Delhi District Court
Shiv Kumar Tewari vs Dharshan Property Dealer And Ors on 9 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010045362024
CA/177/2024
Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors.
Shiv Kumar Tewari
S/o Shri Vikramaditya Tewari
R/o G-11/126, Madangir
Ambedkar Nagar
New Delhi ................ APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Dharshan Property Dealer
G-1/321, Shiv Shankar Market
Madangir, Ambedkar Nagar,
Sector-4, New Delhi-110062
2. Manoj Kumar Jangid
R/o H. No. H-165, Gali No. 16,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110062
3. Anand Kumar
S/o Not Know
Purshotam
Pathak
CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 1 of 20 Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Pathak
Date:
2026.02.09
17:08:46
+0530
4. Stephen
S/o Anand Kumar
5. Prakash
S/o Anand Kumar
6. Dhiraj
S/o Anand Kumar
Serial No. 3 to 6 are
all residents of H. No. G-11/128,
Madangir, South District, New Delhi.
........RESPONDENTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 07.05.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 20.01.2026
DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment dated 27.03.2023, passed by the court of Ld. CMM, South, Saket, New Delhi, in CT case No. 4666069/2016, whereby the Ld. Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for offences punishable under Section 380/454/120B IPC.
2. The factual position has been noted by the Ld. Trial Court in following manner:-
Digitally CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 2 of 20 signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.09 17:08:51 +0530 "The present case has originated from the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 200 CrPC alleging that the complainant was the owner of Plot no. G-II/126, Madangir (hereinafter referred as the property in question) which he had purchased in the year 1984 from the actual allottee Velu after paying sale consideration of Rs. 1500/- and he had constructed the property and started living on the ground floor with his family including his father. It was mentioned that his father went to stay at their native village in the year 1993 and the complainant visited him in 1994 to seek partition of the properties but the father did not seem to be onboard and refused. It is alleged that the father entered into an agreement to sell the property in question through Darshan, Property dealer to Manoj Kumar Jangid and the possession was to be handed over on 14.07.2010. It is mentioned that the complainant came to know about the said transaction and filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction wherein ad-interim ex-parte injunction was granted on 14.07.2010. The complainant claims that he informed accused persons about the order and also affixed a copy at the front gate of the property in question but accused no. 1 removed it in the night and all the accused persons, on 17.07.2010, at about 05:00 pm, in furtherance of their common intention, broke the locks of the property in question, committed trespass and stole the household articles of the complainant such as Television, gas cylinder, stove, bed and beddings, almirah, utensils, grocery provisions, a bicycle and so on in the presence of the complainant, which the complainant could not prevent. The complainant informed the police but the police did not come. The complainant then tried to file a written complaint but the police refused to take it and the complainant had to inform the senior police officers. Another complaint dated 11.08.2010 was sent to PS Ambedkar Nagar but again in vain."
3. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint under Section 200 CrPC along with an application under section 156(3) CrPC on 19.08.2010. The application under section 156(3) CrPC was dismissed on 02.11.2010 and complainant was allowed to pursue the matter as complaint case and to lead pre summoning evidence.
4. Complainant in his pre summoning evidence examined his neighbour, Sh. Rajendra Maurya as CW-1, CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 3 of 20 Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.09 17:08:53 +0530 himself as CW-2 and HC Yogender as CW-3. Upon completion of pre summoning evidence, after hearing the appellant, Ld. MM passed the summoning order on 14.08.2013 whereby, the respondents were summoned.
5. After the appearance of all the accused persons except accused Manoj, who was declared Proclaimed offender, matter proceeded for pre charge evidence. On 20,02.2017, pre charge evidence was closed and after hearing arguments on charge, vide order dated 04.05.2018, all the accused persons were discharged in terms of section 245(1) CrPC. The order dated 04.05.2018 was challenged by the complainant and vide order dated 21.12.2018, same was set aside remanding back the matter to Ld. Trial court to frame charges against all the accused persons u/s 120B IPC, 454 IPC and 380 IPC r/w 120B IPC. Accordingly, charge u/s 454/120 B IPC and 380 IPC r/w 120B IPC was framed against all the accused persons and matter proceeded for post charge evidence.
6. Ld. Trial court has summarized testimony of witnesses in following manner:-
"3.1 CW-1, the neighbour- Sh. Rajender Maurya resident of G-II/129 since 1969 deposed that he knew the complainant since 1984 and that the complainant resided at the ground floor of the property in question while his father resided at their native village. He deposed further that the complainant had an ad-interim restraint order in his favour which he even affixed at the front door of the property but accused no. 1 removed the same from the CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 4 of 20 Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.09 17:08:57 +0530 property in question on 15.07.2010. He also mentioned that on 17.07.2010, at about 5:00 pm, accused no. 1 came to the property in question, with 4-5 persons whom he did not know and started breaking the locks of the property at the ground floor and when the witness had objected, he was told by accused no. 1 that the property was purchased from the father of the complainant. According to him, the complainant had also reached the spot and called the police. The witness further mentioned that the accused no. 1 and his associates illegally entered the property and removed the television, refrigerater, cooler, cylinder, cot, stove, utensils, bed etc. from the house and kept the same in the gali and the witness objected to this as it obstructed the lane so accused no. 1 kept the articles on the side and by then the police arrived and took accused no. 1 to the police station and after some time, accused no. 1, kept all the articles in a vehicle (tempo) took it to his house.
In his cross examination by accused Anand Kumar, Stephan,Prakash and Dhiraj, he responded that he was aware about the civil proceedings filed by the complainant but did not have any personal knowledge about it. He could not recall the date of incident but stated to be at his house at that time. He mentioned that he recognized the faces of one or two persons and he knew Accused no. 1. He mentioned that the complainant resided alone at the property for last 30-35 years and his family-wife, two daughters and a son had shifted there about 3-4 months before the incident and before that, they resided at Faizabad. He mentioned that he knew Devmani and Stephan. He admitted that the electric supply was disrupted at the property in question and that he had illegally provided electricity to the complainant at the property in question from 5:00 PM to 8:00 AM. He mentioned that he had called the police around 5:00 PM on the day of incident and the police had not taken his statement. He denied to the rest of the suggestions. During cross examination by the accused Darshan Kumar, he admitted not giving any statement against the accused persons to the police. He stated that he has not gone to the Police Station. He was not aware that the father of the complainant had debarred the complainant from inheritance or that the wife of the complainant had signed on the receipt of earnest money. He was not aware that the civil suit and appeal was dismissed or that the father of the complainant had filled any complaint against the complainant. He admitted that Pawan Kumar was residing at the first floor. He admitted that the entire property was not sold to accused no. 2. He admitted that he had not deposed about the incident before the Civil Court. He denied to the rest of the suggestions.
Digitally
CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 5 of 20 signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.02.09
17:09:00
+0530
3.2 CW-2, the complainant, deposed that he was the owner of the property in question as he had purchased it from one Velu in 1984 and constructed upon it in 1985 and resided on the ground floor with his family while his father resided on the first floor which he had vacated as he went to live at their native village in 1993. The complainant had sought partition of the properties in 1994 from his father but the father got annoyed. He mentioned that his father came to Madangir in June, 2010 and tried to negotiate the sale of the property in question. He entered into an agreement to sell and the possession of the property was to be handed over on 14.07.2010 and on that day, the complainant got an ad-interim exparte injunction which was informed to the parties and copy of order was affixed on the property but same was removed by accused no. 1 and on 17.07.2010 at about 5:00 pm, the accused persons broke open the locks at the ground floor and forcibly trespassed and also removed the household articles i.e.television, two gas cylinders, one stove, one diwan, one cushion-10 kgs, 2 quilt-5 kgs, one almirah, one cooler, one ceiling fan, five thali, one wok, flour, rice and a bicycle, in the presence of the complainant but he could not object. He mentioned that he had called the police but the police did not come. He had gone to the police station in the same evening but the police refused to take action and he sent a written complaint on 18.07.2010 before the Police Commissioner, filled contempt proceedings and lodged complaint at PS Ambedkar Nagar on 11.08.2010. He placed reliance upon the following documents:
Ex. CW2/A (colly) Receipt dated 13.06.2010 Ex. CW2/B Copy of contempt proceedings Ex. CW2/C (colly) Certified copy of the Civil Suit, injunction application and the ad-
interim order
Ex. CW2/D Copy of complaint dated 11.08.2010
Ex. CW2/E (OSR) Copy of Voter Card
CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 6 of 20
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.02.09
17:09:03
+0530
Ex. CW2/F (OSR) Copy of Ration Card
Ex. CW2/G (OSR) Copy of telephone bill
Ex. CW2/H (OSR) Copy of Ration Card (2005)
Ex. CW2/I (OSR) Copy of Passbook
Ex. CW2/J (OSR) Copy of correspondence from PGFI
Co. Ltd (2004)
In the cross examination by accused no. 1, the witness mentioned that his father was not present at the time of the incident and that he expired on 07.11.2015. He admitted that his civil suit had been dismissed. He admitted not filling any proof of ownership or purchase of building material. He could not say that whether his wife had signed the receipt- Ex. CW2/A. He denied to the rest of the suggestions.
In the cross examination by accused Anand Kumar, Stephan, Prakash and Dhiraj, the complainant admitted that his father had sold the property in question on 14.07.2010. He mentioned that when he reached the spot, accused no. 1 was breaking the locks with a hammer. He mentioned that he called the police but the police did not come and the police reached the spot after 45 mins. He mentioned that his family resided with him at the time of the incident and all of them-his wife, three daughters and a son were present at the ground floor. It was specifically asked from him that when his family was present, why was the property locked, to which he mentioned that his family had gone to the market. He stated that the electric supply was disconnected from 2-3 months due to non- payment and the supply was arranged from his neighbour. He denied to rest of the suggestions put to him.
All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons and the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was accordingly recorded wherein the accused claimed false implication. The accused did not choose to lead defence evidence.
CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 7 of 20 Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.02.09
17:09:06
+0530
Final arguments were advanced ably by Ld. Counsel for the complainant wherein the allegations and contents of the complaint were contended and Ld. Defence Counsel claimed the complaint to be fabricated and filed in order to harass and extort money from the accused persons."
7. On the conclusion of evidence, incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence were explained to the accused persons under section 313 CrPC. As the accused persons chose not to lead defence evidence, matter was listed for final arguments and after hearing both the parties, Ld. Trial court vide impugned judgement acquitted the accused persons. Ld. Trial Court vide impugned judgment gave following reasoning :-
"9. Therefore, it was incumbent on the complainant to establish that all the accused were involved in commission of theft in dwelling house, lurking trespass/ house breaking or were involved in criminal conspiracy to commit the offences. In order to discharge the burden, the complainant has examined himself and his neighbour who benevolently shared his electric connection with the complainant which showed close relationship between them. However, the strangest part is the complainant did not examine any of his family members i.e his wife or his children who would have been the best witnesses of the complainant to depose about the possession and the theft. For the reasons best known to the complainant, he chose not to examine his immediate family. According to the complainant, he saw the accused no. 1 breaking the locks of the property and his associates aiding him. Here, the testimony of the other eye witness- CW1 is relevant. He has admitted knowing the accused persons especially Stephan. However, he clearly deposed that accused no. 1 and his associates whom he did not know came to the property in question. The witness otherwise knew all the other accused but he did not mention that the other accused were also present at the site at the time of the incident. Similarly, even the complainant has not attributed any specific role to the other accused. Rather, as mentioned in the above finding, the presence of the other accused at the site is clearly doubtful. Hence, the benefit of doubt will go in Digitally signed by Purshotam favour of accused Stephan, Dhiraj and Prakash. Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.09 17:09:09 +0530 CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 8 of 20
10. The complainant did not adduce any evidence to show meeting of minds of the accused persons. The buyer may have had some semblance of a motive however, the intention of involvement of accused Anand, Dhiraj, Prakash and Stephan remained completely murky and obscure. There is nothing on the record to link them to the property or accused no 1. There is no evidence about any kind of meeting of minds to form the constituent of criminal conspiracy. Hence, there is not enough rather no evidence to fasten criminality on the accused Prakash, Stephan and Dhiraj.
11. It is now pertinent to examine the evidence to see the role of the accused no. 1- Darshan Kumar. Both the witnesses had mentioned that the accused Darshan Kumar had broken the locks. The complainant in his cross examination had stated that his family was present at the ground floor, therefore, there would not have been an occasion to put locks. However, when asked that if the family was present, why the locks were put, the complainant suddenly said that his family had gone to the market. This was a point of contest in the arguments on charge as well. This was known to the complainant that there is a discrepancy created. It was his duty to have removed the same in post charge evidence. However, no efforts were made to examine the family. Moreover, if they had just gone to the market, there must have been some reaction on return however, complainant completely omitted to mention about his family, their visit to the market at the time of incident and their reactions of objection or prevention of the incident. These became vital as the discrepancy was brought to light in the cross examination and even the Ld. Revisionist Court had mentioned that it was a matter of trial. There are two statements of the complainant that his family was present which was later improved that they had gone to the market. Now whether the family was present or gone to the market remains enigmatic. This again raises doubt on the case of the complainant. In this case, it is the allegation that the accused no. 1 had broken the locks. It therefore needs to be a sine qua non that the property was locked. Due to the above-mentioned doubt, it cannot be said to be established to the hilt that the locks were broken.
12. The other allegation is that the articles of the complainant were stolen by the accused no. 1. Complainant does not mention that what happened to his articles. He stops a little short and just deposes that his articles- of which the list varies slightly, were stolen by the accused. CW1 though throws some light that the accused no. 1 was taken to the police station and he then came back later, loaded the articles in a commercial vehicle and took the articles. However, neither the complaint nor the testimony of the complainant reveals this. Rather, this had led the Court to observe the CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 9 of 20 Purshotam Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.02.09 17:09:12 +0530 discrepancy in the testimonies as the complainant in the complaint claimed that the police did not come. He maintained the same in his pre-summoning evidence which has been adopted till end that the police did not come at the spot rather he had to go to the police station in vain and the police did not pay any heed to his calls. Strangely so, CW1, on the other hand testified that the police came and that the police had taken accused no.1. This does not find any support in the examination in chief of the complainant or the complaint itself. CW1 deposed that the complainant had called the police whereas in cross examination he mentioned that he had called the police. CW2 in his cross examination also said that police did not come and in the very next response, he said that police had come. This again remained an unexplained mystery wherein, the complainant contradicted himself and his complaint, adding to the dent created due to the other doubts. Now coming back to the allegation of theft, as has been pointed out, the family or the other occupants of the building have not been examined to show that the complainant was in possession of the mentioned articles which were stored in that house. There is discrepancy that when were these articles taken. CW1 stated that after the accused no. 1 came back from the police station whereas, the complaint and the testimony of CW2 provides simultaneous taking away. The presence of the vehicle (tempo) at the site when the alleged house breaking was committed is not mentioned anywhere by the complainant. It is CW1 who introduces this in his version while not finding any support from the version of the complainant. The complainant claims to be an eye-witness but he fails to testify about the mode used to carry and take away the possessions of the complainant, if any. It can be observed that diwan, cot, bed, cooler etc. are usually heavy and would have required some efforts to carry but here, the testimonies of the two eye witnesses again differ. This also raises doubt upon the case of the complainant.
13. Further, though it is minor fact but despite opportunity, the accused persons were not identified by CW1 in the Court. His identification in Court would have added value but he was not asked to identify the accused persons before the Court. Hence, again a doubt is raised upon the identity of accused other that accused no.
1.
14. At the sake of repetition, it is mentioned that the primary burden was on the complainant to establish beyond reasonable doubts that the accused person-Darshan Kumar, Prakash, Stephan and Dhiraj were involved in commission of offences punishable under Sections 380, 454 and 120B of IPC. There are several doubts upon the case of the complainant. These doubts created voids in the case of the CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 10 of 20 Digitally signed Purshotam by Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date: 2026.02.09 17:09:15 +0530 complainant which could not be pegged with the evidence adduced. The accused Darshan Kumar, Prakash, Stephan and Dhiraj are therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.
15. In view of the above finding, that the complainant has not been able to establish the case against- Darshan Kumar, Prakash, Stephan and Dhiraj beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Darshan Kumar, Prakash, Stephan and Dhiraj are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 380, 454 and 120B IPC."
8. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the said judgement, appellant/complainant has filed the instant appeal assailing the impugned order on various grounds which can be summarized as under:-
i. that the impugned judgment is against the facts, evidence and law applicable in the present case.
ii. that the Ld. Trial court did not appreciate properly the testimony led by the complainant and his witness.
iii. that the Ld. Trial court committed an error in not relying upon the testimony of the complainant as he did not examined his family members as witness.
iv. that the Ld. Trial court committed an error in holding that the complainant did not attribute any specific role to the Respondents and hence the presence of the Respondents at the spot is doubtful.
Digitally
CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 11 of 20 signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.02.09
17:09:18
+0530
v. that the Ld. Trial Court fell in error in holding that
the appellant did not adduce any evidence to show meeting of mind of the respondents to constitute criminal conspiracy.
vi. that the Ld. Trial Court fell in error in holding that their is discrepancy in the testimony of the Complainant and the other witness.
vii. that the Ld. Trial Court fell in error in holding that the testimony of the complainant is improvised.
viii. that the Ld. Trial Court fell in error in holding that the complainant could not establish that the lock was broken.
ix. that the Ld. Trial Court fell in error in holding that the testimony of the complainant is not corroborated by other witness and differ from each other with regard to mode used to carry and take away the possession of the appellant.
x. that the Ld. Trial Court fell in error in holding that the respondents were not identified by the appellant in the court
9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the Ld. MM has failed to appreciate that the evidence of CW-2 CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 12 of 20 Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.09 17:09:21 +0530 was duly corroborated by the evidence of CW-1 and respondents were not able to discredit their statements. He further argued that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that their are no serious contradictions in the testimonies of CW-1 and CW-2. He submitted that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the motive and ill design of the accused persons who after entering into criminal conspiracy, broke open the locks of house of complainant and committed theft of articles of complainant lying therein. He argued that the witnesses have duly proved the case. He also submitted that the impugned judgment is non-speaking and non-reasoned and the same is liable to be set-aside.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents /accused persons argued that the respondents/ accused have been falsely implicated in this case. Ld. Counsel further argued that the testimony of witnesses is full of lacunas and contradictions and the whole case of complainant is unreliable. He also argued that in the given facts and circumstances, offence punishable under Section 454/3380/120B IPC are not made out against the respondents/ accused and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused/ respondents. The appeal filed by the appellant is without merits and thus, the same is liable to be dismissed.
Purshotam CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 13 of 20 Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.02.09 17:09:24 +0530
11. I have duly considered the rival submissions and I have also perused the record carefully.
12. The genesis of complainant story as narrated in complaint is that he is the owner of the plot no. G-II/126 Madangir, New Delhi, which was purchased by him as a vacant plot in 1984 from its owner Sh. Velu for Rs. 1500/-. Thereafter, the property in question was constructed by him and since 1985, he started residing at the ground floor of the property with his family. Later on, in June 2010, his father who was living in his native village came to Delhi and entered into an agreement to sale with accused Manoj Kumar Jangid through accused Darshan property dealer. Thereafter, complainant/appellant got an ex parte stay against his dispossession from the property. However, on 17.07.2010, the accused/respondents forcibly took possession of the property by breaking open the locks and also removed the goods of complainant.
13. On considering the rival contentions, I find that there is no such evidence that the accused persons committed the offences punishable u/s 454/380/120-B/ IPC against the appellant. Evidence of complainant who deposed as CW-2 and other witness Rajendra Maurya (CW-1) failed to prove that the complainant was the owner of the property i.e plot no. G-II/126 Madangir, New Delhi, he was in possession of same on 17.07.2010 and that he CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 14 of 20 Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.09 17:09:27 +0530 has kept the articles therein, which were allegedly stolen by the respondents/accused persons, after breaking the lock.
14. In the instant case, it is evident from the testimony of complainant that he and CW-1 are the eyewitness of the alleged house breaking/theft from his house. However, they have not deposed about the manner in which the offence was committed and the role played by each accused. Trial court has rightly observed that accused persons were not identified in court and their identity remains doubtful. I also do not find any reason to differ from the findings of Ld. Trial court that there is no evidence about any kind of meeting of minds to form the constituents of criminal conspiracy.
15. The Complaint has produced copy of voter card (Ex. CW-2/E), copy of ration card (Ex. CW-2/F), copy of telephone bill (Ex.CW-2/G), copy of ration card (Ex. CW/2/H), copy of passbook( Ex CW-2/I), copy of correspondence from PGFI Co. LTD.( Ex.CW-2/J). However, he did not produce any ownership document to show that he had purchased the said property or document showing that he was in possession of said property at the relevant time. The ration card of year 1997 and 2005 and the election card issued on 24.06.1996 does not show in any manner that complainant was residing in the said Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 15 of 20 Pathak Date:
2026.02.09 17:09:31 +0530 property on 17.07.2010 or in recent past. The complainant has filed Acknowledgment slip for registration dated 05.03.2002, by MTNL Delhi, issued in the name of complainant at address G-II/126 Madangir, New Delhi, but has not produced any telephone bill of customer no.
2083122397 generated in year 2010. Complainant has also not produced any water bill or electricity bill which could have shown that he was in possession of property. To cover up the story of complainant, Cw-1 has disclosed that he was illegally providing the electricity to the complainant from 5 PM to 8AM. Strangely, the complainant and his family members were living in the said house since 1984 without water and electricity connection. Moreover, CW-1 who has stated that he was providing electricity in the house of complainant has not filed any proof of his residence that his house was situated adjacent to the house of complainant.
16. As per the complainant his family was present inside the house when locks were broken by accused Darshan Kumar. When a question was put to the CW-2/ complainant in his cross examination that if at the time of incident his family was there, how lock was put on door. CW-2 changed his version and stated that they had gone to market. Strangely, the family members whom complainant claims to be eye witnesses were not examined. This Digitally signed by Purshotam CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 16 of 20 Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.09 17:09:34 +0530 creates serious doubt regarding the presence of family members in the house at the time of incident.
17. The testimony of CW-1 and CW-2 are also full of contradictions. CW-1 has stated that accused was taken to police station and when he came back to the spot, he took away the articles of complainant in a commercial vehicle. However same does not find any support from complainant as he has neither disclosed this fact in his complaint or deposed in his testimony. CW-2/complainant only mentions that after breaking open of locks, the accused persons removed all the household belongings. Complainant has also not placed on record the bills of articles which were said to have been stolen. CW-1 has testified that police came at the spot and had taken the accused no. 1 to police station. Whereas, CW-2/complainant has stated that he informed the police but police did not come and he went to police station in evening.
18. There is no gainsaying that if two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede to the existence of a reasonable doubt.
19. In Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) SCC 415 the Apex Court has laid down the CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 17 of 20 Purshotam Pathak Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.02.09 17:09:37 +0530 principles qua powers of Appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal.
"...From the above decisions in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order or acquittal emerged:-
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
20. The evidence brought in the instant case is not of such an impeachable quality so as to result in conviction of CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 18 of 20 Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.09 17:09:42 +0530 accused and therefore I have no hesitation in holding that respondents/ accused deserves benefit of doubt in the instant case.
21. Accordingly, the view taken by Ld Trial court on this count cannot be faulted with. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ghurey Lal Vs State of UP, Crl Appeal No. 1255/2006 decided on 30.07.2008, wherein following principles of law were laid down as a guide for Appellate Court for setting aside an order of acquittal passed by Ld. Trial Court:-
"73. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 19 of 20 Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.02.09 17:09:45 +0530
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the Ballistic expert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive."
22. By simply saying that the Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly, the complainant cannot claim that opinion of trial Court was not proper. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused/ respondents by taking a reasonable view of entire material and I do not find any justification to take a contrary view, the judgment of acquittal dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is upheld and appeal is dismissed.
23. TCR alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
24. A copy of this judgment be supplied to Ld. Counsel forthwith.
25. Appeal file be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date: 2026.02.09 17:09:51 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH) 09th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 SAKET COURTS: N.D (This judgment contains total 20 signed pages) CA/177/2024 Shiv Kumar Tewari Vs Dharshan Property Dealer and Ors. Page no. 20 of 20