Delhi District Court
State vs Pappu Singh on 12 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 2035072/2016
FIR No. : 520/2014
Police Station : Saket
Section(s) : 381/411/34 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
i) Pappu Singh
S/o Sh. Doji Ram
R/o Village Kundla, PS Dhoki
Tehsil Fatialbad, District Agra (UP)
ii) Nasruddin S/o Sh. Mohammad
R/o H. No. C-30, Lal Kuan
Badarpur, MB Road, New Delhi
iii) Balram Ojha S/o Sh. Jugal Kishore (Absconder)
R/o H No. 465-G, Sangam Vihar
New Delhi .... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Sh. Gaurav Gupta
i) Pappu Singh
2. Name of Accused : ii) Nasruddin
iii) Balram Ojha (Absconder)
3. Offence complained of or proved : 381/411/34 IPC
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 23.07.2014
State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 1 of 17
6. Date of Filing of case : 07.01.2016
7. Date of Reserving Order : 04.11.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025
9. Final Order : Acquitted
Argued by - Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
"A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to evidence"
- David Hume Case of the prosecution against accused regarding the alleged theft and subsequent recovery is fraught with multiple contradictions and inconsistencies. As such, accused are acquitted.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. As per the prosecution version, complainant, Sh. Gaurav Gupta, and Sh. Sachit Bansal are partners of a firm named Tru Spices, dealing in general groceries and provision items. Being wary of pilferage of their goods for a long time, both Sh. Gaurav Gupta and Sh. Sachit Bansal suspected that their employees, Nasruddin and Pappu Singh, had been stealing goods from their possession. On the day of the incident in question, i.e. 23.07.2014, at about 12:25 pm, they kept a watch on both the aforesaid employees to ascertain whether they were indeed committing theft. At around 12:25 pm, they allegedly observed both accused concealing two packets of cardamom and one packet of cashew nuts, each weighing 1 kg, in the toolbox of the delivery vehicle, instead of placing them in the appropriate compartment with the remaining goods meant for delivery, State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 2 of 17thereby indicating their intention to commit theft. The said articles were recovered by the complainant, who then made a call to the police station. Consequent thereto, IO SI Amit Solanki reached the spot and apprehended both accused. The formalities regarding their arrest were completed. From their disclosure statements, the role of accused Balram Ojha also came to the fore. Both accused stated that co-accused Balram Ojha, who was previously employed in the same firm, was complicit in the offence. They disclosed that they used to sell the stolen articles from the firm to Balram Ojha, who would then sell them further to third parties for profit. Subsequently, on 27.07.2014, vide DD No. 20B, the IO was informed that the stolen property could be recovered from G-Block, Sangam Vihar, and that the complainants were already present at the spot. When the IO reached G-1068, Sangam Vihar, Second Floor, near Nehru Chowk, Veer Bazar, he recovered the stolen case property from the location, including items such as Nescafé coffee, Tata Tea, confectionery items, etc. The same were seized and deposited in the concerned malkhana.
2. On 30.07.2014, accused Balram Ojha surrendered before the Court, was arrested, and his police custody remand was obtained. During his police custody remand, recovery of cashew nuts, almonds, and other general provision store items was effected from his house at his instance.
3. After completion of investigation, the subject charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 381/411/34 IPC was filed against the accused persons. Cognizance of the offences disclosed in the charge sheet was taken, and the accused were summoned to face trial. Upon appearance, they were supplied copies of the charge sheet in compliance with Section State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 3 of 17207 CrPC. Thereafter, after hearing arguments on the point of charge, a charge for the offence punishable under Section 381/34 IPC was framed against accused Nasir and Pappu, and a charge for the offence under Section 411 IPC was framed against accused Balram. All accused pleaded not guilty to the respective charges, and claimed trial. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of prosecution evidence.
4. In support of its version, prosecution has examined five witnesses:
PW Name Nature of Testimony
PW1 Sh. Gaurav Gupta Complainant
PW2 Sh. Sachit Bansal Partner of the complainant
PW3 HC Sumit Assisted the IO
PW4 Insp. Amit Singh 1st IO of the case
PW5 ASI Praveen 2nd IO of the case
5. Accused admitted, as per Section 294 CrPC, the genuineness of endorsement by the DO (Ex A1) and the present FIR (Ex A2). In view of the above said admission, rest of the prosecution witnesses, all formal in nature, were dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined. PE was closed thereafter. It is pertinent to mention that after this stage, accused Balram Ojha stopped appearing in Court. His presence could not be secured even by way of NBWs, and ultimately proceedings u/s 82 CrPC were initiated against him. He was declared an absconder vide order dated 08.10.2025. Proceedings progressed qua the remaining accused. It is also worthwhile to mention that accused Ashok Sutar was summoned u/s 319 State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 4 of 17CrPC upon recording of testimony of PW1 Sh. Gaurav Gupta, but he had already expired before the said date, and as such, proceedings against him stood abated.
6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statement of accused Pappu Singh and Nasruddin was recorded under Section 281/313 CrPC, wherein they claimed to be innocent, and denied the allegations levelled against them. They stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case by complainants, on account of certain dispute between them and the complainants regarding their unpaid salary. Accused persons opted not to lead any DE in the affirmative.
7. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of final arguments. Arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
8. Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with theft by a clerk or servant of property in the possession of their master or employer. The punishment for this offense can be imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to seven years, and the offender is also liable to a fine. The section specifically addresses situations where an employee, during the course of his employment, steals property belonging to his employer. The same is an aggravated form of theft, dealing with cases where theft involves misuse of position of an employee.
9. Section 411 IPC provides for the offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property. The penal Section extracted above can be broken down into State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 5 of 17four segments namely: Whoever, I. Dishonestly;
II. Receives or retains any stolen property;
III. Knowing; or IV. 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.
"Dishonestly" is defined under Section 24 of the IPC as, "Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
Essential ingredients of offence punishable under Section 411 IPC have been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Trimbak vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 39 wherein it has been held that in order to bring home the guilt of an accused for the offence punishable under this provision, it needs to be proved, "(1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property...."
10. Facts of the case shall be analyzed through the prism of legal position enumerated above. The fulcrum of the prosecution case is the testimonies of the two complainants. However, scrutiny of their testimonies reveals them to be replete with several gaps and crevices. PW1 Sh. Gaurav Gupta, testified in his examination-in-chief that on 23.07.2014, he, along with his business partner, Sh. Sachit Bansal, saw the two accused concealing two packets of cardamom and one packet of cashew nut (whole) in the toolbox State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 6 of 17of the delivery vehicle bearing registration no. DL1L9570. He testified that upon being asked the reason for concealing the said articles, the accused could not offer any reasonable explanation. He stated that the toolbox was opened in front of the accused, following which they made a call to the police at 100 number to report the theft. He further stated that the accused persons had been pilfering goods from his firm for a long time in their capacity as employees. He testified that IO SI Amit Solanki reached the spot and, in his presence, seized the recovered articles vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A, recorded his statement Ex. PW1/B, and, after registration of the FIR, prepared the site plan at his instance, Ex. PW1/C. He stated that the accused were arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW1/D to Ex. PW1/G in his presence. He further testified that during interrogation the accused revealed that they had been regularly committing such theft at the behest of co-accused Balram Ojha, who was also their erstwhile employee and had been on leave since 06.06.2014. He stated that the IO recorded the disclosure statements of the accused, Ex. PW1/H to Ex. PW1/I, in his presence. He added that he then called accused Balram Ojha to meet him at his office, but the latter did not cooperate on the pretext of being unwell. He testified that on 27.07.2014, at about 07.00 AM, both he and his partner, Sh. Sachit Bansal, went to look for accused Balram Ojha at his residence, where his family was present but the accused himself could not be traced. He stated that the son of Balram Ojha alerted his maternal uncle, Ashok Sutar, about their presence, and Ashok Sutar in turn informed them that he would soon appear at the shop, though he failed to do so. PW1 further stated that local enquiry conducted by him and his partner a day prior had revealed that Ashok Sutar was also complicit in receiving and State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 7 of 17selling the stolen property along with co-accused Balram Ojha, and that the latter used to transport the stolen articles to Sutar's house on a rickshaw. He testified that with some persuasion he could locate the rickshaw puller, who pointed out the house of accused Ashok Sutar. He testified that when they went on 27.07.2014 to G-1086, Nehru Chowk, Veer Bazar, Sangam Vihar, the house of Ashok Sutar, the latter was not present but arrived shortly thereafter. PW1 stated that Ashok Sutar permitted him and his partner to check the kitchen to see if any material belonging to Tru Spices was present, but none was found. He further testified that on proceeding to the second floor of the house, they observed a room locked from the outside, and they could see a tin of Fortune oil hidden behind a wooden bed. He testified that upon coming downstairs and requesting co-accused Ashok Sutar to unlock the room, they were criminally intimidated by Ashok Sutar and his family members. He then made a call to the SHO PS concerned, and on his advice, made a call to the PCR. One constable from Sangam Vihar police station arrived at the spot and inspected the second room from outside, and later ASI Praveen Kumar from PS Saket also came and surveyed the second floor from outside. He stated that at around 04.00 PM, SI Amit Solanki, along with counsel of accused Ashok Sutar, reached the spot, and in their presence, recovery of several grocery items was effected from the room of accused Ashok Sutar. He further testified that during the PC remand of accused Balram Ojha, he had accompanied the police officials to the house of the said accused, and recovery of grocery articles as per seizure memo Ex. PW1/K was effected in his presence. In his deposition, the witness also proved the partnership deed dated 20.12.2014 and the rent agreement dated 23.04.2012, Mark X1 (Colly), which were State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 8 of 17seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/L. He also proved his complaint against co-accused Balram Ojha, Ex. PW1/M. He identified the recovered articles from photographs Ex. P1 (Colly), and stated that the same were recovered from the house of the brother-in-law of accused Balram Ojha, namely Ashok Sutar, and that the photographs were taken by IO SI Amit Solanki at the time of recovery. He also correctly identified accused Pappu and Nasruddin during his testimony.
11. The entire genesis of the incident, as narrated by PW1 Sh. Gaurav Gupta, appears to be questionable. In his cross-examination, he admitted that billing for the goods used to be done prior to their packing and delivery. He also admitted that his complaint Ex. PW1/M does not mention that the accused persons were responsible for packing the articles. The tenor of his testimony is that articles used to be first packed and then loaded into the delivery vehicle. In such circumstances, PW1 ought to have clarified whether the accused managed to extract unpacked articles from the godown or whether they took them out from previously packed packages. He stated that he and his partner had been keeping an eye on the accused on the day of the incident, yet he failed to explain how the accused managed to get the articles out to the delivery van. This is a clear gap in their testimony.
12. In his testimony PW1 also admitted that at the relevant time nine employees were present at the spot of the incident, and volunteered that the attendance register is also on record. Despite this, none of the nine employees were made witnesses during the investigation. If PW1 and his partner had indeed discovered a theft, it is reasonable to presume that before State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 9 of 17calling the police they would have raised some alarm at the spot. Such alarm ought to have been witnessed by at least one of the nine employees present at or near the spot. The non-joining of any such employee is a major loophole in the prosecution case. PW1 merely testified that he had been noticing pilferage in the goods of his firm for some time, without specifying the nature of such pilferage or fortifying his testimony with documents showing deficit of goods. This too is a gap in his case when considered holistically.
13. As already noted, co-accused Ashok Sutar was also summoned by the Court under Section 319 CrPC, though summons could not be served due to his demise prior to service. Be that as it may, PW1 narrated an incident wherein he and his partner went in search of accused Balram Ojha and Ashok Sutar themselves, without informing the IO. He stated that on 27.07.2014 he reached the house of Ashok Sutar along with his partner, having known from a day prior that Ashok was complicit in the offence. Yet no prior intimation was given to the police station concerned, and instead they decided to attempt recovery of the case property and apprehend the accused on their own, for reasons unknown.
14. In his testimony, PW1 further stated that certain goods were recovered from the house of accused Ashok Sutar at his behest. Articles as per Ex. PW1/K were recovered from his possession. The photographs clearly show that certain generic items, such as packets of tea, were recovered. Such articles being readily available in the market and commonly used, it cannot be conclusively held that they were stolen from State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 10 of 17the complainant.
15. Further, it is also noteworthy that even the rickshaw-puller who, according to PW1, assisted in identifying the house of accused Ashok Sutar, has not been examined by the prosecution. Likewise, none of the neighbours of accused Balram Ojha, from whom PW1 claims to have learnt that the stolen goods were being regularly sent to the house of accused Ashok Sutar, have been cited or examined as witnesses. The non- examination of these material witnesses, who were allegedly the very source of such crucial information, constitutes yet another significant loophole in the prosecution case.
16. PW2 Sh. Sachit Bansal testified that prior to 23.07.2014, he had been observing that some articles, such as black cardamom, peppercorns, dry fruits etc., were being stolen by someone from the godown of his company, Tru Spices. He testified that on account of the same, he and his business partner, Sh. Gaurav Gupta, had become more vigilant. He testified that on 23.07.2014, they saw their drivers Nasruddin and Pappu concealing some articles in the toolbox of the delivery vehicle, and also testified regarding the recovery of the cardamom as well as the cashew packets from the toolbox of the said vehicle. He testified that thereafter they made a call to the PCR, upon which police officials reached the spot. He testified, broadly on the lines of PW1, regarding the codal formalities discharged by the IO pertaining to the seizure of the stolen articles, as well as the arrest and recording of the disclosure statements of the accused persons. He testified that he and his partner had gone to Sangam Vihar to meet co-accused State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 11 of 17Balram Ojha, and from him they came to know that the stolen articles were lying in the house of his brother-in-law, namely Ashok Sutar, upon which they went to the house of Ashok Sutar and had informed the police regarding the same. He also testified regarding the recovery effected from the house of co-accused Ashok Sutar vide Ex. PW1/J. He also correctly identified the case property during his testimony, being Ex. P1.
17. Pertinently, it is observable that while PW1, Sh. Gaurav Gupta, testified that he, along with his partner, Sh. Sachit Bansal, had gone to the house of Balram Ojha and, though Balram Ojha was not found present there, local inquiry and the help of a rickshaw puller led them to discover that the stolen articles were lying in the house of Sh. Ashok Sutar, PW2, Sh. Sachit Bansal, contrarily testified that when he and his partner went to Sangam Vihar to meet Balram Ojha, it was from accused Balram Ojha himself that they came to know that the stolen articles were lying in the house of his brother-in-law, Ashok Sutar. This apparent discrepancy between the versions of the two witnesses makes the prosecution case doubtful regarding the very chain of circumstances under which the alleged recovery was effected from the house of accused Ashok Sutar.
18. When questioned on the circumstances of this recovery, PW2 further vaguely responded in his cross-examination that he did not remember whether the police had come to his residence and they had proceeded together to the residence of Ashok Sutar, or whether they had reached there separately. The witness's version appears doubtful in view of such vague replies. Further, in his testimony, the witness admitted that the photographs State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 12 of 17of the articles allegedly recovered from the house of Ashok Sutar do not make it clear where the said photographs were clicked. There is not material on record to even suggest that articles of the same description were stolen from the possession of the complainants, absent any inventory or other documentary proof. Vague testimony of PW1 that some items were getting pilfered is not sufficient to conclude that the same items that were seized allegedly from house of Ashok Sutar were the ones stolen from them. The alleged recovery, even if conceded to have actually been effected from the house of Ashok Sutar, does not in anyway establish that these articles are stolen property, belonging to the complainants. No bills of the said articles were provided by him or his partner, Sh. Gaurav Gupta, to the IO either. As such, merely from the seizure memo or the photographs, it cannot be concluded that the recovery was indeed effected at the house of Ashok Sutar, and even if it was, there is no reasonable basis to hold that these articles were stolen property, given their generic nature and easy availability in the market.
19. The recovery becomes even more doubtful in view of the fact that, despite its having been effected in a public area, no public witnesses were joined in the recovery proceedings. It has been held by superior courts from time to time that non-joining of public witnesses, despite their easy availability, dents the prosecution case. In the facts of the present case, where the recovery was made from the house of Ashok Sutar in a pre- meditated manner, from a residential locality, the non-joining of public witnesses appears fatal to the prosecution.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 13 of 1720. From the testimony of PW2, it is further clear that other employees were present at the time when the apprehension of accused Pappu and Nasruddin, with the alleged stolen articles, took place. Without any reasonable cause, none of those employees were joined in the investigation, which, as already discussed earlier, renders the prosecution version doubtful.
21. Prosecution's case receives no fortification from the testimony of the IO either. PW4 Inspector Amit Singh, testified that the investigation was marked to him on 23.07.2014 by DD entry no. 21A, upon which he reached the spot and apprehended the accused persons, Pappu and Nasruddin, with the case property. He testified that he recorded the statement of Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Ex. PW1/B, prepared the rukka, Ex. PW4/A, and on that basis the FIR was registered. He testified that after registration of the FIR, he prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, Ex. PW1/C, and seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. He also testified regarding the codal formalities of arrest and personal search of the accused persons, and proved their disclosure statements, Ex. PW1/H and PW1/I. He testified that on 27.07.2014, he received further information by DD no. 20B from PS Sangam Vihar regarding possible recovery of stolen items from house no. G-1086, Sangam Vihar, upon which he, along with Ct. Sumit, proceeded to the spot, where the complainant and Sh. Sachit Bansal were already present. He testified that both of them disclosed that some unknown person had informed them that co-accused Balram Ojha had placed stolen items in the house of his relative, Ashok Sutar. He testified that 21 articles in all were recovered from the house of accused Ashok Sutar, vide memo State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 14 of 17Ex. PW1/J, and that the recovery proceedings were conducted in the presence of the complainant, his partner, and one Bansilal Sharma. He also testified to the surrender of accused Balram Ojha before the court and his consequent arrest. He correctly identified the recovered articles from the photographs, Ex. P1 (Colly).
22. PW3 HC Sumit, testified similarly that he had gone to the spot with the IO on the day of the incident, where they met the complainant, Sh. Gaurav Gupta, who handed over his written complaint. PW3 also testified regarding the registration of the FIR, the arrest of accused Nasruddin and Pappu, and the subsequent arrest of co-accused Balram Ojha upon his surrender. He also testified that the IO obtained PC remand of accused Balram Ojha and, at his instance, they all went to G-465 Sangam Vihar, and recovery vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/K was effected therefrom. He correctly identified the case property. However, both PW3 and PW4 admitted that when they reached the spot, the recovery had already allegedly been made by the complainants. They testified that no recovery was effected by them from the accused persons at the spot. PW4 also admitted that he did not click any photographs of the alleged recovered articles at the spot of the incident, and he did not record the statement of any other employee of the complainant, despite the admitted presence of such employees at the time of the incident. PW3 reiterated the same. No reasonable explanation has been provided for these omissions. Deliberate and intentional gaps appear to have been left in the investigation, casting a shadow of doubt on the prosecution version. Both witnesses testified that the recovery vide Ex. PW1/K was effected from the house of accused State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 15 of 17Balram Ojha. Since accused Balram Ojha has since absconded, the question whether any recovery was effected from his house at his instance need not be examined at this stage.
23. PW4 further testified that, as per the recovery memo Ex. PW1/J, certain articles were recovered from the house of accused Ashok Sutar. This seizure memo was signed by one Bansilal Sharma. However, for reasons best known to the prosecution, Bansilal Sharma was neither cited nor examined as a witness to prove the recovery proceedings. The memo is supported by photographs, but as already noted, the articles visible in the photos are generic items easily available in the market, and from the photographs alone, it cannot be concluded that these items were recovered from the house of accused Ashok Sutar, or that they constitute stolen property. The IO has offered no explanation for these gaps either.
24. The testimony of PW5 ASI Praveen, is merely formal. He testified that pursuant to service of notice under Section 91 CrPC upon the complainant, the complainant handed over photocopies of the rent agreement, partnership deed, and attendance register of the accused persons, Exs. PW1/Q, PW1/O and PW1/P (Colly), which he seized vide memo Ex. PW1/L. His testimony in no manner furthers the prosecution case, which suffers from several gaps and doubts.
25. It is well settled that under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution has State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 16 of 17failed to discharge this burden. Accordingly, accused Pappu and Nasruddin stand acquitted of all charges.
26. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance with Section 437A CrPC.
Digitally
Pronounced in open Court on signed by
12.11.2025 in the presence Medha Medha arya
Date:
of accused. arya 2025.11.13
16:50:30
+0530
(Medha Arya)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
12.11.2025
State vs. Pappu Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 520/2014, PS: Saket Page 17 of 17