Delhi District Court
State vs Laxman on 11 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS02,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Sh. Akhil Malik
DLSH020024092012
FIR No. 381/12
PS Farsh Bazar
State Vs. Laxman & Ors.
U/s 392/427/34 IPC
ID number of the case : 76215/16
Date of commission of offence : 07.10.2012
Date of institution of the case : 07.12.2012
Name of the complainant : Smt. Naseema, D/o Sh. Firoj Ahmed, R/o D
167, NSA Colony, Delhi.
Name of accused and address : Laxman, S/o Sh. Ramesh, R/o Jhuggi D236,
NSA Colony, Delhi (proceedings qua accused
Laxman abated vide order dated 27.07.2019).
Gaurav, S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder, R/o D661,
NSA Colony, Delhi. (proceedings qua accused
Gaurav abated vide order dated 27.07.2019).
Sunil @ Kale, S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder, R/o D
661, NSA Colony, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : 392/427/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquittal
Date of judgment : 11.04.2026
AKHIL Digitally signed
by AKHIL MALIK
Date: 2026.04.11
FIR No. 381/12 State Vs. Laxman & Ors. MALIK 15:20:45
Page No. 1 of 8 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. The present judgment disposes of FIR No. 381/12, Police Station Farsh Bazar. The prosecution case is that on 07.10.2012 at about 09:00 AM, at D167, NSA Colony, Shahdara, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Farsh Bazar, accused persons Laxman (since deceased), Sunil @ Kale, and Gaurav Chaudhary (since deceased), in furtherance of their common intention along with coaccused Vijay (not arrested), committed theft of Rs.5,000/ belonging to complainant Smt. Naseema. It is further alleged that during the incident, they wrongfully restrained the complainant by pushing her and caused fear of instant hurt, thereby committing an offence punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC. It is also alleged that they committed mischief by damaging goods worth more than Rs.50/ lying in the shop, punishable under Sections 427/34 IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. On 07.12.2012, cognizance of offence was taken.
3. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.02.2013, charge for committing offence punishable u/s 392/427/34 IPC was framed against accused persons to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The case was subsequently scheduled for prosecution evidence (PE). Digitally signed by AKHIL AKHIL MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.04.11 15:20:56 FIR No. 381/12 State Vs. Laxman & Ors. Page No. 2 +0530 of 8
4. It is material to note that during the pendency of trial:
Accused Laxman and Gaurav Chaudhary expired and proceedings against them stood abated.
Accused Sunil @ Kale was declared a proclaimed person and later pleaded guilty to offence under Section 174A IPC and was sentenced on 08.11.2024. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. The prosecution has examined 04 prosecution witnesses in the present case. The deposition of witnesses is touched upon in brief as under to have a better appreciation of the case, which is follows:
5.1 PW1, Ct. Ajay Kumar, testified that on 07.10.2012, he was on emergency duty alongwith IO/HC Charandas from 8am to 8pm and on receipt of DD No. 11A, they reached at the spot i.e. D167, NSA Colony and found goods scattered and some public persons gathered there. PW1 stated that IO recorded statement of shop owner Naseema and prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He got registered the FIR in PS and handed over the same to IO. IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. His statement was recorded. 5.2 PW2, Sh. Nawab Singh Tomar testified that on 07.10.2012, he was working as a beldar and on that day, around 9am, he left his house where he saw Kale, Gaurav and other person went to the shop of Naseema. Thereafter, the said person were fighting with Naseema and belongings of Naseema were thrown out from her shop at different places. Thereafter, police came there and interrogate him. Thereafter, his Digitally signed by AKHIL FIR No. 381/12 State Vs. Laxman & Ors.
AKHIL MALIK Page No. 3 of 8 MALIK Date:
2026.04.11 15:21:02 +0530 statement was recorded. He was duly cross examined by counsel for accused. He admitted that he did not see accused persons throwing the articles. 5.3 PW3, Retd. SI Charan Das testified that on 07.10.2012, while posted as HC at PS Farsh Bazar, the witness received DD No. 11A (Ex. A2) regarding a quarrel and reached D167, NSA Colony with Const. Ajay. Articles were found scattered outside the complainant's shop. The witness photographed the spot, recorded the statement of Smt. Nasima (Ex. PW3/A), prepared rukka (Ex. PW3/B), sent it for FIR, and prepared the site plan (Ex. PW3/C). On 09.10.2012, accused Laxman was apprehended at the instance of the complainant, arrested vide Ex. PW3/D, personally searched vide Ex. PW3/E, and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW 3/F. He was medically examined and sent to JC. On 17.10.2012, accused Sunil @ Kale was arrested vide Ex. PW3/G, personally searched vide Ex. PW3/H, and his disclosure statement recorded vide Ex. PW3/I. He pointed out the place of occurrence vide Ex. PW3/J and led to recovery of Rs. 2,500/, seized vide Ex. PW 3/K. On 19.10.2012, accused Gaurav Chaudhary was arrested vide Ex. PW3/L, personally searched vide Ex. PW3/M, and his disclosure statement recorded vide Ex.
PW3/N. He was medically examined and sent to JC. The case property was deposited in the malkhana, and later the file was handed over to MHC(R) on transfer of the witness. The witness identified the case property produced in court as Ex. P1 Digitally signed FIR No. 381/12 State Vs. Laxman & Ors. AKHILPageby AKHIL No. 4 of 8 MALIK MALIK Date:
2026.04.11 15:21:08 +0530 (colly.), Ex. P2, and Ex. P3. Accused Laxman and Gaurav Chaudhary were stated to have expired, and the identity of accused Sunil @ Kale was not disputed. 5.4 PW4, ASI Sanjay Kumar testified that on 09.10.2012, the witness was posted as a Constable at PS Farsh Bazar. At about 3:30 AM, he along with HC Charan Das reached DBlock Jhuggi, NSA Colony, where they met the complainant Nasimha, who narrated the incident to the IO. At about 5:00 AM, the witness, the IO, and the complainant went near the appliance exchange chowk, where the complainant identified one person coming towards NSA Colony as Laxman, who was involved in the offence.
The witness apprehended the said person and produced him before the IO. The IO interrogated, arrested, and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex. PW 3/D and Ex. PW3/E, both bearing the signature of the witness at point 'B', and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW3/F bearing the signature of the witness at point 'B'. The statement of the witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has since expired.
6. In the present matter, notice was issued to complainant/eye witness which was received back with report that complainant had expired. Accordingly, complainant was dropped from the list of witnesses. Digitally signed AKHIL byMALIK AKHIL MALIK Date: 2026.04.11 15:21:14 +0530 FIR No. 381/12 State Vs. Laxman & Ors. Page No. 5 of 8
7. The court has to see whether prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sunil @ Kale committed offences punishable under Sections 392/427/34 IPC.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
8. Before adverting to the factual matrix, it is apposite to reiterate the settled principles governing criminal trials. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent, reliable, and legally admissible evidence. The burden of proof rests squarely upon the prosecution and does not shift. It is equally trite that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt, and suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot take the place of proof.
9. In the present case, the most important witness was the complainant, Smt. Naseema, as she was the person allegedly present at the shop at the time of the incident. However, she could not be examined as she expired during the trial. As a result, there is no direct evidence on record to show what exactly happened inside the shop or who committed the alleged acts.
10. The only public witness examined is PW2 Nawab Singh Tomar. His testimony shows that he saw the accused persons near the shop. However, in his cross examination, he clearly stated that he did not see them inside the shop or throwing AKHIL Digitally signed by AKHIL MALIK Date: 2026.04.11 MALIK 15:21:20 +0530 FIR No. 381/12 State Vs. Laxman & Ors. Page No. 6 of 8 any articles. Therefore, his evidence only shows presence near the spot and does not prove involvement in the offence.
11. The other witnesses are police officials who have deposed about the investigation. Their evidence is formal in nature and does not by itself prove that the accused committed the alleged offences.
12. The photographs placed on record only show that goods were lying outside the shop. They do not show who caused the damage or whether the accused were involved.
13. The recovery of Rs.2,500/ from accused Sunil @ Kale also does not sufficiently connect him with the alleged offence. There is no clear proof that this money belonged to the complainant. Further, no independent public witness was joined at the time of recovery, even though public persons were available.
14. It is also on record that several public persons were present at the spot at the time of the incident. However, none of them have been examined as witnesses. No explanation has been given for this omission.
15. The accused Sunil @ Kale was arrested several days after the incident and not from the spot. There is no reliable identification of the accused as the person who committed the offence. The coaccused Vijay, who is alleged to have been involved, was never arrested. This also weakens the prosecution case. Digitally signed by AKHIL AKHIL MALIK FIR No. 381/12 State Vs. Laxman & Ors. MALIK Date: Page No. 7 of 8
2026.04.11 15:21:26 +0530
16. Due to the death of key witnesses, including the complainant, and the absence of any clear and reliable evidence, there are significant gaps in the prosecution case.
17. Overall, the evidence on record does not clearly establish that the accused committed theft, used force, or caused damage to the property. The involvement of the accused remains doubtful. In these circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
CONCLUSION
18. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, accused Sunil @ Kale is hereby acquitted for the commission of offence punishable U/s 392/427/34 IPC.
This judgment consists of 08 pages and all pages bear my signature. Digitally signed by AKHIL
AKHIL MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:21:31 +0530
Announced and dictated directly (Akhil Malik)
into the computer in the open Court, JMFC02 (SHD)/Delhi
on 11.04.2026 11.04.2026
FIR No. 381/12 State Vs. Laxman & Ors. Page No. 8 of 8