Delhi District Court
State vs Salman on 18 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANUSHTHA SRIVASTAVA,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR Case No. -: 86997/2016
CNR No. -: DLSH020047182016
FIR No. -: 233/2016
Police Station -: Jafrabad
Section(s) -: 392/411 IPC
In the matter of:
STATE
(Represented by Sh. Bhuvnesh Sharma,
Ld. APP for the State)
VERSUS
Salman,
S/o Mohd. Tasleem,
R/o H.No. T-581, Gali No.16,
Gotampuri, North East Delhi.
Delhi.
...... Accused
Kamlesh Sharma
W/o Sh. Surender
Kumar Sharma,
R/o H.No. V-554,
1. Name of Complainant :
Gali Shiv Mandir
Wali, Arvind
Mohalla, Ghonda,
Jafrabad, Delhi.
Salman,
S/o Mohd. Tasleem,
R/o H.No. T-581,
2. Name of Accused : Gali No.16,
Gotampuri, North
East Delhi.
Delhi.
3. Offence complained of or proved : 392/411 IPC 4. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty FIR No.233/2016 State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 1 of 15 5. Date of commission of offence : 19.05.2016 6. Date of filing of case : 16.07.2016 7. Date of reserving Order : 23.03.2026 8. Date of pronouncement : 18.05.2026 9. Final Order : Conviction
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION: FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.05.2016 at around 05:50 pm, at Gali Mandir Wali, near Parking Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi, the accused person snatched gold chain of complainant Smt. Kamlesh Sharma and pushed her. Soon after the incidents the accused was caused by the public and the accused person was found in possession of above said stolen gold chain. The case property was seized during the investigation. The complainant gave her complaint to the police, on which the FIR was registered under Section 392/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC").
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the investigation, the Police Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., against the accused person was filed.
3. Vide order dated 18.07.2016, Ld. Predecessor of this Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused person.
4. Thereafter on 18.07.2016, on appearance of accused person, FIR No.233/2016 State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 2 of 15 copy of charge-sheet alongwith documents annexed therewith were supplied to them as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. On 04.04.2018, on finding a prima facie case against accused Salman s/o Mohd. Tasleem, charge under Section 392/411 IPC was framed against the accused by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. It is pertinent to state here that on 18.09.2018, admission denial u/s 294 Cr.P.C. was conducted, wherein the accused person admitted DD No. 49B dated 19.05.2016, which was exhibited as Ex. P1. Accordingly, witness at serial no. 3 stands dropped as admitted from the list of witnesses.
PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE;
7. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses i.e. PW-1 Smt. Kamlesh Sharma, PW-2 SI Ravi Kumar, PW-3 Ct. Pankaj Kumar, PW-4 Retd. SI Devender and PW-5 ASI Manveer:-
7.1 PW-1 : Smt. Kamlesh Sharma (complainant), inter-
alia deposed that she is residing at the aforesaid address with her family, however, did not remember the date of incident. She deposed that on that day, she had gone to deposit the electricity bill at about 05:30 to 6:00 p.m from her house and when she reached electricity shop, she had seen that the shop was closed. Thereafter, she was returning to her house and when she reached near the parking then accused Salman came there and snatched her gold chain. PW-1 correctly identified the accused Salman in the Court during her examination. Thereafter, she FIR No.233/2016 State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 3 of 15 raised alarm then public persons came there and accused run towards Brahampuri side but public persons apprehended the accused near Krishna School. Thereafter, hat public had beaten the accused person and took the chain from his possession and handed over to her. Thereafter, PCR van came there and she handed over the chain to police official. Thereafter, she made the complaint which is Ex. PW1/A. During examination by Ld. APP for the State, she deposed that she is 4-5 passed. She admitted that on 19.05.2016 at about 5:40 p.m., she went to deposit electricity bill from her house to private center situated at Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, Arvind Nagar. She admitted the incident happened to her as stated above and identified her signature on point A on seizure memo of gold chain Ex. PW1/B and on arrest memo of accused Ex. PW1/C. She admitted the weight of gold chain at about 10 to 12 g.m. which she got released on superdari. She admitted her signature at point A on panchnama Ex. PW1/D. She identified the case property i.e. gold chain during her examination by stating that she sold the same as it was useless for her. She correctly identified the photographs of broken chain attached to the judicial file, which is Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. She was not cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused despite giving opportunity.
7.2 PW-2 : SI Ravi Kumar, deposed that on 19.05.2016, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as PSI/duty officer. He deposed that on that day his duty hours were from 04:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. He deposed that on that day at about 8:10 p.m., he received a rukka from Ct. Pankaj who had came to PS and handed over to him rukka for registration of FIR. He made FIR No.233/2016 State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 4 of 15 endorsement on rukka, which is Ex.PW2/A and on the basis of rukka he had registered the FIR, which is Ex. PW2/B. He deposed that he handed over rukka and the copy of FIR to Ct. Pankaj to hand it over to HC Devender for further cause of action. He had also prepared certificate U/s 65 B of IE Act which is Ex.PW2/C. PW-2 duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
7.3 PW-3 : Ct. Pankaj Kumar, deposed that on 19.05.2016, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as Constable and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 am to 08:00 p.m. He deposed that on that day, HC Devender Singh had received one DD entry No. 498. He asked him to join the investigation of the present case and he alongwith HC Devender went to the spot i.e. Gali Mandir Wali, Near Parking, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda where they met with complainant namely Smt. Kamlesh Sharma, who produced the accused namely Salman and one chain of golden colour in broken condition to HC Devender Singh. HC Devender made an inquiry from the accused who told his name as Salman. PW-3 correctly identified the accused during his examination in court. He deposed that HC Devender also conducted an inquiry from the complainant namely Kamlesh who narrated the whole incident to him which was reproduced into writing which is already Ex. PW1/A and HC Devender also seized the chain which was produced by the complainant in one plastic container and mouth of the same was sealed by the tape and thereafter the said container was sealed with the seal of DS. HC Devender also prepared the seizure memo of abovesaid case property vide Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Devender took the accused to Jagparvesh FIR No.233/2016 State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 5 of 15 Chand Hospital as the accused was beaten up by the public persons at the spot. He further deposed that at Jagparvesh Chand Hospital, accused was given first aid. Thereafter, HC Devender prepared Tehrir and handed over the same to him alongwith the complaint made by the complainant to get the FIR lodged from PS Jafrabad. He further deposed that as per the directions, he went to PS Jafrabad where he handed over the original complaint and tehrir to the duty officer. After some time, DO handed him over the copy of FIR, original tehrir and complaint and thereafter he returned to J.P.C Hospital where he met with HC Devender and handed him over the said documents. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Devender alongwith accused returned to the spot and met with the complainant. HC Devender prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant and also recorded her supplementary statement U/s 161 Cr.PC. HC Devender formally arrested the accused vide memo already Ex. PW1/C and also conducted the personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW3/A. IO also recorded disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex. PW3/B. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Devender brought the accused to PS. HC Devender deposited the case property in the safe custody of MHC(M). IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC. PW-3 correctly identified the case property during his examination by stating that the same chain was produced by the complainant on the date of incident to HC Devender. The case property is already Ex.P1 and P2 (colly).
7.4 PW-4 : Retired SI Devender, deposed that on 19.05.2016, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as HC and DD No.49/b already Ex.A1 was marked to him regarding incident of FIR No.233/2016 State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 6 of 15 snatching of chain and catching of accused in Dispensary Wali Gali, Arjun Nagar, Ghonda. He deposed that he alongwith Ct. Pankaj reached dispensary wali gali, near Krishna Public School, Arvind Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi, where he met the complainant Kamlesh and recorded her statement. He deposed that the complainant had produced one person stating to have snatched her chain and had also produced one golden colour chain. Thereafter, he recorded a rukka on her statement already Ex.PW1/A, the rukka is Ex.PW4/A and handed over the same to Ct. Pankaj to get the FIR register at the PS. Ct. Pankaj returned with copy of FIR and original rukka and thereafter he seized the golden colour chain produced by the complainant vide memo already Ex.PW1/B and also prepared site plan at the instance of complainant Ex.PW4/B. Thereafter, he arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW1/C and personally searched him vide memo already Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter, he recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW3/B. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Ct. Pankaj and supplementary statement of complainant Kamlesh. He identified the photographs of gold chain already Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 which was released to the complainant on Superdari and the punchanama is already Ex.PW1/D. He obtained the PCR call form and attached the same with the case file, which is Ex.A1 (colly-3 pages). Thereafter, he completed the investigation and prepared the charge-sheet and submitted the same before the Court. PW-4 correctly identified the accused during his examination in the court. PW-4 duly cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
7.5 PW-5 : ASI Manveer, deposed that on 19.05.2016, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as HC and was on duty as DD writer FIR No.233/2016 State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 7 of 15 as well as malkhana CP. He deposed that on the same day, HC Devender Singh deposited one case property i.e. one gold chain, with him and he had recorded the same in Register No. 19 in his handwriting as per seizure memo. Copy of Register No. 19 showing his handwriting from point X to X1 as Ex.PW-5/A. During his cross-examination, he deposed that no time was mentioned in the entry at Register No.19 as the case property was deposited in malkhana, however, no seal deposited by the IO at the time of deposition of case property. PW-5 duly cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, PE stands closed on 18.09.2025. During trial in the present case, accused was also lodged in Mandoli Jail in FIR No. 13/2019, PS Bhajanpura. Thereafter, statement of accused person u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 21.02.2026, wherein the accused person denied the incriminating evidence that was put to him. He further stated that he was falsely implicated by the complainant in the present case and does not wish to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for the State and by Ld. Counsel for accused. It has been argued by Ld. Addl. PP for State that all the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. It is further argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of oral testimonies of the witnesses as well as by way of documentary evidence on record. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused person stated that as there are no public witnesses to substantiate the commission of the FIR No.233/2016 State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 8 of 15 offence by the accused person, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
10. It is a settled proposition of law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is also well settled that in order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
11. I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
12. In the present matter the offence as alleged is of robbery u/s 392 and of recovery of stolen property 411 IPC. Section 392 IPC, relates to punishment of offence of robber in reference to Section 390 IPC. The provisions have been explained for better understanding.
390. Robbery.-- In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery.-- Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful FIR No.233/2016 State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 9 of 15 restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
Section 411- 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.
13. Therefore to narrow down the essential ingredients of both the section taken together accumulates to-
i. That the accused person as identified has snatched the gold chain of the complainant.
ii. That the accused person in order to commit theft caused hurt to the complainant.
iii. That the accused was found in possession of stolen goods which he knowlingly retained.
14. Now lets see if the prosecution has been able to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged sections as identified above.
15. PW-1 : Smt. Kamlesh Sharma (complainant) in her testimony has stated that accused Salman came there and snatched her gold chain. She correctly identified the accused Salman in the Court during her examination. Thereafter, she raised alarm then public persons came there and accused run towards Brahampuri side but public persons apprehended the accused near Krishna School. Thereafter, public had beaten the accused person and FIR No.233/2016 State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 10 of 15 took the chain from his possession and handed over to her. She also identified her case property i.e. gold chain during her examination by stating that she sold the same as it was useless for her. She correctly identified the photographs of broken chain attached to the judicial file, which is Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. Her testimony was found in consonace with the other witness namely PW-3 : Ct. Pankaj Kumar, who stated that at the place of incident he with complainant namely Smt. Kamlesh Sharma, who produced the accused namely Salman and one chain of golden colour in broken condition to HC Devender Singh. HC Devender made an inquiry from the accused who told his name as Salman. PW-3 correctly identified the accused during his examination in court. He deposed that HC Devender also conducted an inquiry from the complainant namely Kamlesh who narrated the whole incident to him which was reproduced into writing which is already Ex. PW1/A and HC Devender also seized the chain which was produced by the complainant in one plastic container and mouth of the same was sealed by the tape and thereafter the said container was sealed with the seal of DS. HC Devender also prepared the seizure memo of abovesaid case property vide Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Devender took the accused to Jagparvesh Chand Hospital as the accused was beaten up by the public persons at the spot. He further deposed that at Jagparvesh Chand Hospital, accused was given first aid. He correctly identified the accused person.
16. The IO in the present matter also deposed that the investigation of the present matter was marked to him regarding incident of FIR No.233/2016 State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 11 of 15 snatching of chain and catching of accused in Dispensary Wali Gali, Arjun Nagar, Ghonda. He deposed that he alongwith Ct. Pankaj reached the spot of incident where he met the complainant Kamlesh and recorded her statement. He deposed that the complainant had produced one person stating to have snatched her chain and had also produced one golden colour chain. He also correctly identified the accused person.
17. Here it is pertinent to mention the observation of Hon'ble Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav with respect to the identity of accused observed in the case of Feroz Ahmad v. State Of NCT Of Delhi [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1084] "In criminal law, as in other spheres of society, identity rather identification is of utmost importance to so many aspects of life, as also to fasten the liability. Offence took place, noticed but then what? So unless,the culprit is not brought to book no purpose would be served. And how to do that unless certainty about the complicity of assailant is there. There comes identification and without it criminal law would be of no use. You can't hold a ghost responsible for the offences, neither can a person who is not responsible."
18. Therefore with the testimony of all the aforesaid witnesses the identity of the accused stands established. In cases where the eye-witness identifies the accused in court and states that he saw the accued at scene and the accused was apprehended on sport by the public the conviction can be based on sole testimony. Reliance is placed upon State of Maharastra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 417.
FIR No.233/2016State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 12 of 15
19. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that no public witnesses were examined by the IO in the present case. A perusal of the testimony of PW1 reveals that there are clear allegations against the accused persons stating that she identified him and also that he was apprehended on spot and the stolen items were recovered from him. It has been held by the Hon'ble Courts in catena of judgments that testimony of victim/eye-witness is accorded a special status in law. Thus, the deposition of the eye- witness ought to be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of the same on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies. Reliance can be placed in this regard upon the judgment passed in the matter of Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 259.
20. Also, it is worthwhile to mention that Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act states that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for proof of any fact. This clearly means that the court can even rely on the statement of a solitary witness, if the court comes to the conclusion that statement of the said witness is true and correct version of the case of prosecution. The court only has to see the quality of evidence and not the quantity of it.
21. Now with respect to the fact if hurt was caused while committing the alleged theft, is to be seen in order to inculcate offence u/s 392 IPC. The complainant in her testimony had stated that the accused had pushed her. She in her original complainant has also stated that he accused has pushed her and FIR No.233/2016 State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 13 of 15 snatched her chain. Therefore, the essentials of Section 392 is fulfilled even when no MLC was conducted. (Reliance is placed upon Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar 1976 4 SCC
394.)
22. Therefore, placing on record all the circumstantial evidence that the accused snatched the chain of the complaiant and ran and was later apprehended by the public persons leads to the conclusion the accused has committed the theft of the said gold chain without any doubt raising presumption u/s 114(a) Evidence Act. No other view can be traced out in the present matter. Since the theft and the recovery is proved the presumption u/s 114(a) comes into existence. (Reliance is placed upon SD Shabuddin v. State of Telangana (2025 INSC
999). The presumption relies on the proximity of time between the theft and the recovery of the stolen item from the accused. The accused being caught on spot along with the stolen item brushes out the requirement with respect of Section 411 IPC out of the box and inculcates him with reference to Section 392 IPC. Moreover the defence has not been able to rebut or impeach the credit of the witnesses examined and and nothing adverse or of substantial nature could be elicited out so as to make them an unreliable witness.
23. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony of each witness in the present matter to bring home the guilt of the accused. The FIR No.233/2016 State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 14 of 15 unbroken chain of events and the same been duly corroborated by the testimony of the witness is pointing towards the guilt of accused Salman and is ruling out the hypothesis of innocence. (Reliance is placed upon Laxman Prasad v. State of MH 2023 SCC Online SC 743; Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujrat (2020) 14 SCC 750).
DECISION
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, with the prosecution failing to prove its case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, accused Salman s/o Mohd. Tasleem, stands convicted for the offence u/s 392 IPC in FIR No. 233/2016, PS Jafrabad.
25. Copy of this judgment is given free of cost to the accused.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. 18.05.2026.
Digitally
signed by
Anushtha
Anushtha Srivastava
Srivastava Date:
2026.05.18
17:02:06
+0530
(Anushtha Srivastava)
JMFC-05/SHD, Karkardooma
Courts/Delhi/18.05.2026
26. Present judgment consists of 15 pages and each page bears my Digitally initials. signed by Anushtha Anushtha Srivastava Srivastava Date:
2026.05.18 17:02:12 +0530 (Anushtha Srivastava) JMFC-05/ SHD, Karkardooma Courts/Delhi/ 18.05.2026 FIR No.233/2016 State Vs. Salman PS Jafrabad Page No. 15 of 15