Delhi District Court
State vs Mustaq Khan on 7 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No:- DLET01-001578-2024
State v. Mustaq Khan Etc.
FIR No. : 1811/2023
Police Station : Patparganj Industrial Area
Under Sections : 392/397/411/34 IPC
(a) Serial number of the case : 288/2024
(b) Name of the complainant : Mohd. Shadab
(c) Name of the accused : (1) Mustaq Khan
person (s) S/o Mr. Mumtaz Khan
R/o E-49/D 184, G. No. 4
Janta Mazdoor Colony
Welcome, Delhi
(2) Imran @ Raju
S/o Mr. Nisar Khan
R/o E-49/D-115, G. No. 2
Janta Mazdoor Colony
Welcome, Delhi
(3) Aman
S/o Mr. Yunus
R/o H. No. 12/A-91, G. No. 11
Vijay Mohalla Maujpur, Delhi
(d) Offences complained of : 392/397/411/34 IPC
(e) Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.03.07
17:54:43 +0530
FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 1 of 19
(f) Date of institution of case : 15.03.2024
(g) Date of final arguments : 12.02.2026
(h) Date of Judgment : 07.03.2026
(i) Final Judgment : All the accused persons are
acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. In the present case, charge-sheet was filed by the State under Sections 392/397/411/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') against accused persons i.e. accused no. 1 Mustaq Khan, accused no. 2 Imran @ Raju and accused no. 3 Aman on 26.12.2023. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.12.2023 at about 02:15 AM in a moving car bearing No. DL-1RT-8848 at outer gate of Anand Vihar, Delhi all three accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of a mobile phone, aadhar card and Rs. 100/- from the possession of complainant Mohd. Shadab and while committing the said robbery, accused no. 1 Mustaq Khan used a deadly weapon i.e. knife. It is further the case of prosecution that on 26.12.2023, robbed mobile phone of blue colour make Inovu A1 belonging to complainant was recovered at the instance of accused no. 3 Aman.
Factual Matrix
2. Succinctly stated, the present FIR No. 1811/2023 was registered on 26.12.2023 on the statement of complainant Mohd. Shadab. He alleged that on 24.12.2023 at about 02:15 AM, AKASH Digitally AKASH JAIN signed by JAIN Date: 2026.03.07 17:54:49 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 2 of 19 after finishing his work at the shop, he reached near the out gate of ISBT, Anand Vihar. There, he boarded an Accent taxi for going to Yamuna Vihar after settling the fare @ Rs. 30/-. The complainant alleged that initially he sat on the front seat of the car and at that time, one driver and two boys were already sitting on the rear seat. After proceeding to some distance, the driver asked complainant to get down from the front seat and made him sit on the rear seat between the two boys. Thereafter, the boy sitting on left side of complainant caught hold of his neck, while the other boy placed a vegetable cutting knife on his stomach. Meanwhile, the driver continued to drive the vehicle and one of the assailant forcibly took away his mobile phone, Rs. 100/- cash and aadhar card from his pocket. Thereafter, the assailants pushed complainant out of the vehicle near Maujpur Red light. On 26.12.2023, 2-3 police officials came to his house for inquiry and he narrated the entire incident to them. They asked him to come to the Police Station. Complainant had already lodged an online FIR by then and when he appeared at the Police Station, he saw three boys being interrogated by the police officials. He identified them as the same three persons who had assaulted and robbed him during the night of 24.12.2023. All the 3 accused persons were already arrested by HC Jagsoran in another case FIR No. 996/2023 Police Station Patparganj Industrial Area. Their separate disclosure statements were consequently recorded by the IO and they got arrested and produced before the Court concerned. The mobile phone belonging to complainant besides weapon of offence i.e. knife was already recovered by HC Jagsoran in case FIR No. 996/2023. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against all the three accused persons Mustaq Khan, Imran @ Raju AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.03.07 17:54:53 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 3 of 19 and Aman for offences under Sections 392/397/411/34 IPC. After statutory compliance, present case was committed to the Court of Sessions and assigned to this Court by the order of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Charge
3. Vide order dated 26.03.2024 all the three accused persons were formally charged for commission of offences under Sections 392/34 IPC. While accused Mustaq Khan was additionally charged for offence under Section 397 IPC, accused Aman was additionally charged for the offence under Section 411 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter thereafter, proceeded for prosecution evidence.
Prosecution Evidence
4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as 03 witnesses. PW-1 is complainant Mohd. Shadab who deposed that on 24.12.2023 at about 2:00 AM, after closing his shop, he was going to his house and reached at ISBT Anand Vihar at the outgate and was waiting for the public vehicle to go to his house. One four wheeler vehicle make Accent came there and the driver of the said vehicle offered seat to him in the said vehicle and the fare was settled for Rs. 30/- for going to Khajuri. One person was sitting on the driver seat, while another person was sitting on the adjoining seat of the front seat. The third person was reportedly sitting on the rear seat of the vehicle and PW-1 got seated on the rear seat. When the vehicle passed through Seemapuri underpass, the vehicle turned towards left side and the person who was sitting Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH JAIN Date: 2026.03.07 17:54:57 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 4 of 19 on the rear seat caught hold of him by his neck and name of the said person was Mustaq. Aman who was sitting on the front seat adjoining to the driver seat, also came to rear seat and he took out purse and mobile phone of PW-1. PW-1 further deposed that his purse was containing his ID documents and Rs. 100/- and make of his mobile phone was Inovu company and SIM bearing no. 8743898307 was in the mobile phone.
5. PW-1 deposed that driver namely, Raju scolded him, Mustaq and Aman. Aman and Mustaq also abused driver Raju. Mustaq thereafter took out a knife and put the same on neck of PW-1. Aman and Mustaq also gave fist blows to him. Driver Raju stopped the vehicle near Peeli Mitti Colony and Jafrabad Metro Station. Mustaq thrown PW-1 out of the said vehicle by giving leg blows to him and thereafter, Aman, Raju and Mustaq ran away from there with their vehicle. PW-1 deposed that he went to the Police Post Maujpur and narrated the facts but police did not record his report and thereafter he went to his house. On next morning, police of the Police Station Patparganj Industrial Area came at his house and took him to the Police Station. Police made enquiries from him and he gave his written complaint Ex.PW1/A. He further proved site plan as Ex.PW1/B. Accused Mustaq, Aman and Raju were consequently arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW 1/C, Ex. PW 1/E and Ex. PW 1/G respectively. He further proved their personal search memos as Ex. PW 1/D, Ex. PW 1/F and Ex. PW 1/H respectively. PW-1 deposed that his mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Aman and police seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/I. PW-1 further proved the case property i.e. one mobile phone make INOVU as Ex. P1. PW-1 AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.03.07 17:55:01 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 5 of 19 deposed that after the incident, he lodged an e-FIR on 25.12.2023 and had seen the Accent vehicle in the Police Station in which incident in question took place and identified the said vehicle in the Police Station. PW-1 further correctly identified all the accused persons in the Court. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Mustaq, the complainant/ PW-1 though resiled from his testimony as recorded in chief. He further stated that except e-FIR, no other statement of his was recorded by the police. PW-1 further stated that he had identified the accused persons in his examination-in-chief at the instance of police officials and that none of the accused persons had committed the alleged offences against him and that nothing was recovered from any of the accused persons in his presence.
6. PW-2 is HC Jagsoran who deposed that on 24.12.2023 one Brijesh came to the Police Station and alleged about a robbery of Rs. 600/- and a mobile phone committed by three persons against him. He recorded his statement and prepared the rukka and on the basis of same, FIR No. 996/2023 under Sections 392/397/34 IPC was registered. During the investigation of that case, he found that about Rs. 17,000/- was transferred in the account of Shahdab, the victim of the present case. PW-2 deposed that he took out the bank statements of bank account of Shahdab and found about his address. On 26.12.2023, he along with SI Sunil, HC Harshit and HC Sudhakar went to the address of Shahdab i.e. Mullah colony behind the Police Station Ghazipur. He was not found there and thereafter, they went to his new address at Shiv Vihar where Shahdab met and informed them that in the night of 23.12.2023, three persons had committed robbery with him in an Accent car AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.03.07 17:55:05 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 6 of 19 and further informed that his mobile phone and Rs. 100/- were robbed. They advised him to go to the Police Station PIA. Thereafter, they took out the CDR of mobile number of Shahdab and found that said mobile number was used in another mobile phone of different IMEI number. They checked the details of said mobile phone bearing IMEI number and came to know that the said mobile phone was in the name of Mustaq. They reached at the house of Mustaq, who met them outside of his house. They apprehended him, interrogated him and arrested him in the case FIR No. 996/2023 and his disclosure statement was also recorded. PW-2 proved arrest of accused Mustaq vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW2/B. PW-2 further deposed that at the instance of accused Mustaq, another accused Imran was arrested from his house situated at Welcome area in the case FIR No. 996/2023 vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C whose disclosure statement was also recorded vide Ex.PW2/D. PW-2 further deposed that at the instance of accused Imran, one Accent car (taxi) was recovered in the parking near the Police Station Welcome and he seized the said car vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/E.
7. PW-2 deposed that at the instance of accused Mustaq and Imran, they went to Kabir Nagar and accused Aman was apprehended by them at their instance from a factory. They interrogated Aman and also arrested him in the case FIR No. 996/2023 vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/F and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW2/G. PW-2 deposed that one mobile phone make Inovu of blue colour was recovered from his possession which was seized by them vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/H. PW-2 AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.03.07 17:55:09 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 7 of 19 deposed that said mobile phone was a case property of the present case. All three accused persons were then brought to the Police Station and were interrogated. They disclosed about their involvement in the case FIR No. 996/2023 and in the present case. During interrogation, accused Imran disclosed that the knife used in the present case was kept by him in the dashboard of the above said seized car. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Imran, one knife was recovered from the dashboard of above said seized car and parked in the area of Police Station Patparganj Industrial Area. PW-2 prepared the sketch of the said knife vide Ex.PW2/I and kept the said knife in a cloth pullanda, sealed it with seal of 'JS' and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/J. Thereafter, all the three accused persons were kept in the lockup. On the next day, victim of the present case namely, Shahdab came at the police station and he identified the above said accused persons Mustaq, Aman and Imran in the police station.
8. PW-2 deposed that ASI Balbir i.e. IO of the present case conducted further proceedings. PW-2 correctly identified accused Aman and Imran in the Court. He correctly identified mobile phone make INOVU of blue colour vide Ex.PW2/MO1 which was having battery and memory card. He further correctly identified one kitchen knife of blue colour handle as Ex.PW2/MO2. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-2 admitted that he along with HC Sudhakar and HC Harshit went to the DBS Bank, Krishna Nagar in the investigation of the case FIR No. 996/2023 where he had given notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and got the statement of account no. 8811010003382710 and as per the statement, money was AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.03.07 17:55:14 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 8 of 19 transferred in the account of Shahdab. He admitted that the mobile number of Shahdab was 8743898307. He further admitted that Shahdab had informed regarding registration of online FIR no. 1811/2023. During investigation, he came to know the changed IMEI number for the phone number 8743898307 was 865389052717610 in which the mobile no. 9958282162 was used. He further admitted that when they reached at the house of Mustaq, he was not present at his home and when they searched, he was found at the road near Zafrabad Metro Station. PW-2 admitted that Mustaq had disclosed about the involvement of Imran @ Raju residing at house no. 49/D 184, Janta Mazdoor Colony and accused Aman was apprehended from Kabir Nagar. He further admitted that Phone make INOVU was recovered from the pant of pocket of accused Aman which was the case property in present case FIR No. 1811/2023.
9. PW-3 is IO ASI Balbir Singh who deposed that on 26.12.2023 e-FIR No. 1811/2023 was marked to him for investigation. On that day, another FIR No. 996/2023 was also registered at Police Station PIA and during the investigation of the said case, HC Jagsoran, HC Harshit and HC Sudhakar reached at Shiv Vihar in search of suspect Shahdab as the amount was transferred in the account of Shahdab from the account of complainant of case FIR No. 996/2023. Shahdab informed that on 24.12.2023 at about 2:00 AM, three boys had committed robbery with him of his mobile phone and Rs. 100/- when he had boarded the Hyundai Accent car for Rs.30/- and he was thrown out of the car at Maujpur Red Light by those persons after committing robbery. PW-3 deposed that on 27.12.2023, Mohd. Shahdab came AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.03.07 17:55:18 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 9 of 19 at the police station and produced e-FIR No. 1811/2023 on which he asked him to give his written complaint, on which he had given his complaint vide Ex.PW1/A. After receiving the complaint, PW-3 had added Sections 392/397/411/34 IPC.
10. During the investigation, PW-3 had collected the photocopies of documents of FIR no. 996/2023 from HC Jagsoran and had interrogated the accused persons Mustaq, Aman and Imran. After their interrogation, he arrested them vide arrest memo already Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/G and conducted their personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/H respectively. PW-3 deposed that he also recorded the disclosure statements of the accused persons vide Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C respectively. PW-3 deposed that complainant had identified the accused persons in the police station and identified the accused Imran @ Raju as a person who was driving the Hyundai Accent car bearing no. DL1RT 8848 and identified the accused Mustaq as a person who had put the knife on his stomach. Complainant further identified accused Aman as a person who had robbed his mobile phone, Aadhar Card and Rs.100/-. PW-3 deposed that during investigation, he had seized the mobile phone of complainant which was recovered by HC Jagsoran in case FIR No. 996/2023 vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/I. PW-3 deposed that he had also prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Mohd. Shahdab vide Ex.PW1/B. The accused persons had pointed out the place of occurrence and PW-3 prepared separate pointing out memos at the instance of accused persons namely Mustaq, Imran and Aman vide Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E and Ex.PW3/F Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.03.07 17:55:22 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 10 of 19 respectively. Accused persons were consequently produced before the Court and sent to JC.
11. On 02.02.2024, PW-3 sent a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C to the owner of Hyundai Accent Car bearing registration no. DL1RT 8848 through HC Devender for the production of the said car but HC Devender mentioned on the notice that the house was locked and notice could not be served. He proved copy of the notice and report of HC Devender vide Ex.PW3/G. PW-3 further deposed that during investigation, he had also seized the knife pullanda with seal of JS vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/H. He further deposed that it was disclosed by the accused persons that on the day of incident, accused persons had committed another robbery from another person of mobile phone and Rs.600/- and asked the password from that person. Thereafter, Mustaq had used his phone by putting the SIM card robbed from Shahdab and they had transferred the amount of Rs. 17,901/- in different transactions from the phone whose password they had asked from other victim to the SIM Card of Shahdab. Thereafter, accused persons had tried to transfer the amount in their account but due to the password protection, they could not transfer the said amount. Also, as they were putting wrong PIN/ password again and again, the SIM got blocked. PW-3 deposed that after completion of the investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the court. PW-3 correctly identified all the three accused persons namely Mustaq, Imran and Aman in the Court and further correctly identified the case property i.e. knife Ex. P1.
Digitally signedAKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.03.07 17:55:26 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 11 of 19
12. All PWs were duly cross-examined by the accused persons. HC Harshit Kumar and HC Sudhkar were dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 20.01.2026 as it was submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that their testimonies were on similar lines as that of PW-3 ASI Balbir Singh.
Statement of accused
13. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused persons.
Statement of all the three accused under Section 313 was recorded on 12.02.2026 wherein incriminating circumstances were put to the accused persons which they denied. The accused persons further stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case and had been wrongly identified by the witnesses on the directions of the IO. All accused persons refused to lead any defence evidence.
Final Arguments
14. The matter then proceeded for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and all the accused persons. It is primarily argued by Ld. Addl. PP for State that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had robbed the complainant of his mobile phone, aadhar card and Rs. 100/- on 24.12.2023 at about 02:15 AM in a moving Accent car bearing no. DL-1RT-8848 near outer gate of Anand Vihar, Delhi. It is further argued that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that while committing the said robbery, accused no. 1 Mustaq Khan used a deadly weapon i.e. knife which got recovered at the instance of co-accused Imran @ Raju from the dashboard of his Accent car bearing no. DL-1RT-8848 and the AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.03.07 17:55:31 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 12 of 19 prosecution has successfully established the chain of circumstances which is consistent with the guilt of accused persons and wholly inconsistent with the hypothesis of their innocence. It is argued that while complainant supported the case of prosecution during his examination-in-chief, he resiled from his statement regarding identity of the accused persons and alleged recoveries during cross-examination. However, the police witnesses deposed in sync with each other and correctly identified all the accused persons and duly proved their arrest and respective recoveries. Mere fact that the complainant/ victim was won over by the accused persons would not absolve them from the alleged offences as robbed mobile phone in question was duly identified by complainant and recovered at the instance of the accused persons. It is further argued that the accused persons committed another robbery in case FIR No. 996/2023 Police Station Patparganj Industrial Area on the same night and it has come on record during evidence that the SIM card belonging to the complainant was used in the mobile phone belonging to accused Mustaq wherein robbed amount of case FIR No. 996/2023 to the tune of Rs. 17,000/- came to the account of complainant thereby linking accused persons with the complainant of present case and victim of case FIR No. 996/2023 and thereby completing chain of circumstances. It is thus, prayed that accused persons are liable to be convicted for offences punishable under Sections 392/397/411/34 IPC.
15. Per contra, it argued by Ld. Counsels for accused persons that the case of prosecution suffers from material lapses and several contradictions in the statements of witnesses. It is argued that the complainant Mohd. Shadab who is the sole eye-
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.03.07
17:55:38 +0530
FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 13 of 19
witness to the alleged incident in question failed to identify any of the accused as assailant, casting cloud of doubt on the entire case of prosecution. It is further argued that alleged recovery of robbed mobile phone from the possession of accused Aman as well as weapon of offence i.e. knife which was recovered at the instance of accused Imran are shrouded in suspicion as police failed to join any independent public witnesses during recovery proceedings. It is further argued that PW-2 specifically deposed during his cross- examination that he had not asked any public person to join the investigation. Thus, it is prayed that the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged offences against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and all of them are liable to be acquitted.
Analysis and Findings.
16. It is well settled that in a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. Now, it is the case of prosecution that incident in question took place on 24.12.2023 and the case was registered under appropriate sections of law by the police on 26.12.2023. Thereafter, on 26.12.2023 HC Jagsoran along with SI Sunil, HC Harshit and HC Sudhakar reached at the house of complainant Shahdab who informed that three persons had committed robbery with him. Thereafter, they obtained the CDR of mobile phone of Shahdab and came to know that said mobile number was used in another mobile phone of different IMEI number. They checked the details and found out that the said mobile phone was in the name of accused Mustaq. It is further the Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH JAIN Date: 2026.03.07 17:55:43 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 14 of 19 case of prosecution that they interrogated accused Mustaq and arrested him in case FIR No. 996/2023 and at his instance accused Imran was arrested. Thereafter, at the instance of both Mustaq and Imran, accused Aman was apprehended. It is the case of prosecution that robbed mobile phone was recovered at the instance of accused Aman and during interrogation of accused Imran, he disclosed about the knife which was used in commission of alleged offences. The said knife was later on recovered from the dashboard of Accent car at the instance of accused Imran.
17. The aforesaid version of prosecution was though not supported by complainant/ PW-1 Shahdab who failed to identify any of the accused persons as assailants who committed the alleged offences in question. There are further glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of police witnesses examined by the prosecution. It was deposed by PW-2 HC Jagsoran that on 24.12.2023 one Brijesh came to the Police Station alleging robbery of Rs. 600/- and a mobile phone against him qua which FIR No. 996/2023 Police Station Patparganj Industrial Area was registered by him and during investigation he found that about Rs.17,000/- was transferred from the account of victim in case FIR No. 996/2023 to the account of complainant i.e. Shahdab. No bank account statement of complainant Shahdab was though brought on record by the IO for the reasons bests known to him. It was deposed by PW-2 HC Jagsoran that he obtained the address of complainant Shahdab from his bank account statements, however, it remained unexplained as to why no authorized concerned bank official was made witness to prove the factum of transfer of alleged amount of Rs.17,000/- in the account of complainant/ victim Shahdab.
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.03.07
17:55:49 +0530
FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 15 of 19
18. The FIR in question in the present case was admittedly registered after 2 days of commission of alleged offences and no suitable justification could be afforded on behalf of prosecution qua said delay. It is further not out of place to mention that the said FIR was eventually registered by the complainant at the instance of police officials on 26.12.2013. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Imran @ Raju and Aman, complainant/ PW-1 admitted that he was given beating by the police officials at Police Station and was further kept as a captive in the Police Station for two days. This casts serious doubts on the independence and credibility of investigation carried out by the IO qua commission of alleged offences against complainant.
19. It was the case of prosecution as also deposed by PW-2 and PW-3, that they took the CDR of mobile number of complainant Shahdab which was found to be used in another mobile phone of different IMEI number and said mobile phone was found to be belonging to accused Mustaq. However, no cogent evidence was brought on record during evidence to establish the said fact. The IO further failed to place on record the CDR record of mobile phone of complainant Shahdab and further failed to examine any official of concerned service provider to prove that IMEI number of mobile phone in which SIM of complainant Shahdab was allegedly used, actually belonged to accused Mustaq.
20. As regards vehicle in question i.e. Accent car bearing registration no. DL-1RT-8848 in which the alleged offences had AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.03.07 17:55:53 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 16 of 19 taken place, the ownership of the said car could strangely be not established by the IO during investigation and it could not be proved on record that the said car actually belonged to accused Imran @ Raju. The police further failed to place on record any CCTV footage or any other scientific evidence to link present accused persons with commission of alleged offences against the complainant.
21. No doubt the complainant initially identified all the accused persons as assailants during recording of his examination- in-chief, however, during cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Mustaq, he categorically stated that except the E-FIR, no other statement of his was recorded by the IO and that he identified all the accused persons in his examination-in-chief on the directions of the police officials. He further unequivocally stated that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused persons in his presence and that accused persons had not committed any offence with him.
22. In lieu of testimony of PW-1 wherein he failed to identify the accused persons as assailants, denied giving any statement to the police and further failed to support the alleged recovery proceedings qua case property, the entire proceedings carried out by the police on 26.12.2023 regarding apprehension of accused persons, recording of their disclosure statements, search and seizure of alleged case properties from accused persons appear to be sham and fabricated.
Digitally signedAKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.03.07 17:55:57 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 17 of 19
23. Despite the place of recovery being a public place, no independent public witness was joined during entire investigation by the police. The alleged recoveries of robbed articles i.e. mobile phone from the possession of accused Aman and weapon of offence i.e. knife from the possession of accused Imran are thus, shrouded with suspicion. Reliance is placed upon the cases of Anoop Joshi v. State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC) and Roop Chand v. State of Haryana, 199 (1) CLR 69. It is also relevant to note that HC Jagsoran who allegedly carried out personal search of accused Aman did not offer his own search to the accused, as such, possibility of planting the mobile phone upon the accused person by the police cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed upon the case of Rabindranath Prusty v. State of Orissa, 1984, CriLJ 1392.
Conclusion
24. In view of material inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, failure of IO to produce bank statements and CDR record of complainant, unexplained delay in lodging of FIR and fact that complainant who is the sole independent eye- witness of the case has failed to identify any of the accused persons and further belied the version of prosecution regarding arrest of accused persons, search and seizure of case properties on 26.12.2013, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused persons. Therefore, all the accused persons i.e. accused no. 1 Mustaq Khan S/o Mr. Munna Khan, accused no. 2 Imran @ Raja S/o Mr. Nisar AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.03.07 17:56:02 +0530 FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 18 of 19 Khan and accused no. 3 Aman S/o Mr. Yunus are acquitted of the offences under Sections 392/397/411/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by AKASH JAINAKASH Date:
JAIN 2026.03.07
17:56:06
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (AKASH JAIN)
COURT ON 07.03.2026 ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
This judgment contains 19 pages and each paper is signed by me. Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.03.07
17:56:11 +0530
(AKASH JAIN)
ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
FIR No:- 1811/2023 State v. Mustaq Khan Etc. Page No. 19 of 19