is in the habit of dealing with or receiving stolen property. Therefore, the conviction under Section 413 IPC is based on repeated convictions for offence under Section 411 IPC. Due to previous conviction, a punishment of different kind is prescribed in Section 413 IPC which the accused is required to undergo.
50. Hence, while prosecuting a person for offence under Section 413 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following factors:
Firstly, the property in question has been stolen from a place. Thus, the prosecution must bring the property within the ambit of Section 410 IPC within the definition of stolen property. Secondly, the offender has been dealing with or receiving stolen property. Thirdly, the offender knew or had a reason to believe the property to be stolen. Fourthly, he has been repeatedly convicted, i.e twice or more than twice, of offence under Section 411 IPC. It is only after the prosecution establishes these factors that the court would be legally justified in concluding that the offender is habitually dealing with or receiving stolen property and in imposing the punishment as prescribed by Section 413 IPC".
34. Admittedly in this case, the accused persons were convicted only in one case as per chart/report, Ex.PW5/J u/s 379/411/34 IPC of PS Kalyanpuri. Thus, in light of Ajay Sethi (Supra) the charge u/s 413 IPC would not sustain against the accused persons as they were not proved to be convicted twice or more in offence u/s 411 IPC. Thus, prosecution failed to prove the charge u/s 413 IPC against accused persons.
35. PW6 Ct. Rohit deposed that on 20.07.2020, he was posted as Constable at PS PIA and when he along with other policemen was on duty on Road no. 56, Gazipur, Delhi at about 5.45 PM, they saw one black colour bullet motorcycle coming from Gazipur underpass and SI Narender gave indication to stop and in order to turn away, the driver and pillion rider fell down State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 16 of 21 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:14:37 +0530 Date: 2025.11.26 and they were accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh and one buttondar knife was recovered from accused Sandeep and Rakesh and one loaded katta and two live cartridges were recovered from accused Dinesh, which were seized and the said motorcycle was stolen from area of PS New Ashok Nagar and FIR no. 191/2020 was registered at PS PIA and they were arrested and accused Sandeep, Dinesh and Rakesh gave their disclosure statements, Ex.PW6/D, Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW6/F that they were involved in theft of many vehicles including motorcycle bearing no. DL13SW8048 and they could recover the same from parking area in front of Gazipur Sabji Mandi and they all took them there and got recovered 6 motorcycles as aforesaid including DL13SW8048, which were seized vide memo, Ex.PW6/G.
36. PW7 Narender Kumar corroborated the version of PW6 qua recovery of knife and katta and said bullet motorcycle and registration of FIR no. 191/2020. IO, who recorded the said disclosures of accused persons i.e. PW3 Sudhir Kumar, was not shown the said disclosures nor he identified his signatures on the same and the recovery of the motorcycles including the one under consideration i.e. motorcycle bearing no. DL13SW8048 were recovered from an open place in parking near the park on the basis of said disclosure.
37. PW8 proved the relevant entry, Ex.PW8/A regarding receipt of said motorcycle bearing no. DL13SW8048 and deposition of the same in PS Madhu Vihar. PW9 proved the relevant entry, Ex.PW9/A regarding seizure of said motorcycle in the Malkhana of PS PIA.
State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 17 of 21 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.11.26 16:14:43 +0530
38. In Abdul Jabbar Vs. State of Kerala, 2025: KER:
61858, Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that while recovery under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act can be a crucial piece of evidence, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction as it is not substantive evidence and needs to be corroborated by other evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
39. In Manoj Kumar Soni Vs. State of MP, AIR 2023, SC 3857, it was held that disclosure statements are not so strong a piece of evidence, sufficient on their own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption u/s 114(a) Evidence Act must be drawn considering other evidence on record and without corroboration from other cogent evidence, it must not be drawn in isolation. It was further held that solely relying on the disclosure statement made by the accused, conviction under Section 411 of IPC is also not permissible.
40. In K Venkateshwar Rao @ Venkatal @ I Rao Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police AP, 2002 (6) SCC 247 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while the charge of dacoity has not been proved by the prosecution, the charge u/s 412 IPC of retaining the stolen articles of dacoity fails automatically.
In the instant case also, there was no charge u/s 379 IPC framed or proved against the accused persons by the prosecution and as such the charge u/s 411 IPC automatically fails in view of K Venkateshwar Rao (Supra).
41. No independent public person was made a witness during any of the recovery proceedings and stereo type answers State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 18 of 21 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:14:47 +0530 Date: 2025.11.26 were given by police officials that no public person joined the investigation.
In Ravindra Nath Prusty Vs. State of Orissa, 1984 Cr.LJ 1392, Hon'ble Orissa High Court held that "10.... One of the formalities that has to be observed in searching a person is that searching officer and others assisting him should give their personal search to the accused before searching the person of accused. ..... This rule is meant to avoid the possibility of implanting the object, which was brought by the search. There is no evidence on record whatsoever, that the raiding party gave their personal search to the accused before the latter's person was searched..... No independent witness had witnessed the search. In the above premises, my conclusion is that search was illegal and consequently, the conviction based thereon is also vitiated."
42. Thus, the recovery of the stolen articles of the victim from the possession/at the instance of accused persons have not been proved as per law as the disclosures of accused persons recorded by PW3 were not proved as same were not put to him and as such any recovery pursuant to same is vitiated. Even PW3 and PW6 have not deposed specifically that they got to know about location of said motorcycle in question only when disclosures were made by accused persons. Even if it is considered as proved, then also the recovery alone is not sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of other corroborating evidence and it is not proved that the said motorcycle in question was actually stolen by all the accused persons.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
43. Accused Rakesh, Sandeep and Dinesh denied the incriminating evidence put to them in their statements u/s State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 19 of 21 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:14:51 +0530 Date: 2025.11.26 351/BNSS/313 Cr.PC and they stated that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and they were falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case without any fault on their part and they also pleaded that they had not committed theft of motorcycles nor got them recovered. The prosecution case is weak as it is not proved that theft was committed by accused persons nor recovery was proved, so the defence of the accused persons is probable and plausible. Even the admitted documents do not prove any offence against the accused persons.
44. In Kailash Gour and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported in MANU/SC/1505/2011, (2012) 2 SCC 34, Apex Court has observed that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on the altar or inefficiency, inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by the police. The benefit arising from any such faulty investigation ought to go to the accused and not to the prosecution.
45. In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, dt. 13.10.2022, in Crl. Appeal No. 242/2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is settled principle of law that when two views are possible from the prosecution evidence, the one which is favourable to the accused shall have to be taken and the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused.
46. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 20 of 21 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.11.26 16:14:56 +0530 acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the Judgments titled as 'Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur', reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC) in this respect. Reference may also be made to the Judgment titled as 'Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan', reported as (2013) 5 SCC 722, wherein it was held that the large distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied and the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons.
CONCLUSION
47. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh qua offence punishable u/s 411/34 & 413 IPC each, thus, a benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons on the basis of above-noted principles and facts established on record.
48. Consequently, the accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh are acquitted of the offences u/s 411/34 & 413 IPC each.
Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 16:15:07 Date: 2025.11.26 PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT +0530 ON THIS 26h DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. (KUMAR RAJAT) ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD Delhi/26.11.2025 State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16620/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 21 of 21