Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu on 6 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: MS. SAYESHA CHADHA, DJS
FIR No. 241/2019
PS : Kotwali
U/s 379/411 IPC
State vs. Sonu
Date of Institution of case: 20.08.2019
Date when Judgment reserved: 06.04.2026.
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 06.04.2026
JUDGMENT
A. Case No. : 10710/2019
B. Date of Institution of Case : 20.08.2019
C. Date of Commission of Offence : 10.07.2019
D. Name of the complainant : Anil Dass
E. Name of the Accused : Sonu S/o Sh. Mahesh Jha
& his parentage and residence R/o Village Balha, PS
Chakmehsi, Samastipur,
Bihar.
F. Offences complained of : U/s 379, 411 Indian Penal
Code
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final order : Acquittal
I. Date of such order : 06.04.2026
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 10.07.2019 at about 07:40 pm at SPM Marg, Angoori Bagh, Delhi within the jurisdiction of State Vs. Sonu FIR No. 241/2019 PS Kotwali 1/7 PS Kotwali, accused had committed theft of 04 piece of cervical collar from the possession of complainant Anil Dass and on the same date, time and place, accused was found in possession of 04 piece of cervical collar which both accused persons retained knowingly or having reasons to believe the same to be a stolen property and thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 379/411 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC).
2. Upon conclusion of investigation, a final report was filed before the court on 20.08.2019 against the accused. Cognizance of offence punishable u/s 379/411 IPC was taken. Upon summoning, the accused appeared and copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C). Thereafter, charge for offence punishable u/s 379/411 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution was given the opportunity to substantiate the allegations against the accused. The prosecution examined 1 (One) witness in support of its case:
4. PW-1 Retired ASI Parth has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 10.07.2019, he was on emergency duty at PP Red Fort from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. He received DD No. 35PP Red Fort, regarding apprehension of a thief. He alongwith Ct. Rajdeep went to the spot i.e. SPM Marg, Angoori Bagh, Delhi. At the spot, he met with complainant Anil Das and he narrated him about the incident. He handed over four pieces cervical collar and one blade cutter alongwith accused. He recorded the statement of the complainant Ex.PW-1/A bearing his State Vs. Sonu FIR No. 241/2019 PS Kotwali 2/7 signature at point A. Thereafter, he prepared the tehrir Ex.PW-1/B from point X to X1 bearing his signature at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Rajdeep for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he went to PS and got the FIR registered. In the meanwhile, he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Ex.PW-1/C bearing his signature at point A. thereafter, Ct. Rajdeep came back to the spot and handed over him the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/D and Ex.PW-1/E both bearing his signature at point A respectively. He arrested accused and personally searched accused vide memos Ex.PW-1/F and Ex.PW-1/G both bearing hhis signature at point A respectively. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW-1/H bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, medical examination of the accused was conducted at AAAG Hospital and after that the accused was taken to the PS and put in the lockup. He deposited the case property in the malkhana and recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. After that he prepared the charge-sheet and submitted the same in the concerned court. He has correctly identified accused. He has also correctly identified the case property i.e. four cervical collar and one blade cutter Ex.P1 which was stolen by accused.
5. During the cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he reached at the spot after 10 minutes of incident. Neither the incident happened in his presence nor the case property was recovered in his presence. He admitted that complainant handed over the case property to him. No CCTV Cameras were installed near the spot at the time of incident. He requested to public persons to join the investigation but all of them refused and left the spot without disclosing their name and addresses. No notice was served upon them. He denied State Vs. Sonu FIR No. 241/2019 PS Kotwali 3/7 that the accused falsely implicated in the present case. He denied that the case property was falsely planted upon the accused by the complainant at his instance. He denied that he never visited the place of incident. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
6. Vide separate statement of the accused recorded u/s 294 CrPC, the accused admitted the FIR Ex.A-1, endorsement on rukka Ex.A-2, certificate u/s 65(B) IEA Ex.A-3 and DD No.35PP dated 10.07.2017 Ex.A-4 without admitting the contents of the same.
7. The prosecution evidence was closed on 09.04.2025 and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 read with section 281 of CrPC on 26.02.2026, wherein he pleaded his innocence and stated to have been falsely implicated. The accused has not opted to lead defence evidence. Final arguments were heard. I have cogitated over the submissions made by ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused person.
DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREON:
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
9. The accused in the present case has been charged for offence U/s 379/411 IPC. The burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt shall be on the prosecution.
10. In the case in hand, it is a matter of record that the complainant was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 09.04.2025 as complainant is absent despite service of summons through DCP concerned. The prosecution has only relied State Vs. Sonu FIR No. 241/2019 PS Kotwali 4/7 on the testimony of police officials to corroborate its version.
11. Perusal of the record shows that the case property i.e., 4 piece of cervical collar was recovered from the possession of the accused.
12. The complainant was dropped vide order dated 09.04.2025. The complainant who was cited as an owner of case property alone could have testified about the ownership and identity of the case property. However, he could not be examined as prosecution witness. Thus, the best evidence for establishing the identity of the case property, recovered from the possession of accused, as stolen property is not available in the present case. The identity of the stolen property could not have been established from the testimony of other witnesses.
13. Though, it is true that if it is proved that the theft of purse was committed and that soon after it was committed, the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused, presumption can be raised under section 114, Illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act that the accused persons are either the thief or the receiver of the property knowing it to be stolen.
14. Illustration (a) of section 114, Evidence Act runs as follows:
The Court may presume: (a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods, soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. Thus, in order to make out an offence under section 411 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the property in question is a stolen property.
15. It is elementary that there can be no offence of dishonestly State Vs. Sonu FIR No. 241/2019 PS Kotwali 5/7 receiving stolen property unless the property which is alleged to be the subject of such receiving, answers to the description of "stolen property" defined under section 410 IPC.
16. To establish section 411 of the IPC on the basis of presumption u/s. 114 Illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that the presumption permitted by section 114 of the Act does not arise until the prosecution has established two facts; namely, the ownership of the articles in question and the theft of that article.
17. Once the first informant is not examined, even if the First Information Report is admitted and exhibited, all that can be read from it is the fact that FIR was in fact recorded at the date and time mentioned therein but the contents of the FIR cannot be used to hold the accused guilty of the charge.
18. The factum of theft u/s 379 IPC could have been proved only by the complainant. Moreover, in the case in hand, the complainant had stated in his statement given to the police that some unknown person had committed theft of 4 piece of cervical collar. The theft of case property itself has not been proved due to non-examination of complainant. Obviously, in such a scenario the case property allegedly recovered from the possession of accused is not proved to be a stolen property as defined under section 410 IPC. Until and unless the case property is proved to be stolen property which is a basic requirement, offence punishable under section 411 IPC is also not made out. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond State Vs. Sonu FIR No. 241/2019 PS Kotwali 6/7 reasonable doubt.
19. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, prosecution has failed to discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt and the accused Sonu S/o Sh. Mahesh Jha is entitled to be acquitted u/s 411 IPC and 379 IPC.
Announced in the open court Digitally
signed by
SAYESHA
SAYESHA CHADHA
CHADHA Date:
today.
2026.04.09
16:30:31
+0530
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
[This judgment contains 7 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Sonu FIR No. 241/2019 PS Kotwali 7/7