Delhi District Court
State vs Shan Mohammad on 10 February, 2026
DLWT02-010188-2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANSHUL SINGHAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLWT02-010188-2016
Cr. Case: 73599/2016
FIR No.: 312/2013
PS: Moti Nagar
U/s.: 411 IPC
State
versus
Shan Mohammad
S/o Sh. Rizwan
R/o Saif Khan Sarai, P.S. Sambhal Kotwali,
Distt. Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh.
.... Accused
JUDGMENT
Date of Commission of Offence : 27.05.2014 Date of filing of Chargesheet : 11.07.2016 Date of Framing of Charges : 22.08.2016 Plea of Accused : Not Guilty Date when judgment was reserved : 03.12.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 10.02.2026 Final Order : Convicted
Argued By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Harish Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
FIR No. 312/2013 State vs. Shan Mohammad Page No. 1 of 14 DLWT02-010188-2016 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. In the present case, the accused Shan Mohammad is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 411 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) on the allegation that on 27.05.2014 in front of MTNL Office, Badli Industrial Area, Delhi, accused was found in possession of one vehicle bearing registration no.DL-1LK-5071 (on which number plate of UP-21L-9964 had been affixed and the vehicle was identified through chasis no.) which belonged to M/s. Gora Mal Hari Ram Ltd. as on the date when it was reported stolen, i.e., on 29.08.2013 within the jurisdiction of PS Moti Nagar. It is alleged that the accused dishonestly received or retained the aforementioned vehicle knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property and hence, he has committed offence punishable u/s. 411 IPC.
COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL
2. Chargesheet was filed against the accused on 11.07.2016 on which cognizance was taken by this court on the same day. Accused entered appearance on 13.08.2016. Charge for offences u/s. 411 IPC was framed against the accused on 22.08.2016 by this court, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses, i.e., Sh. Mahender Kumar (PW-1), Sh. Kartar Singh (PW-2), SI Rameshwar (PW-3), Ct. Amit Kumar (PW-4), SI Mukesh Kumar (PW-5), HC Manoj FIR No. 312/2013 State vs. Shan Mohammad Page No. 2 of 14 DLWT02-010188-2016 Kumar (PW-6), ASI Narender Kumar (PW-7), Insp. Hira Lal (PW-8), ASI Prithivi Singh (PW-9), ASI Balraj (PW-10) and Retd. SI Sajan Pal (PW-11), whose respective testimonies are discussed hereinafter. During prosecution evidence, following evidence has come on record:
S. No. Document Exhibit No.
1. Superdarinama (Indemnity Bond) Ex.PW1/A
2. Statement of Complainant dated 29.08.2013 Ex.PW2/A
3. Copy of FIR in question Ex.PW3/A
4. Endorsement on rukka/tehrir Ex.PW3/B
5. Arrest Memo Ex.PW4/A
6. Personal Search Memo Ex.PW4/B
7. Rukka/ tehrir Ex.PW5/A
8. Seizure memo Ex.PW6/A
9. Arrest Memo of accused in Kalandra u/s. 103 DP Act Ex.PW6/B
10. Personal Search Memo of accused in Kalandra u/s. Ex.PW6/C
103 DP Act
11. Site plan Ex.PW7/A
12. Application for Interrogation and Formal Arrest Ex.PW9/A
13. Bail Bonds of accused in Kalandra u/s. 103 DP Act Ex.PW11/A
14. Kalandra u/s. 103 DP Act Ex.PW11/B (colly)
15. FSL Report Ex.AA1
16. Photographs of vehicle make of TATA 709 Ex.P1 to Ex.P6
4. PW-1, Sh. Mahender Kumar is a representative of Oriental Insurance Ltd. at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and has deposed regarding release of vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1K 5071 and furnishing of supardarinama (indemnity bond). Witness was duly cross- examined by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused and discharged.
FIR No. 312/2013 State vs. Shan Mohammad Page No. 3 of 14 DLWT02-010188-2016
5. PW-2, Sh. Kartar Singh, is the complainant and has deposed regarding theft of the vehicle bearing registration no.DL-1LK-5071, on 29.08.2013 at around 02:00 AM. He identified the case property through photographs placed on record. During cross-examination, witness has stated that he had not seen the accused at the spot. Witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused and discharged.
6. PW-3, SI Rameshwar, is a police official and DO in the present matter and he has deposed regarding registration of the present FIR and endorsement on rukka/tehrir done by him. Witness was duly cross- examined by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused and discharged.
7. PW-4, Ct. Amit Kumar, is a police official, who has deposed regarding formal arrest of the accused in the present FIR by IO HC Prithvi Singh, conduct of personal search of the accused and recording of disclosure statement of the accused. Witness has correctly identified the accused present in the court. Witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused and discharged.
8. PW-5, SI Mukesh Kumar, is a police official and the first IO in the present case and he has deposed regarding recording of the statement of the complainant, namely Sh. Kartar Singh, preparation of rukka/tehrir and handing over of investigation to HC Narender. Opportunity to cross- examine the witness was given to Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused but the same was not availed.
9. PW-6, HC Manoj Kumar, is a police official and a recovery witness and he has deposed that on 27.05.2014, he along with IO ASI FIR No. 312/2013 State vs. Shan Mohammad Page No. 4 of 14 DLWT02-010188-2016 Sajjan Pal, HC Balraj at around 07:00 Pm, stopped the accused at checking point and at that time, the accused is stated to have been driving one tempo bearing registration no.UP-21L-9964, whose documents were not shown by the accused. PW-6 has further deposed that on suspicion, the said vehicle was checked as to know about its chasis number and engine number but all the numbers were scratched due to which the said vehicle was taken into possession u/s. 103 DP Act as the same was required to be checked/ verified from the concerned authority or FSL. He has further deposed regarding seizure of the vehicle, arrest of the accused in the Kalandra u/s. 103 DP Act, conduct of personal search of the accused and release of the accused on bail in the said kalandra. Opportunity to cross-examine the witness was given to Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused but the same was not availed.
10. PW-7, ASI Narender Kumar, is a police official and the second IO in the present matter and he has deposed regarding preparation of site plan at the instance of the complainant and filing of the untrace report initially. Opportunity to cross-examine the witness was given to Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused but the same was not availed.
11. PW-8, Insp. Hira Lal, is a police official and last IO in the present matter and he has deposed that on 07.12.2015, further investigation of the present case was marked to him and since, the entire investigation had already been completed by previous IOs, accordingly, he filed the charge sheet before the Court against the present accused. Opportunity to cross- examine the witness was given to Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused FIR No. 312/2013 State vs. Shan Mohammad Page No. 5 of 14 DLWT02-010188-2016 but the same was not availed.
12. PW-9, ASI Prithvi Singh, is a police official and one of the IOs in the present matter. He has deposed that further investigation in the present case was marked to him on 28.10.2014. He has deposed regarding interrogation of the accused, formal arrest of the accused in the present FIR, conduct of personal search of the accused and recording of disclosure statement of the accused. He has also deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him qua other suspects, i.e., Shah Faisal and Poti Singh. He has further deposed regarding deposit of vehicle in question of concerned MHC(M). Witness has correctly identified the accused (present in court) and the case property (through photographs) in his testimony. Opportunity to cross-examine the witness was given to Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused but the same was not availed.
13. PW-10, ASI Balraj, is a police official and a recovery witness and he has deposed that on 27.05.2014, he along with IO ASI Sajjan Pal, HC Manoj Kumar at around 07:00 Pm, stopped the accused at checking point and at that time, the accused is stated to have been driving one tempo bearing registration no.UP-21L-9964, whose documents were not shown by the accused. PW-10 has further deposed that on suspicion, the said vehicle was checked as to know about its chasis number and engine number but all the numbers were scratched due to which the said vehicle was taken into possession u/s. 103 DP Act as the same was required to be checked/ verified from the concerned authority or FSL. He has further deposed regarding seizure of the vehicle, arrest of the accused in the FIR No. 312/2013 State vs. Shan Mohammad Page No. 6 of 14 DLWT02-010188-2016 Kalandra u/s. 103 DP Act, conduct of personal search of the accused and release of the accused on bail in the said kalandra. Witness has correctly identified the accused present in the court. Witness was duly cross- examined by Ld. Defence Counsel and discharged.
14. PW-11, Retired SI Sajan Pal, is a police official and a recovery witness and he has deposed that on 27.05.2014, he along with HC Balraj, HC Manoj Kumar at around 07:00 Pm, stopped the accused at checking point and at that time, the accused is stated to have been driving one tempo bearing registration no.UP-21L-9964, whose documents were not shown by the accused. PW-11 has further deposed that on suspicion, the said vehicle was checked as to know about its chasis number and engine number but all the numbers were not available and that the vehicle was taken into possession u/s. 103 DP Act. He has further deposed regarding seizure of the vehicle, arrest of the accused in the Kalandra u/s. 103 DP Act, conduct of personal search of the accused and release of the accused on bail in the said kalandra. He has further deposed that the vehicle was found stolen in the present FIR. Witness has correctly identified the accused present in the court. Witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused and discharged.
15. Since no other witnesses were remaining to be examined, accordingly, on submissions of Ld. Substitute APP for the State, PE was closed vide order dated 16.12.2024.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
16. Statement of accused u/s. 313 CrPC was recorded on 29.01.2025, FIR No. 312/2013 State vs. Shan Mohammad Page No. 7 of 14 DLWT02-010188-2016 in which all the incriminating testimonies and other pieces of evidence were put to him. The accused stated that he was employed to drive the vehicle in question by Sh. Faisal who had purchased the vehicle from Poti Singh but the registration had not been transferred. The accused admitted that he was stopped at the checking point by the police but stated that despite showing the relevant documents, he was taken to the police stated and falsely implicated in the present matter. Accused opted to lead defence evidence and the matter was listed for DE.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
17. In support of his case, the accused has examined two witnesses i.e. DW-1, Mohd. Anjum and DW-2 Mohd. Saddam.
18. Both the defence witnesses have deposed that the accused was only a driver of the vehicle and was driving the said vehicle in round trips from Azadpur Mandi to Sambhal and vice versa on instructions of Poti Singh. They have further deposed that the accused was not involved in the theft of the vehicle in the present matter. Both witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State and discharged.
FINAL ARGUMENTS Ld. APP for the State
19. Ld. APP for State argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused. He has submitted that the identity of the case property has been duly proved from the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. He has further submitted that the recovery from the accsued has been duly proved from the testimonies of PW-6, PW-10 and PW-11. He FIR No. 312/2013 State vs. Shan Mohammad Page No. 8 of 14 DLWT02-010188-2016 has further submitted that the accused has failed to discharge the burden as required by him in terms of section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. He has further submitted that on a combined reading of testimonies of prosecution witnesses, commission of offence u/s. 411 IPC by the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Ld. Counsel for the Accused
20. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused as no independent witness was joined in the alleged recovery proceedings. He has further submitted that even otherwise, on the basis of the testimonies of defence witnesses, the accused has been able to discharge the burden u/s. 106 of IEA. He has further submitted that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused and has pointed out several contradictions in the case of the prosecution. Ld. Counsel has further stated that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Ld. Counsel has further stated that accused is liable to be acquitted as the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
21. Arguments were heard at length from both the sides and the case file has been carefully perused. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the accused.
22. The offence under consideration is offence u/s. 411 IPC. Section 411 IPC prescribes punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen property. Section 410 IPC defines stolen property. Sections 410 and 411 IPC are FIR No. 312/2013 State vs. Shan Mohammad Page No. 9 of 14 DLWT02-010188-2016 reproduced as under:
410. Stolen property.--Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as "stolen property", whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property.
411. 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.
23. Thus, for proving commission of offence u/s. 411 IPC, two ingredients need to be established, firstly, that a property was recovered from the accused and secondly, that the nature of such property is stolen property. The nature of property to be that of stolen property is duly proved by the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Mahender Kumar and PW-2, Sh.
Kartar Singh. Now what remains to be proved is the recovery from the accused. The same is sought to be proved through the testimonies of PW-6, HC Manoj Kumar, PW-10, ASI Balraj, and PW-11, Retd. SI Sajjan Pal. It is to be noted that PW-6 was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity and no application u/s 311 CrPC was ever filed on behalf of the accused.
24. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that no public persons were ever joined in the alleged recovery proceedings. He has further submitted that there is an apparent contradiction between the time of the alleged recovery and there are two different versions of the two witnesses, FIR No. 312/2013 State vs. Shan Mohammad Page No. 10 of 14 DLWT02-010188-2016 wherein one has stated that the time was 05:30 PM and another has stated that the same was 07:00 PM.
25. In respect of the first argument that no public persons were ever joined in the alleged recovery proceedings, it is to be noted that it is the case of the prosecution that the vehicle was recovered during routine stop at police checking point. It is further to be noted that it is a settled position of law that police officials cannot be disbelieved merely because of non-joining of public persons. It is further to be noted that there is no contradiction between the testimonies of PW-6, PW-10 & PW-11 in so far as it relates to the stopping of the accused and checking of the vehicle.
26. Further, all the three witnesses have categorically deposed that the vehicle was checked and stopped at around 07:00 PM. The time of 05:30 PM as mentioned in the testimony of PW-6 is only pertaining to the time when the police officials had reached the spot. The time of reaching the spot as told by PW-10 is also 05:30 PM. It is further to be noted that PW-10 has categorically deposed during cross-examination that no public persons were present at the spot, however, there is no suggestion from the counsel for accused that the same is a false statement or that no public persons were made witnesses despite abundant availability.
27. At this stage, it is to be noted that the accused has set up a contradictory defence during final arguments that nothing has ever been recovered from his possession and the recovery shown is planted by the police officials themselves. However, it is pertinent to note that the recovery was admitted by the accused in his statement u/s. 313 CrPC and FIR No. 312/2013 State vs. Shan Mohammad Page No. 11 of 14 DLWT02-010188-2016 even the defence witnesses have also admitted to the recovery of the stolen vehicle from the accused, and their only stand was that the same was not effected at the place as claimed by the prosecution. Be that as it may, both the witnesses are consistent in their testimony regarding the recovery of the stolen vehicle from the accused.
28. Thus, in view of the testimonies of the recovery witnesses, i.e., PW-6, HC Manoj Kumar, PW-10, ASI Balraj, and PW-11, Retd. SI Sajjan Pal, the admission of accused in his statement u/s. 313 CrPC as well as the testimonies of both the defence witnesses, the prosecution has been able to prove the recovery of the stolen property, i.e., one vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LK-5071 from the possession of the accused. As already stated, prosecution has also been able to prove the nature of vehicle to be that of stolen property in view of the testimonies of PW-1 Mahender Kumar and PW-2 Kartar Singh.
29. In view of the above, this court now raises presumption in terms of section 114 of Indian Evidence Act that the accused received the stolen vehicle knowing it to be stolen. The relevant portion of section 114 of IEA is reproduced as follows:
"Section 114. Court may presume existence of certain facts- The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustrations The Court may presume-
(a) That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the theft or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession."
FIR No. 312/2013 State vs. Shan Mohammad Page No. 12 of 14 DLWT02-010188-2016
30. Now the burden of proof lied on the accused in terms of section 106 IEA and it was he who had to account for his possession, which fact was especially within the knowledge of the accused. In this regard, section 106 IEA is reproduced as follows:
"Section 106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
31. Accused has examined two witnesses in support of his case and both the witnesses deposed that the accused was merely a driver who was driving the stolen vehicle on instructions of one Poti Singh. It is pertinent to note here that in his statement u/s. 313 CrPC, the accused had stated that he was driving the vehicle on instructions of one Faisal.
32. Thus, the accused himself has taken two contradictory stands, one in his statement u/s. 313 CrPC and the other through the testimonies of defence witnesses. The contradictory stand taken by the accused in this regard makes the testimony of both the prosecution witnesses unreliable.
33. Thus, the accused has failed to discharge the burden in terms of section 106 r/w. 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act and has not been able to account for the possession of the stolen vehicle.
34. In view of the above, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence under Section 411 IPC i.e. dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
35. From the testimony of the witnesses and material present on record, as discussed above, it has been established beyond reasonable FIR No. 312/2013 State vs. Shan Mohammad Page No. 13 of 14 DLWT02-010188-2016 doubt that the accused dishonestly received or retained stolen vehicle.
36. As a cumulative effect of the observations made above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused Shan Mohammad, S/o Sh. Rizwan is hereby convicted for offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code.
37. One copy of this judgment be given to the accused free of cost and against due acknowledgment.
Digitally signed
ANSHUL by ANSHUL
SINGHAL
SINGHAL Date: 2026.02.10
16:20:31 +0530
Announced in Open Court (Anshul Singhal)
on 10.02.2026 JMFC-04, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Note: This judgment contains 14 pages and each page has been signed by Digitally signed the undersigned. ANSHUL by ANSHUL SINGHAL SINGHAL Date: 2026.02.10 (Anshul Singhal) 16:20:35 +0530 JMFC-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 312/2013 State vs. Shan Mohammad Page No. 14 of 14