Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Kumar Etc on 16 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA SETHI, JMFC-08, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI CNR No. : DLSW02-02401R0506012014 ID. No. : 12591/19 FIR No. : 900/14 U/s : u/s 392/411/34 IPC P.S. : Uttam Nagar State v/s Amit Kumar etc. a) Name & address of the : Sh. Mahender Pal complainant S/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal R/o H.No. C-54, Hastsal Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. b) Name & address of : Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Inder Lal Makan R/o H.No. 48, Gali No. 2, Peer Baba Road, Om Vihar, Phase-V, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Manoj Bhatia s/o Sh. Shyam Lal r/o H.No. D-2/46,Gali No. 2, Peer Baba Road, Om Vihar, Phase-V, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Also at : B-704, JJ Colony, Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. c) Date of Commission of : 16.08.2014 offence d) Offence complained of : u/s 392/411/34 IPC e) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. f) Final Order : Acquitted. g) Date of Institution : 14.10.2014 h) Judgment Pronounced on : 16.01.2026 State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 1 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 JUDGMENT
Brief facts
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of a 11-year-old matter.
2. The prosecution version in brief is that on 16.08.2014 at about 1/1:30 AM, accused persons Amit Kumar and Manoj Bhatia, in furtherance of their common intention, robbed the complainant Sh. Mahender Pal near Vasundhra Public School, Hastsal Vihar, SBI ATM, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and had taken his purse and his Ranger cycle by using force. Later on, accused Amit Kumar was caught red-handed on the spot along with the purse of complainant which contained cash amount of Rs. 70/- and visiting cards and accused Manoj Bhatia was found in possession of the Ranger cycle of complainant on 17.08.2014. An FIR bearing no. 900/2014 u/s 392/411/34 was registered at PS Uttam Nagar and the investigation of the case was handed over to HC Laxmi Narayan.
Proceedings before the Court
3. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet u/s 392/411/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') was filed against the accused persons Amit Kumar and Manoj Bhatia. After taking cognizance of the offences, the accused persons were summoned to face trial.
State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 2 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019
4. On their appearance, a copy of chargesheet along with documents was supplied to the accused persons in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC').
5. On finding prima facie case against the accused persons, a charge under section 392/411/34 IPC was framed against them, to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused admitted the genuineness of FIR no. 900/2014, certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and age certificate issued by Principal, Government Secondary School qua accused Manoj and, therefore, formal proof of the said documents was dispensed with.
6. During the trial, prosecution has examined eight witnesses. PW1 HC Vijay Kumar has deposed that he was posted as MHCM P.S Uttam Nagar. On that day, HC Laxmi Narain produced one red coloured racksene purse containing Rs. 70/-, two visiting cards with fard. This witness deposited the above said case property was deposited vide mud no. 4437 in register no. 19. On 17.08.2014, HC Laxmi Narain produced one cycle ranger with fard which was deposited vide mud no. 4440 in register no. 19. Copy of the above said entries were exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite been given opportunity to do so.
State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 3 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019
7. PW-2 Mahender Pal/ complainant has deposed that in the year 2014, he was working in Rana D.J as labour. On that day, at about 1:30 a.m, he was coming from his job at Uttam Nagar on his bicycle. When he reached near Vasundhara Public School, two boys caught hold of him. Accused Manoj caught hold of his neck. Accused Amit Kumar took out his purse containing currency of about Rs. 200/- and accused Manoj snatched his bicycle and both of them ran away from the spot. Thereafter, this witness went to the house of his in laws at Uttam Nagar, Hastal Vihar as his wife had come to her parental home. He told the incident to his wife and thereafter he along-with his wife, brother in law Gulshan Kumar came at the spot. They found that the accused Amit was sitting at the spot. They apprehended the accused Amit and his purse was recovered from his possession containing cash of Rs. 70/- and visiting card. Thereafter, his wife informed to the police and the police official came at the spot and they handed over the custody of accused Amit and purse to the police official. The purse along-with currency note was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A. His statement Ex.PW-2/B was recorded by the police. Accused Amit was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-2/C and his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW-2/D. Accused Amit was interrogated by the police and he gave the statement which was exhibited as Ex.PW-2/E. After two days of the incident, the cycle make Ranger was recovered from the house of accused Manoj at the instance of accused Amit and same was taken State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 4 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/F. Accused Manoj was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-2/G and his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW-2/H. The statement of this witness was recorded by the IO. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission of the court as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State this witness deposed that he has not given any statement before police officials and he also do not know the accused persons and he cannot identify them. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel as well. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, this witness deposed that he did not give any statement or complaint to the police officials and the police officials took his signatures on some blank papers. He stated that he did not know the accused persons and he cannot identify the accused persons present in the court.
8. PW-3 Ashwani has deposed that he did not know anything about this case. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission of the court as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State this witness deposed that he did not give any statement before police officials. This witness denied to identify the accused persons. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite been given opportunity to do so.
State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 5 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019
9. PW-4 Kiran has deposed that she did not know anything about this case. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission of the court as she was resiling from her previous statement. During her cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, this witness deposed that she did not give any statement before police officials. This witness denied to identify the accused persons. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite been given opportunity to do so.
10. PW-5 HC Anil has deposed that on 17.08.2014, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as Constable. On that day, he along-with IO and complainant along-with accused Amit went to the house no. D-2/46, Gali no.2, Om Vihar, Phase V, New Delhi. There accused Amit pointed towards a house and told that the co-accused Manoj resides there. Thereafter, they all went inside the house alongwith complainant and complainant identified one cycle (ranger). Complainant told IO that it was his cycle which was robbed on the previous day. One Rajeshwari met there who told that Manoj is not present there and also told that the said cycle was brought to the house by Manoj only on the previous night. IO also inquired from the owner of the building namely Rohtash. The said cycle was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/E. IO recorded his statement. During his cross examination by Ld Defence Counsel, this witness deposed that he did not remember the time when they left the police station on that day. He did not remember the number of floors of the State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 6 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 abovesaid building. The cycle was parked in the galary of the house. He did not remember the number of rooms built on that floor. The house was already opened and they straight away went inside. Rajeshwari came at the place of recovery on her own and they did not call her. IO did not search for accused Manoj at that time. He did not remember how they all went to the spot. He did not remember how the cycle was taken to the police station.
11. PW-6 Gulshan Kumar has deposed that victim Mahender Pal is his brother in law. At the time of the incident, he was residing at WZ-75, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar. In August 2014 in the night, at around 2 to 2:30 AM, his brother in law ie Mahender Pal came to his house and told him that after doing his work of running DJ, when he was coming on his bicycle towards his home and reached near JP Dairy, Uttam Nagar in front of one SBI ATM, two persons came in front of SBI ATM and stopped him and robbed his bicycle and purse containing currency notes. Thereafter, this witness alongwith the victim and his son namely Vishal went to the place of incident and they saw that one person was sitting in front of the ATM in intoxicated state and he was counting currency notes and one other person was riding the bicycle. His brother in law/ victim identified the bicycle as belonging to him. Thereafter, this witness directed his nephew to make a call upon number 100 and in the meantime, this witness with the help of his brother in law caught hold of the person i.e., State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 7 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 accused Amit Kumar who was sitting in front of SBI ATM and counting currency notes. After sometime, the police officials came there. In the meantime, accused Manoj Kumar also came there on the bicycle which belonged to his brother in law. Thereafter, the police officials arrested those accused persons. The arrest memo of accused Amit was exhibited as ExPW2/C. The police officials also recovered the stolen articles from the accused Amit. The seizure memo of the purse was exhibited as ExPW2/A. Thereafter, the police officials took the accused to the police station. Thereafter, in the morning at around 10 to 10:30 AM, this witness alongwith his brother in law went to the police station where the police officials enquired him about the incident and recorded his statement. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission of the court. During his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, this witness, after seeing the accused, stated that he cannot say for sure that the accused persons present in court were the same who he had apprehended on the date of incident, but he stated that the accused is of the same built and height of the person from whom the purse was recovered.
12. During cross examination of PW-6 by Ld. Defence Counsel, this witness admitted that the place of incident was a residential area. The place of incident was located at a distance of 500 meters from his house. His brother used to bring the DJ to the godown in Shani Bazar where he used to work. His nephew Vishal made a 100 number call from his State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 8 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 house at around 2:45 AM. The police came within 15 to 20 minutes and stayed there for about 15 to 20 minutes. Two police officials came in a police gypsy, however, he did not remember the registration number of the same. Police officials did not join any independent public person. This witness admitted that the bicycle and purse of the same design or colour could be found in local market. No bill of the purse or the bicycle was given by his brother in law to the police officials. The police official did not enquire him about the shop from which the bicycle or the purse was bought. He had not told the police officials about the chasis number of the recovered bicycle. The police official did not record the statement of the security guard of the ATM in his presence. The police officials did not enquire him about the serial number or denominations of the currency notes. He did not know whether the police officials enquired from his brother in law about the place of his employment. He had visited the police station only twice. This witness admitted that his statement was not recorded at the place of incident. He did not remember whether police official procure CCTV camera from the ATM. He did not remember any special identification mark on the body of accused. He had pointed to the police officials the place where accused Amit Kumar was sitting. The police official did not prepare any pullinda in his presence. He admitted that the police official did not call crime team at the spot nor uplift any chance print from the spot. He further admitted that the present incident did not occur in his presence.
State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 9 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019
13. PW-7 ASI Laxmi Narayan has deposed that on 16.08.2014, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Uttam Nagar. On that day, a PCR call was received at the police station and DD No. 12A was marked to him for further investigation. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Rajender reached at the spot near Vasundhara Public School, SBI ATM, Hastsal Vihar, Uttam Nagar, where complainant Mahendra Pal was present along with his family members. Thereafter, complainant handed over custody of one person namely Amit Kumar and a purse containing Rs. 70/- and two visiting cards and told him that Amit Kumar along with his other associate had robbed him of his purse and one cycle by choking his neck. Thereafter, this witness seized the purse vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A and also recorded the statement of the complainant Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, this witness prepared the rukka and gave it to Ct. Rajender for registration of FIR. After getting the FIR registered Ct. Rajender came at the spot and handed over a copy of the FIR and the rukka. Thereafter, this witness prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant which is Ex.PW7/A. Thereafter, this witness arrested and personally searched accused Amit vide memos Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D respectively. This witness recorded disclosure statement of accused Amit which was exhibited as Ex.PW2/E. Thereafter, this witness recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC and also made efforts to search the other accused but he could not be found. Thereafter, he came back State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 10 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 to the police station and deposited the case property in the Malkhana and got the accused medically examined. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the court and one day PC remand was taken. On 17.08.2014, he along with complainant, Ct. Anil and accused Amit went to House no. D2/46, Gali no. 9, Om Vihar, Phase V, Uttam Nagar. Amit told him that the house belongs to the other co-accused Manoj Bhatia. In the parking area inside the above said house one bicycle was parked and the complainant identified the bicycle as the one belonging to him. The mother of the accused Manoj Bhatia was present at the said house and this witness also called the owner of the house and inquired from them. They told him that accused Manoj brought the bicycle last night and he had gone to some unknown place. Thereafter, this witness seized the bicycle vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/F. Thereafter, he came back to the police station and deposited the case property in the Malkhana and also recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC. Thereafter, the accused Amit was produced before the court and sent to JC. On 23.08.2014, the complainant called this witness on his mobile and told him that he and the father of accused Manoj Bhatia had brought the accused Manoj outside the police station. Thereafter, this witness went outside the police station and apprised the father of the accused about the case. Thereafter, this witness arrested and personally searched accused Manoj Bhatia vide memos Ex.PW2/G and Ex. PW2/H respectively. The disclosure statement of accused Manoj Bhatia is also on State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 11 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 record which was exhibited as Ex.PW7/B. As the accused appeared to be a minor, he collected the age proof documents of accused Manoj from Govt. Boys. Sr. Sec. School, Tagore Garden and same was exhibited as Ex.X3. Thereafter, after completion of the investigation, he had filed the chargesheet.
14. During the cross examination of PW-7 by Ld. Defence Counsel, he deposed that he finally left the spot at about 11:30 AM alongwith Ct Rajender and accused in government vehicle, however, he did not remember the registration number of the same. Ct Rajender left the spot alongwith tehrir at about 4:35 am and returned at around 5:55 am on his motorcycle. He admitted that the place of occurrence is surrounded by residential houses. He had not joined any independent public witness. He admitted that he had not recorded the name and parentage of public persons who refused to join investigation nor he served any notice to them. The initial PCR call was made with respect to the alleged offence by wife of the complainant namely Kiran from mobile. The distance between place of occurrence and the police station was about one to one and half km. He admitted that he had not placed on record any CCTV footage. He cannot recall arrival and departure entry with respect to the present case. He admitted that he has not placed on record any bill or photographs with respect to the case property ie bicycle. He further admitted that he has also not examined the shopkeeper of the shop owner where the State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 12 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 same was allegedly purchased by the complainant or that he had not seized any rent agreement or the receipt or police tenant verification nor he videographed the alleged recovery. He admitted that he did not inqurie from any independent witness except landlord with respect to the recovery of bicycle and he had not prepared any pointing out memo and site plan of the alleged recovery and he had not informed control room about the seizure and the alleged case property. He admitted that he has not recorded serial number of the currency note nor he verified the visiting card and employer / DJ Rana nor he verified that the complainant was working or associate with the employer DJ Rana nor he seized or verified, bill invoice or source of alleged purse. He admitted that he has not recorded any specific identification or the sketch of co accused or that he has not called crime team at the spot nor he uplifted any chance print from the spot of occurrence or from the case property. He further admitted that he has not recorded statement of guard of SBI ATM. He further admitted that he has not prepared any seal handing over memo nor he placed on record any receipt that the case property was deposited to the malkhana concerned.
15. PW-8 ASI Rajender Singh has deposed that on 16.08.2014, he was posted as Constable at PS Uttam Nagar. On that day, he was on emergency duty from 8 pm to 8 am. He alongwith HC Laxmi Narayan on receiving DD no. 12A, went to Hastsal Vihar near Vasundhara Public School, State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 13 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 Uttam Nagar, Delhi where one lady was present alongwith two-three gents and one boy. Thereafter, the complainant Mahender Pal handed over the custody of one person namely Amit Kumar, i.e., the accused and reported that the accused had committed theft of one purse and Rs 70/-. The purse contained two visiting cards. Thereafter, IO seized the purse and the money vide seizure memo ExPW2/A. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared the rukka and gave it to this witness for registration of FIR. After getting the FIR registered at PS Uttam Nagar, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to the IO. IO prepared the site plan in his presence. Thereafter, IO arrested accused Amit Kumar, personally searched him and also recorded his disclosure statement vide memos ExPW2/C, ExPW2/D and ExPW2/E. Thereafter, he alongwith IO went back to the police station where he deposited the case property in the malkhana. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, this witness deposed that he did not remember the time at which he alongwith IO finally left the spot. He could not recall the registration number of the vehicle via which he alongwith IO left the spot. He brought back the tehrir at the spot alongwith the copy of FIR at about 5:45 AM & left at about 4:35 AM. He went to the police station on private motorcycle, however, he did not remember the registration number. He admitted that no public independent witness apart from the complainant and his family members, were examined by the IO in his presence. He admitted that they State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 14 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 could not find any independent eye witness of the present crime apart from the witness as stated above. The CCTV camera was not installed at the place of incident. IO did not prepare the seal handing over memo. He deposed that he cannot recall whether IO had done any photography or videography of place of occurrence.
16. The prosecution evidence was thereafter closed on the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and the statement of accused persons u/s 313 CrPC was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing on record against the accused persons was put to them but they denied the same and submitted that they are innocent and falsely implicated. The accused persons did not lead any defence evidence.
17. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel at length, perused the record, gone through the relevant provisions of law and given my thoughts to the matter.
18. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that on the basis of statement of the prosecution witnesses and the documents appearing on record, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons had robbed the complainant and committed theft of the purse of complainant and his bicycle and the purse was recovered from the possession of accused Amit at the spot and the bicycle was recovered from accused Manoj later on and, State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 15 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 therefore, the accused persons are guilty of offence punishable u/s 392/411/34 IPC.
19. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the State has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the complainant has not supported the prosecution version. Ld. Counsel has argued that nothing has come on record against the accused persons and they be, therefore, acquitted for the offences charged.
Findings of the Court
20. It is a well settled principle of criminal law, that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and it has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
21. Perusal of the statement of PW-2 Mahender Pal/ complainant reveals that the witness has identified both the accused persons during his examination-in-chief which was recorded on 16.08.2016, however, he has categorically denied during his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons on 30.07.2022 that he does not know the accused persons. This witness was cross- examined by Ld. APP for the State also and the witness stated that he cannot identify the accused persons. This State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 16 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 witness was also confronted with his examination-in-chief where he had identified the accused persons, however, the witness stated that he cannot identify the accused persons and the statement given by him on 30.07.2022 is correct that he does not know the accused persons.
22. In view of the above, considering the fact that the witness has given contradictory statements before the Court, this Court finds that the statement of complainant/ PW-2 Mahender Pal is not worthy of reliance and, therefore, cannot be considered.
23. There is no other eye-witness to the incident of robbery or any other cogent evidence on record regarding the incident of robbery and, therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record against the accused persons Amit Kumar and Manoj Bhatia for the offence of robbery, both of them are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 392/34 IPC.
24. Let this Court now analyze whether there is cogent and creditable material available on record against the accused persons for offence punishable u/s 411 IPC.
25. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the stolen articles have been recovered from the possession of accused persons and, therefore, they be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC.
State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 17 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019
26. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove complainant's ownership or lawful possession over the case property (purse as well as bicycle) and since the same has not been proved, no offence u/s 411 IPC is not made out against the accused persons.
27. This court has given its thoughts to the above contentions. To prove the offence of Section 411 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused and some other person other than the accused had possession of the stolen property before the accused got its possession and the accused had knowledge that the property was a stolen one.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment titled Trimbak v/s State of M.P. 1954 AIR SC 39 has observed that to prove the offence u/s 411 IPC, the following essentials must be proved beyond reasonable doubt:
"It is the duty of the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of a person u/s 411 IPC to prove:
(i) The stolen property was in the possession of the accused
(ii) That some person other than the accused had possession of the stolen property before the accused got possession of it, and
(iii) That the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property."
State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 18 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019
29. In the present case, perusal of record reveals that the complainant/ PW-2 Mahender Pal has failed to identify the purse which was recovered from accused Amit Kumar.
Further, public witnesses namely PW-3 Ashwani and PW-4 Kiran have not supported the prosecution version at all and have stated that they do not know anything about the present case. Both the witnesses were cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State as they did not support the prosecution version, however, despite the same, nothing beneficial to the prosecution emerged in the statement of PW-3 Ashwani and PW-4 Kiran. Thus, in view of the above, the testimony of PW-2/ complainant Mahender Pal, PW-3 Ashwani and PW-4 Kiran is not relevant at all to prove the offence u/s 411 IPC against the accused persons.
30. As far as testimony of PW-6 Gulshan Kumar is concerned, although he has stated himself to be an eye- witness to the recovery of stolen articles from accused Amit Kumar and Manoj Bhatia, however, his testimony does not appear to be reliable for the reasons given below. PW-6 Gulshan Kumar has stated in his examination-in-chief that when he reached at the spot, he saw that the accused Amit was sitting in front of the ATM along with the purse and accused Manoj was riding the bicycle of the complainant. However, the prosecution version is that although accused Amit was present at the spot, however, accused Manoj had already fled from the spot. Moreover, this witness (PW-6) has failed to identify accused Amit. Therefore, there is State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 19 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 contradiction in the statement of PW-6 vis-à-vis the prosecution version regarding the presence of co-accused Manoj and, therefore, this Court does not find the testimony of PW-6 to be creditworthy.
31. Further, perusal of the record reveals that no cogent evidence has been placed on record to show that the complainant was the owner of the case property or he was in the possession of the same as no documentary evidence to that effect has been placed on record. Neither the invoice nor any other material has been placed on record by the prosecution to prove the fact that the purse and the bicycle was owned by the complainant or they were in his possession at the time of incident. The prosecution has not even placed on record the CCTV footage of the ATM, i.e., the place of offence as well as of recovery. Neither any guard, who is generally seated at the ATM, has been examined. The remaining prosecution witnesses who have been examined are more or less formal in nature and do not help the prosecution in the absence of other cogent evidence. Thus, this court finds merit in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the prosecution has failed to establish complainant's possession or ownership of the purse as well as the bicycle beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
32. To conclude, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:
State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 20
Cr. Case No. 12591/2019
Prosecution Name of witness Description
witness No.
PW-1 HC Vijay Kumar MHC(M)
PW-2 Sh. Mahender Pal Complainant
PW-3 Sh. Ashwani Visited the spot after
the incident with
complainant.
PW-4 Smt. Kiran Visited the spot after
the incident with
complainant.
PW-5 HC Anil Recovery witness of
cycle.
PW-6 Sh. Gulshan Kumar Recovery witness of
purse and arrest of
accused Amit
PW-7 ASI Laxmi Narayan First IO
PW-8 ASI Rajender Singh Accompanied the IO
to the spot.
33. The accused has admitted the following documents under Section 294 Cr.PC.
Exhibit No. Description of Property Ex.X-1 FIR No. 900/2014 Ex.X-2 Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.X-3 Age certificate qua accused Manoj, issued by Principal Govt. Secondary School State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 21 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 Tagore Garden.
34. In support of its case, the prosecution has proved the following documents and case property.
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ Attested by Ex. PW-1/A Copy of entry in register PW-1 no. 19 vide mud no. 4437 and 4440 Ex. PW-2/A Seizure memo of purse PW-2 Ex. PW-2/B Statement of complainant PW-2 recorded by police Ex. PW-2/C Arrest memo of accused PW-2 Amit Ex. PW-2/D Personal search memo of PW-2 accused Amit Ex. PW-2/E Disclosure statement of PW-2 accused Amit Ex. PW-2/F Seizure memo of cycle PW-2 Ranger Ex. PW-2/G Arrest memo of accused PW-2 Manoj Ex. PW-2/H Personal search memo of PW-2 accused Manoj Ex.PW-7/A Site plan of place of PW-7 incident Ex.PW-7/B Disclosure statement of PW-7 State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 22 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019 accused Manoj
35. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that there is no cogent evidence on record to connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence u/s 392/411/34 IPC. The prosecution has thus, failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. The accused Amit Kumar and Manoj Bhatia are, therefore, acquitted of the offence charged u/s 392/411/34 IPC.
36. This judgment contains 23 pages and the same has been pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and each page bears my signatures.
37. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY, i.e., ON 16.01.2026 Deeksha Sethi Judicial Magistrate First Class-08 South-West District/New Delhi 16.01.2026 Digitally signed DEEKSHA by DEEKSHA SETHI SETHI Date: 2026.01.16 16:07:08 +0530 State v/s Amit Kumar etc. Page 23 Cr. Case No. 12591/2019