Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak Singh on 13 February, 2026
State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. UDITA JAIN GARG:
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
State vs. Deepak Singh
E-FIR No. 19731/2022
U/sec. 379/411 IPC
PS: Ranjit Nagar
Date of institution of the case: 23.11.2022
Date on which judgment is reserved: 13.02.2026
Date on which judgment is delivered: 13.02.2026
Cr. Case No.14095/2022
CNR No.DLWT02-03007-2022
JUDGMENT
a) Date of commission of the : 17.07.2022 offence
b) Name of the complainant : Poonam, W/o- Pramod Kumar
c) Name of the accused and : Deepak Singh, S/o- Khem his parentage Singh, R/o- H.No.3022, Kabari Market, near Shiv Chowk, Ranjit Nagar, Central Delhi
d) Offence complained of : Section 379/411 IPC
e) Offence charged of : Section 411 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquittal
h) Date of such order : 13.02.2026
1. Succinctly stated, facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.07.2022, a complaint was received in PS Ranjit Nagar regarding Digitally signed by Page No.1 of 15 UDITA UDITA JAIN JAIN GARG Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
16:10:07
+0530
State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022
theft of scooty bearing reg. no.DL-10SZ-3812 belonging to the complainant namely Ms. Poonam. The complainant then got her statement recorded by the IO wherein she stated that she resides at H.No.3025, Kabadi Market, near Shiv Chowk, Ranjit Nagar, Delhi and used to work as a cook in different houses. She stated that on 15.07.2022 at about 11:30 pm, she parked her scooty bearing reg. no. DL-10SZ-3812 in front of her house and on the next morning at about 04:00 pm, she found her scooty missing. She suspected that some unknown person had stolen her scooty. The investigation of the present case was then marked to IO/SI Rakesh Singh.
1.1. During investigation, on 17.07.2022, when HC Narender and Ct. Rohit were patrolling and checking the vehicles passing by Madhav Setu, Pandav Nagar Road, Near Nala, at around 01:15 pm, one person came from Ranjeet Nagar on a Silver Colour Scooty without a number plate, who was stopped and asked to show the documents of the Scooty, but the said person was not able to give any satisfactory reply and could not produce any ownership proof of the Scooty. When HC Narender checked the engine number and chasis number of the Scooty on ZIP Net, he found the number of the recovered Scooty. DL-10SZ-3812 as stolen in e-FIR No. 019731/22, U/S. 379 IPC, PS. Ranjit Nagar. Thereafter, upon information, SI Rakesh Singh reached the spot and upon interrogation from the accused, he disclosed his involvement in the present case.
2. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under section 379/411 IPC was filed against the accused. Consequently, he Digitally Page No.2 of 15 signed by UDITA UDITA JAIN GARG JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13 16:10:12 +0530 State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022 was summoned to face the trial. On his appearance in the Court, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to him as per norms.
3. Thereafter, charge under sections 411 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Since, the accused admitted the genuineness and veracity of E-FIR bearing No.19731/2022, PS Ranjit Nagar alongwith Certificate under Section 65B of IEA, Ex.A1 and A2, Entry made in register no.19 in respect of case property alongwith identity of case property, Ex.A3 (colly), under section 294 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 on 26.05.2025, the examination of PW MHC(M) CP was thereby dispensed with.
5. With a view to connect the accused persons with the crime, the prosecution has examined three witnesses.
6. PW1 Smt. Poonam was the complainant, who deposed that on 15.07.2022, her scooty make Activa bearing No.DL ** 3812 was parked near her house and on next day, her scooty was found missing. Thereafter, she called the beat officer Ct. Rohit on mobile phone, who searched the place and also looked into the CCTV installed near the spot. Thereafter, she got the call from the police station that her scooty has been recovered. Her statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded. She deposed that she had also shown the place of incident to the police. She further deposed that she got released her scooty through superdarinama by order of the Court.
Page No.3 of 15 Digitally
signed by
UDITA UDITA
GARG
JAIN
JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
16:10:16
+0530
State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022
She had correctly identified her signature mentioned at Point A on the site plan Ex.PW-1/B and also identified her scooty from eight photographs Ex.P-1 (colly.).
6.1. With the permission of the Court, leading questions were asked from the witness. In reply, the witness stated that she did not remember the complete Regn. Number of her scooty, but it might be DL-10SZ 3812.
6.2. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel wherein he deposed that she had no family relation or any personal acquittance with beat officer Ct. Rohit and volunteered that she had his number to get assistance in case of need as he was the beat officer. She deposed that she had not called the PCR and instead, called the beat officer as it was her personal choice. She deposed that beat officer came at the spot alongwith the person who had the authority to check the govt. CCTV footage. She admitted that the documents were prepared in her presence by the police at PS. She admitted that her signature on the complaint Ex.PW-1/A was taken on a blank paper. She admitted that the site plan Ex.PW-1/B was prepared by the police without her assistance. She admitted that she had not seen anyone taking away her scooty from the spot.
7. PW2 SI Rakesh Singh was the IO of the present case, who deposed that on 16.07.2022, he recorded the statement of the complainant Ex. PW1/A regarding theft of her scooty. He deposed that he prepared the site plan already Ex. PW1/B at the instance of Digitally Page No.4 of 15 signed by UDITA UDITA JAIN GARG JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13 16:10:20 +0530 State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022 the complainant and recorded the supplementary statement of complainant.
7.1. He testified that on 17.07.2022, he got the information that HC Narender and Ct. Rohit apprehended the accused namely Deepak Singh alongwith the stolen scooty from Madhav Setu, Pandav Nagar. Thereafter, he went to the spot where HC Narender and Ct. Rohit handed over the scooty and accused to him. He seized the scooty vide memo Ex. PW2/A, arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/B, conducted personal search of the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/C and recorded disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/D. He deposed that he recorded statement of the recovery witnesses and prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the court. He correctly identified the accused (present in Court) during his deposition. Case property is already Ex. P1.
7.2. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel wherein he deposed that he reached the spot at about 1:45 PM on 17.07.2022. He replied that no written notice were served to the public persons, who refused to join the investigation. He deposed that he had not done any photography and videography of the incident. He deposed that the DD number vide which he left the spot to PS was 27. He admitted that the barricades were put at the spot where police officials were checking the vehicle. He deposed that both the police officials had not recorded the number of vehicles they had checked before the apprehension of the accused. He deposed that he had not prepared the site plan of the spot of Digitally signed by Page No.5 of 15 UDITA UDITA JAIN GARG JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13 16:10:24 +0530 State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022 recovery. He denied that no such incident ever took place at the spot or that case property had been planted upon the accused.
8. PW3 HC Narender was the recovery witness, who testified that on 17.07.2022, he alongwith Ct. Rohit were on patrolling duty and were checking the vehicles at Madhav Setu, Pandav Nagar road, near Nala. At about 01:15 pm, one person was coming from the side of Ranjit Nagar on a silver colour scooty without having number plate. They stopped the said scooty and asked about the ownership documents from the rider, but the said person was not able to give any satisfactory reply. He checked the involvement of scooty from its engine no. and chasis no. through zip net, wherein the registration number of the scooty was disclosed as DL-10S-Z-3812, which was reported stolen vide case E-FIR No. 19731/2022 PS Ranjit Nagar. Thereafter, Ct. Rohit informed the PS and they apprehended the accused Deepak Singh, whose name they came to know on enquiry. SI Rakesh Singh/IO came on the spot and they handed over the accused and the scooty to IO. The scooty was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW-2/A, accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos already Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C, the disclosure statement was recorded vide memo already Ex.PW-2/D. He correctly identified the accused (present in Court) during his deposition.
8.1. During his deposition, 4 photographs of the scooty were shown to the witness, which was correctly identified by him. The photographs are Ex.P-1 (colly).
UDITA JAIN GARG Page No.6 of 15 Digitally signed by UDITA JAIN GARG Date: 2026.02.13 16:10:28 +0530 State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022 8.2. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel wherein he deposed that they started the patrolling duty in the morning at about 11-11:30 am. However, he did not remember the relevant DD number through which they were on duty. He deposed that they checked several vehicles before the apprehension of the accused, however, no record was maintained in this regard. He failed to remember the registration number of other vehicles checked. The information regarding the recovery was given by Ct. Rohit to the PS, on which SI Rakesh came to the spot. He deposed that seizure memo was prepared by the IO, which was witnessed by him and Ct. Rohit. He admitted that the place of recovery was a public place. He denied that public persons were not made to join the investigation despite availability or that the present case was planted on the accused.
9. Thereafter, PE was closed at request of Ld. APP for the State and statement of accused under section 313 of the Code was recorded to afford him an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence. He denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. I have heard the rival submissions of the learned APP for State and learned defence counsel and perused the material on record very carefully.
Arguments
10. Learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the Digitally signed by UDITA UDITA Page No.7 of 15 JAIN GARG JAIN Date:
GARG 2026.02.13 16:10:32 +0530 State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022 accused beyond the reasonable doubt. It is argued that no independent public person has been examined as a witness by the Prosecution in the present case, even though, the place of recovery is a public place. It is urged that the recovery has been planted upon the accused and the witness mentioned in the seizure memo has also not been examined by the Prosecution. Ld. counsel for the accused also pointed out towards the contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses to argue that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
10.1. Per Contra, Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the Prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC are made out against the accused. Therefore, it is imminent that the finding of guilt be returned against the accused.
11. Before sifting and weighing the competing submissions in the light of the evidence tendered on record, it is deemed germane to reproduce the applicable provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 namely:
Section 411 IPC reads as under:
"Sec.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."
Decision and brief reasons for the same UDITA JAIN GARG Page No.8 of 15 Digitally signed by UDITA JAIN GARG Date: 2026.02.13 16:10:35 +0530 State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022
12. The rule that every accused person is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty and that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is fundamental to the system of justice practiced in this country and in several other countries. Indeed it is entrenched in the Constitution that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty.
13. Accused Deepak Singh is charged for the offences punishable under sections 411 IPC.
Now, this Court shall decide if the testimony proferred by the Prosecution was credible and reliable Recovery of stolen goods doubtful and contradictions/lacunae in the testimony of the witnesses
14. The key witness for the prosecution to prove the recovery is PW3 HC Narender, whose testimony in essence is as follows:-
"On 17.07.2022, I was posted at PS Ranjit Nagar as HC. On that day, I alongwith Ct. Rohit were on patrolling duty and were checking the vehicles at Madhav Setu, Pandav Nagar mad, near Nala, then about 01:15 pm one person was coming from the side of Ranjit Nagar on a silver enjour scooty without no. plate. We stopped the said scooty and asked about the ownership documents to which the said person was not able to give any satisfactory reply. Thereafter, 1 checked the involvement of scooty through engine no. and chasis no. through zip net wherein the registration no. of the scooty came to know as DL-10S-Z-3812 and reported stolen vide case FIR NO. 19731/2022 PS Ranjit Nagar. Thereafter, Ct. Rohit informed the PS and we apprehended the accused Deepak Singh whose name we came to know in enquiry. Thereafter, SI Rakesh Singh came on the spot and we handed Page No.9 of 15 UDITA JAIN GARG Digitally signed by UDITA JAIN GARG Date: 2026.02.13 16:10:40 +0530 State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022 over accused and the scooty to IO. The scooty was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW-2/A bearing my signature at point B. The accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos already Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C both bearing my signature at point B. the disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide memo already lix PW-2/D bearing my signature at point B. IO recorded my statement in this regard. Accused present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness. I can identify the case property, if shown to me.
At this stage, 4 photographs of the scooty, which are already on record, are shown to the witness, to which witness replies that the scooty visible in the photographs is the same which was recovered from the possession of the accused. The photographs are Ex.P-1 (colly)."
14.1. The said witness, during his cross-examination, also deposed that:
"We started the patrolling duty in the morning at about 11- 11:30 am. I do not remember the relevant DD no. through which we were on duty. We checked several vehicles before the apprehension of the accused, however, no record was maintained in this regard, I do not remember the registration no. of the other vehicles checked. The information regarding the recovery was given by Ct. Rohit to the PS, to which SI Rakesh came on the spot on the motorcycle, however, I do not remember the registration no. or make of his motorcycle. The seizure memo was prepared by the IO. It was witnessed by Ct. Rohit and me. It is correct that the place of recovery was public place"
14.2. Pertinently, the sole recovery witness of the prosecution i.e. PW3 has failed to specify the circumstance of his presence at the spot of recovery, DD Entry of departure/ arrival from/at the police station and has even failed to maintain any record regarding the vehicles allegedly checked by him a/w Ct. Rohit before apprehension of the accused.
Digitally
Page No.10 of 15 UDITA
signed by
UDITA
JAIN
JAIN GARG
Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
16:10:44
+0530
State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022
15. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that the prosecution has not proved the departure and arrival entries to prove that PW3 was actually present at the spot from where the recovery was effected from the accused. He further contended that had this been true, there ought to have been some DD entry in the Register. He stated that in the absence of DD Entry, it cannot be said that PW3 was actually present at the alleged spot at the relevant date and time.
16. To appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the accused, it would be advantageous to refer to clause (c) of Rule 22.49 Chapter 22 Punjab Police Rules which reads as under:-
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all en-rolled 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 de-parture of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by sig-nature or seal.
16.1. From the reading of the above mentioned rule, it is evident that all police officials irrespective of their rank are bound to record their arrival and departure entry at the time of leaving their office.
16.2. At this stage, it would be advantageous to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of the case of Rattan Lal vs State 32 (1987) DLT 1=1987 (2) Crimes 29 wherein it was observed as under:
"If the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the courts will UDITA Page No.11 of 15 JAIN GARG Digitally signed by UDITA JAIN GARG Date: 2026.02.13 16:10:48 +0530 State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022 have to approach, their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive."
16.3. During cross-examination, despite specific query being made by the defence, no departure or arrival entry has been exhibited in evidence by the prosecution.
16.4. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the failure by the prosecution to bring on record the DD entries concerning the departure of the police official on the date of recovery casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case regarding the presence of police officials at the spot at the time.
Independent witnesses not examined despite availability
17. It was argued on behalf of the accused that as per prosecution the place from where the recovery was effected was a public place, but in spite of that, no independent witness was joined by the police and this fact creates a shadow of doubt on the genuineness of prosecution case. Learned defence counsel further argued that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and there is no independent corroboration to their statements.
17.1. It is a settled proposition of law that when independent public persons are available at the spot and they are not joined in the investigation by the investigating agency then unless and until any reasonable and plausible explanation comes from the prosecution as to why the independent public person was not joined, the case of UDITA JAIN Page No.12 of 15 GARG Digitally signed by UDITA JAIN GARG Date: 2026.02.13 16:10:52 +0530 State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022 prosecution should be seen with reasonable circumspection as it would be unsafe to believe the story of the prosecution in absence of the independent public witnesses.
17.2. In Ritesh Chakarvarti vs. State 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 480(SC), no effort was made to join an independent witness despite availability. The names of the persons from the public, who were present and asked to join the investigation, were not recorded in any document. Under these circumstances, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the case of the prosecution was doubtful and ultimately, the accused was acquitted.
17.3. The principle of law, laid down in Ritesh Chakarvarti's case (supra) is fully applicable to the instant case.
17.4. PW3/HC Narender testified that the place of recovery was a public place, however not as much as a bare averment has been made by him that public persons were asked to join the investigation by them during patrolling, recovery or apprehension of the accused. No reason has been furnished for such failure.
17.5. As per prosecution, the place from where the recovery was effected was a public place, yet no witness from the public was associated with the recovery. Failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available, further casts shadow of doubt on the prosecution case regarding recovery from the possession of accused.
Digitally
signed by
Page No.13 of 15 UDITA UDITA
JAIN
JAIN GARG
Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
16:10:56
+0530
State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022
Result
18. Suspicion, no matter how strong cannot take the place of legal proof.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam decided on 28th May, 2013 held as under:-
6. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved, and something that `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based Digitally signed by Page No.14 of 15 UDITA UDITA JAIN JAIN GARG Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
16:11:00
+0530
State Vs. Deepak Singh E-FIR No.19731/2022
upon reason and common sense. (Vide:
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; State through CBI v.
Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017; and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979).
20. When considering and evaluating the contradictory version on a holistic basis, I am of the view that the prosecution's evidence was unsatisfactory and that the contradictions affected its witnesses' reliability and credibility.
21. In the circumstances, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
22. Consequently, accused Deepak Singh is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
Announced in open court on this 13th day of February 2026 Digitally (This judgment contains 15 pages UDITA signed by UDITA JAIN and each page is signed by me) JAIN GARG Date:
GARG 2026.02.13
16:11:03
+0530
(Udita Jain Garg)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (West)/THC/Delhi 13.02.2026 Page No.15 of 15