Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj @ Govinda on 19 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Dr. Aneeza Bishnoi, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 6470/2020
Unique Case ID No. -: DLSE020184852020
FIR No. -: 000533/2020
Police Station -: Sarita Vihar
Section(s) -: 356/379/34/411 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
1. MANOJ @ GOVIND
2. SURENDER
.... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Smt. Sadhana
1. Manoj @ Govind, S/o. Sh.
Ravinder Singh
2. Name of Accused Persons :
2. Surender, S/o. Sh. Pratap
Singh
Offence complained of or
3. : 356/379/34/411 IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of registration of FIR : 06.09.2020
6. Date of filing of chargesheet : 01.12.2020
7. Date of Reserving Order : 17.12.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2026
9. Final Order : Acquitted
Argued by -: Sh. Shubham, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Vikas Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj. Digitally
ANEEZA signed
Sh. Gaurav Biduri, Ld. Counsel for accused Surender.
BISHNOI by
ANEEZA
BISHNOI
FIR No. 000533/2020 State v. Manoj @ Govinda & Anr. Page 1 of 8
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. In brief, the allegations against the accused persons are that on 06.09.2020 at about 7:30 - 7:40 PM near DAV School, Jasola Vihar, within the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar, wherein both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention used criminal force upon complainant namely Smt. Sadhna in order to commit theft of her hand bag/ purse containing her mobile phone make redmi Y3, thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 356/379/34 IPC. Secondly, on 03.10.2020, accused Surender was found in possession of aforesaid stolen mobile phone, knowing or having reason to belive that the same is the said stolen property and has been stolen on 06.09.2020 from the area of PS Sarita Vihar from the possession of complainant namely Mrs. Sadhna, and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/s. 411 IPC within the cognizance of this Court. FIR was registered. Investigation was undertaken. Accused persons were arrested and charge sheet was filed against them.
2. After the compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charge was framed against the accused Manoj @ Govind, S/o. Sh. Ravinder Singh U/s. 356/379/34 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and charge was framed against the accused and Surender, S/o. Sh. Pratap Singh U/s 411 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty.
Digitally ANEEZA signed BISHNOI by ANEEZA BISHNOI FIR No. 000533/2020 State v. Manoj @ Govinda & Anr. Page 2 of 8 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE -
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : Ms. Sadhana PW-2 : HC Amit Kumar PW-3 : ASI Niranjan Sharma PW-4 : ASI Leeladhar Bhati PW-5 : Manoj Kumar PW-6 : HC Vivek Kumar PW-7 : ASI Om Prakash PW-8 : HC Sajjan Singh DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Superdari of Mobile phone of the Ex.PW-1/A & : complainant alongwith 3 photographs of Ex.P1(colly) her mobile phone.
Ex.PW-2/A to Registration of FIR, Arrest memo of Ex.PW-2/D : accused, recording of statement and (respectively) disclosure of statement of accused.
Seizure memo of mobile phone of
Ex.PW-4/A :
accused.
Ex.PW-4/B : Site Plan by the IO.
Ex.PW-4/C and
: Disclosures statements of accused. Ex.PW-4/D Ex.PW-4/E and : Arrest memo of both the accused. Ex.PW-4/F Ex.PW-4/G and Personal search memo of both the :
Ex.PW-4/H accused.
Preparation of Site Plan on the instance Ex.PW-6/A :
of complainant.
Ex.A1 : Copy of FIR.
ANEEZA
Ex.A2 (colly) : Copy of documents of FIR. BISHNOI
Digitally signed
by ANEEZA
BISHNOI
FIR No. 000533/2020 State v. Manoj @ Govinda & Anr. Page 3 of 8
4. P.E. was then closed by the Ld. APP for State. Statement of accused persons u/s 313 C.P.C. has been recorded respectively wherein they have stated that they have been falsely implicated by police officals and that they both are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. Moreover, they have simply denied all the evidence put to them and have not taken any particular defence respectively. Accused persons chose not to lead their evidence in defence.
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
5. I have heard Learned APP for the State and Learned counsels for the accused persons at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record. Ld. APP for the State has stated that the prosecution witness have supported the prosecution story and accused persons are liable to be convicted. Ld. Counsel for accused persons have stated that prosecution is unable to prove that the stolen mobile phone being recovered from the accused Surender. No public person has been made any witness to the alleged recovery and even the complainant has failed to identify the accused persons. It has been further argued that both the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this matter.
6. It is relevant here to discuss the ingredients of theft as mentioned U/s 378 IPC. Section 378 Indian Penal Code mentions:
Theft:
Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's Digitally FIR No. 000533/2020 State v. Manoj @ Govinda & Anr. Page 4 of 8 ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Explanation 1 -- A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2 -- A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.
Explanation 3 -- A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
Explanation 4 -- A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
Explanation 5 -- The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
7. It is relevant here to discuss the ingredients of criminal force as mentioned in section 350 IPC. Section 350 Indian Penal Code mentions: 350. Criminal force.--
"Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other."
8. Needless to state, under criminal law, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the offences charged beyond and reasonable doubt. The higher threshold is to be rebutted by the defence by punching holes in the case of prosecution/complainant. Digitally ANEEZA signed BISHNOI by ANEEZA BISHNOI FIR No. 000533/2020 State v. Manoj @ Govinda & Anr. Page 5 of 8
9. Let us now begin by examining the testimony of PW-1. As per the testimony of PW-1, she had stated that she cannot identify the acused persons who were present in the Court on the said date. She has also stated that she could not see the registered number of the said bike and that the motorcycle came from her backside. TIP also was not conducted.
10. Also the police officials have stated in their evidence that no recovery was from accused Surender was effected in presence of any public person and have denied the suggestion that it was planted upon the accused.
11. PW-2, PW-3 & PW-5 have also admitted in their cross- examination that recovery of case property was done in their presence. PW-4 has even stated that father of the accused was present at the house, however, he was not joined as a witnesses in the search and recovery proceedings.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that it has been held in case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court :-
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to Digitally go to the accused." ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI FIR No. 000533/2020 State v. Manoj @ Govinda & Anr. Page 6 of 8 As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules it is necessary to record DD Entry of arrival and departure of the police official. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is reproduced as under:-
''22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered :-
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty.
This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal. Note :- The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained.
13. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696 . However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
14. In the present matter, the complainant has failed to identify both the accused persons and the prosecution has even failed to prove the recovery of stolen mobile phone from accused Surender.
Digitally FIR No. 000533/2020 State v. Manoj @ Govinda & Anr. Page 7 of 8 ANEEZA signed BISHNOI by ANEEZA BISHNOI CONCLUSION:
15. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offence of Section 411/356/379 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
16. Based on the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the opinion that there are material shortcomings in the case of the prosecution. As such, prosecution failed to successfully bring home the guilt of accused namely Manoj @ Govind, S/o. Sh. Ravinder Singh for the offences punishable u/s 356/379/34 IPC and accused Surender, S/o. Sh. Pratap Singh for offence u/s 411 IPC. Accordingly, both the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, accused Manoj @ Govind, S/o. Sh. Ravinder Singh is acquitted U/s. 356/379/34 IPC and Surender, S/o. Sh. Pratap Singh is acquitted U/s. 411 IPC.
Pronounced in open court on 19.02.2026 in presence of the accused. This judgment contains 09 pages, and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed ANEEZA by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI (Dr. Aneeza Bishnoi) Judicial Magistrate First Class-07 West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi/19.02.2026 FIR No. 000533/2020 State v. Manoj @ Govinda & Anr. Page 8 of 8