Delhi District Court
State vs Ithash on 16 January, 2026
State Vs. Ithash & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF MS. PAYAL SINGAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09, CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
STATE vs. Ithash & Anr.
FIR NO. : 741/2023
U/S : 356/379/411/34 IPC
PS : Burari
Cr. Case No. : 9423/2023
JUDGMENT
16.01.2026
1) CNR Number of the case : DLCT02-018888-2023
2)The date of commission of offence : 11.06.2023
3) The name of the complainant : Krishan Chand Chaudhary.
4) The name & parentage of accused : (1) Ethash, S/o Sh.
Pramod (2) Shakil, S/o Sh.
Rafiq
5) Offence complained of : 356/379/34 IPC
6) The plea of accused : Not guilty
7) Final order : ACQUITTAL
Date of Institution : 18.08.2023
Judgment reserved on : 16.01.2026
Judgment announced on : 16.01.2026
BRIEF FACTS:
1. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 11.06.2023 at about 6.50 am at 60 foota road, Swaroop Nagar near golden era party lawn, Burari, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Burari, both the accused persons alongwith their co-associate (not traceable) in furtherance FIR No. 741/2023, PS Burari Page No. 1 of 6 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.16 16:35:26 +0530 State Vs. Ithash & Anr.
of their common intention snatched a mobile phone make POCO belonging to the complainant Krishan Chand which was recovered from the possession of the accused persons which the accused persons retained/received knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. Thus, the accused persons thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 356/379/411/34 IPC.
2. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court, upon which cognizance was taken and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), arguments on the point of charge were heard and the formal charge was framed u/s 356/379/411/34 against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was proceeded further for prosecution evidence.
3. Before proceedings further, it is relevant to note that vide separate statement of the complainant as recorded on 16.01.2026, he had compounded the present offence against both the accused persons u/s 411 IPC. Accordingly, the court is now only concerned with allegations u/s 356/379/34 IPC.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
4. Perusal of record reveals that the prosecution listed 08 witnesses that it sought to examine to bring home the guilt of the accused. Out of the said 08 witnesses only 01 witness was an independent/public witness i.e. PW-1 Krishan, the complainant himself. All the other 07 witnesses were police/formal witnesses. Furthermore, vide separate statement of the accused, two witnesses were admitted and accordingly, the prosecution examined the remaining witnesses to support the allegations against the accused.
Digitally signed by PAYAL FIR No. 741/2023, PS Burari Page No. 2 of 6 PAYAL SINGAL Date: SINGAL 2026.01.16 16:35:34 +0530 State Vs. Ithash & Anr.
5. It is relevant to note here that the testimony of Sh. Krishan was recorded as PW-1 on 17.01.2025 and then on 16.01.2026 who completely resiled from his statement as given to the police officials u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW-1 stated that he could not identify the person who had come on a motorcycle and snatched away his mobile phone as he did not see his face at the time of alleged incident. He further stated that he had made no statement to the police officials stating that he could identify the accused person/s. In view of the same, the Ld. APP sought permission to cross- examine the said witness but despite the same, nothing incriminating could be brought on record as the witness refused to identify the accused persons when they were shown to him.
6. In the given circumstances, keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 wherein it was held that "in a case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure, to pronounce the conclusion on the future date", the court was of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by examining the other witnesses, who were only formal in nature when the ocular/eye witnesses had only not supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, on the said date itself, the PE was closed, the recording of the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with, DE was closed and final arguments heard and matter was reserved for Judgment.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
7. The final arguments were addressed on behalf of the accused persons by Ms. Sangeeta Sharma and Sh. Rohit Lohat, Ld. APP on FIR No. 741/2023, PS Burari Page No. 3 of 6 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.16 16:35:43 +0530 State Vs. Ithash & Anr.
behalf of the State.
8. It was argued by the Ld. counsel for the accused persons that the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence was that the prosecution was required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt which the prosecution had miserably failed to do in the case at hand. It was argued that the only public/independent witnesses had completely resiled from his statement and had not supported the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, it was argued that the accused persons had been falsely implicated in the present case and be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
9. Per contra, it was argued by Ld. APP that in view of the serious nature of allegations against the accused person/s, the testimony of hostile witness could not be discarded in totality. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar v State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, wherein it was observed that, "25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
10. I have heard the arguments and have carefully gone through the record.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:
11. It is the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond Digitally FIR No. 741/2023, PS Burari Page No. 4 of 6 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.16 16:35:52 +0530 State Vs. Ithash & Anr.
all reasonable doubt, the general burden of which is always upon the prosecution and it never shifts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have' and if the same is not done, the benefit of any and every lacuna has to necessarily go to the accused person/s.
12. In the case at hand, it was sine qua non for the prosecution to prove that it was the accused persons who had come on a motorcycle and snatched the mobile phone of the complainant. Now although, the complainant in his testimony has narrated the entire sequence of events that have transpired on the said date but he has failed to identify either of the accused persons in court as the person who committed the said offence with him. Even on specific questioning by the Ld. APP for the State, the complainant failed to identify the accused persons and stated that due to lapse of time, he could not identify the faces of the persons who had committed the present offence with him. Other than the complainant, there is no other eye witness to the present incident who could establish that it was the accused who had committed the said offence with the complainant. In the given circumstances, no material exists on record to hold the charges against the accused person u/s 356/379/34 IPC.
13. At this juncture, it is important to mention that indeed, the testimony of a witness who has turned hostile cannot be discarded in totality and any part, which supports the case of the prosecution can be looked into. However, in the present case, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that any part of the testimony of PW-1 comes to the support or rescue of the prosecution.
14. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, accused Ithash and Shakeel are FIR No. 741/2023, PS Burari Page No. 5 of 6 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.16 16:36:00 +0530 State Vs. Ithash & Anr.
is hereby acquitted of offence u/s 356/379/34 IPC.
(Announced in open Court
on 16th January 2026 ) Digitally
signed by
PAYAL
PAYAL SINGAL
SINGAL Date:
(The judgment contains 06 pages 2026.01.16
16:36:09
+0530
and all the pages bear my signatures) (Payal Singal) JMFC-09/Central District Delhi/16.01.2026 FIR No. 741/2023, PS Burari Page No. 6 of 6