Delhi District Court
State vs Dheeraj Ors on 22 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL METROPOLITAN FIRST CLASS -03,
NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Sh. Himanshu Sehloth, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 5286479/2016
FIR No. : 113/2012
Police Station : KNK Marg
Section(s) : 382/411/34 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
1. DHEERAJ
S/O SH. TRILOKI
2. SUSHIL LUTHRA
S/O SH. ASHOK LUTHRA ......Accused Person.
1. Name of the Complainant : Smt. Anju Sharma
2. Name of Accused : 1. Dheeraj
2. Sushil Luthra
3. Offence complained of or : 382/411/34 IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of : 19.03.2012
offence
6. Date of Filing of case : 24.09.2012
7. Date of Reserving Order : 14.10.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025
9. Final Order : Acquitted
____________________________________________________________
Argued by -: Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Sonu Anand, Ld. LADC for the accused persons.
_____________________________________________________________
Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 1 of 19
JUDGMENT
1. BRIEF FACTS The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.03.2012 at about 12:30 PM, the complainant Smt. Anju Sharma was allegedly robbed of her gold mangalsutra/chain while she was standing near Sajan Sajni Garments, Sector-17, Rohini, by two unknown persons riding a motorcycle. On her raising alarm, the assailants fled from the spot.
On the basis of DD No. 24-A, the police reached the complainant, recorded her statement, prepared rukka, and registered the present FIR. The accused persons Dheeraj and Sushil Luthra were apprehended later during a separate police operation dated 15/16.05.2012. Jewellery articles were allegedly recovered pursuant to their disclosure statements. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.
Charge was framed against:
Accused Dheeraj u/s 382/411/34 IPC on 15.05.2019 Accused Sushil Luthra u/s 382/411/34 IPC, and separately u/s 174-A IPC on 28.06.2019
Accused Sushil Luthra pleaded guilty qua offence u/s 174-A IPC and was convicted on 03.05.2025. The present judgment is confined to Sections 382/411/34 IPC against both accused.
2. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 2.1 PW-1/W/ASI Vijay Laxmi stated in her deposition that on 19.03.2012, she was posted at PS KNK Marg. She stated that on that day, at about 2.55 PM, she received the rukka through Ct. Ravi sent by ASI Gurjant. She stated that on the basis of rukka, she registered the present FIR, the copy of computerized FIR is Ex.PW1/A bearing her signature at Point A. She stated that she made the endorsement on the rukka vide Ex.PW1/B bearing her signature at Point A. She stated that she executed the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW1/C bearing her signature Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 2 of 19 at Point A. She further stated that on 19.03.2012, she had received the information through Wireless Operator, and thereby she reduced the same information into DD No. 24A dated 19.03.2012, PS. K.N.K. Marg. She also deposed that she had brought the original register, the true copy of aforesaid entry which is Ex. PW1/D(OSR) bearing her signature at point A. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity.
2.2 PW2/HC Praveen Kumar stated in his deposition that on 15.05.2012, he was posted at PS. K.N.K. Marg as HC. He stated that on that day, he alongwith Ct. Rajesh and Ct. Bijender and SI Suresh Kumar was on patrolling duty near Ganda Nala, Sector-17, Rohini. He further stated that at that time, SI Suresh Kumar received the secret information through secret informer regarding the 3-4 boys. He further deposed that after receiving the said information, IO requested some public persons to join the investigation, however none of them had agreed to join the investigation and they left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. He also added that at around 7:00 pm, IO SI Suresh constituted a raiding party and they took their respective positions and did the barricading on the road. He said that after barricading, they started checking the vehicles, meanwhile the checking at about 7- 7:15 pm, two motorcycles bearing the registration number 3620 and 4690 (which the witness did not remember the complete registration number of said motorcycles) came from the side of G3S, Sector - 17, Rohini and both the motorcyclist tried to run away after taking the U-turn, on seeing the police official/raiding party. He stated that at that time, they made the efforts to apprehend them. He further added that they apprehended both the motorcyclist (on each motorcycle two riders were there, total four persons). He further deposed that the names of the riders on the first motorcycle revealed as Dheeraj and Manoj and the names of the riders of second motorcycle were revealed as Kamal @ Gaurav and Sushil Luthra. He further deposed that upon inquiry from the apprehended persons from motorcycle bearing no. 4690 was found stolen. He said that the said motorcycle was seized u/s 102 Cr.P.C by the IO/SI Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 3 of 19 Suresh. He further stated that accused persons Dheeraj and Sushil disclosed their involvement in the present case. He also stated that IO recorded the disclosure statements of accused which is Mark A & B, both bearing his signautures at Point A. He stated that both the accused had shown the place of incident to the IO and IO prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. He also stated that recovery of the locket and manglasutra were effected from the possession of the accused Dheeraj and Sushil. He stated that thereafter, IO seized the same vide seizure memo Mark C & D bearing his signatures at point A. He stated that IO/Gurjant Singh recorded the disclosure statement of accused Dheeraj and Sushil which are Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C respectively bearing his signatures at point A. He further stated that IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. He stated that accused persons Dheeraj and Sushil Luthra were arrested vide arrest memo, which are Ex. PW2/D and Ex. PW2/E respectively both bearing his signatures at point A. Both the accused present in the court were correctly identified by the witness. Further, Ld. APP for State sought permission to put some leading questions from the witness which was allowed by the Court. The questions that were put by Ld. APP were:
Q. Whether the complete registration number of the motorcycles were DL11S-3620 and DL3S-BV-4690 to which the witness replied/answered yes. The photographs of the case property on judicial record were shown to the witness which were correctly identified by the witness.
After that, the witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for both the accused where in he stated they were 4 members in the raiding team namely SI Suresh Chand, Ct. Rajesh, Ct. Bijender and him. The departure entry was made at the PS. SI Suresh received information through secret informer. He alongwith Ct Rajesh apprehended Manoj and Dheeraj and other two persons namely Sushil and Kamal were apprehended by SI Suresh Chand and Ct Bijender. The disclosure statement of Sushil and Dheeraj was recorded at the spot at around 9 to 10 pm. The stolen mangalsutra was recovered from Sushil's house at first floor from almirah and locket from Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 4 of 19 almirah of house Dheeraj. He denied that accused were apprehended from their house and not by the raiding team.
2.3 PW3/Complainant Smt. Anju Sharma, W/o Sh. Krishna stated in her deposition that on 17.03.2012, she went to his parental house situated at H.No. 3/204, Sector -
16, Rohini, Delhi. She stated that on 19.03.2012, she alongwith his son Hunny, aged about 2 ½ years, went to the market of Sector 17, Rohini i.e. Sajan Sajni Garments from her parental house. She stated that at about 12:30 pm, when he reached in front of Sajan Sajni Garments, one boy was sitting on the stationary motorcycle and another boy was standing with him near the said motorcycle. She stated that when she passed the said motorcycle, one of the said boy snatched her gold chain (Mangalsutra/chain/pendant) weighed about 40 gm and after snatching, they both fled away from there with the help of the motorcycle. She also stated that she does not remember the registration number of the said motorcycle, however it was of make Bajaj Pulsar, colour red. She stated that at the time of snatching, she raised the alarm. She further stated that after the incident someone made a call at 100 number and the Police officials reached at her parental house and she narrated the incident to the police. She stated that she gave her complaint regarding the incident, which is Ex. PW3/A, bearing her signature at point A. She further stated that she alongwith the police official visited the place of incident and she had shown the place of incident to the IO and the police official prepared the site plan at her instance. The witness correctly identified the accused Dheeraj present in the court. She further stated that she could not identify another accused because at the time of incident, accused/driver/motorcyclist was wearing the helmet. The witness produced the case property of the case, which she had taken on superdari and she correctly identified the case property Ex P1 (OSR). Photographs of the case property also shown to the witness which were correctly identified by her Ex.P2 (Colly). Ld. APP for State sought permission to cross-examine the witness as she was not disclosing the complete facts of the present case which was allowed by the Court. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State in which the witness Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 5 of 19 stated that at the time of snatching of the aforesaid chain, accused was carrying some weapon. After that, the witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused Dheeraj in which she deposed that she could not say whether public persons were also present there at the time of snatching or not. She said that on the date of incident, market was closed as it was Monday and the market remains closed on all Mondays. She stated that she went to the market for purchasing of fruits. She stated that she had purchased the aforesaid chain from Shahjadpur, UP in the year 2010- 2011 from the shop of Ramesh Chand Jeweller. The witness voluntarily added that the weight of the jewellery was about 40 gm. She claimed the bill of the said jewellery had been misplaced by her. She further stated that she runs her own boutique in Gurugram. She stated that the said boy/accused came from the side at the time of snatching and the snatcher/accused was wearing the shirt at the time of snatching, however, she does not remember the colour of shirt. She also stated that she identified the accused as accused turned back after snatching of gold chain. She said that she fell down on the side due to the jerk felt by her after snatching away of her gold chain. She stated that she sustained injuries on her neck. She stated that no medical examination was conducted at that time. Also added that she was not sure whether she had stated the fact "I fell down" to the police or not. Within 30 minutes of police official reached there. She stated that she went to the spot alongwith the police official and just after reaching of the police official she had shown the place of theft/snatching away of gold chain. She denied the suggestion that no such incident happened or she had incorrectly identified the accused persons.
2.4 PW4/Ct. Ravi stated in his deposition that on 19.03.2012 he was posted at PS as constable. He stated that on that day, IO ASI Gurjant Singh received the DD no. 24A and after receiving the same he accompanied IO and went to house no. H-3/204, Sector 16, Rohini, after reaching there IO met the complainant Anju Sharma who narrated the incident to the IO and IO recorded the statement of the complainant and made the endorsement. He stated that IO handed over the same to him for registration Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 6 of 19 of FIR and after registration of FIR he handed over the same to the IO. At that time no accused was traceable. He further stated that IO recorded his statement. Accused did not cross examine witness despite opportunity.
2.5 PW-5/HC Rajesh Kumar stated in his deposition that on 15.05.2012, he was posted at PS KNK Marg as a constable. He stated that on that day, he along with HC Praveen, Ct. Bijender and SI Suresh Chand were on patrolling duty in the area Sector 17, Rohini. He further stated that during the patrolling, SI Suresh Chand received the secret information through secret informer regarding four boys, who used to snatch the articles and thereafter SI Suresh Chand requested to 3-4 passers by to join the investigation, however, they left the spot by giving the various excuses. He stated that thereafter, they started the checking by putting barricades at near Nala, Sector 17, near 3GS Mall, at about 7:00 p.m. during the checking after some time four boys came on two motorcycles from the side of G3S Mall. He stated that after seeing the police officials said four boys tried to run away by taking the turn back from there but Some how they stopped the said motorcyclists/four persons. He further stated that one motorcycle bearing registration NO. DL 11S 3620 was driven by the accused Dheeraj and second motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 3S BV 4690 was driven by the accused Kamal. He stated that accused Manoj and Sony were the pillion rider. He further deposed that SI Suresh Chand checked the registration number of the above said motorcycle through Zipnet. Motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 3S BV 4690 was found stolen from sector 7, Rohini, village Rajapur. He further added that SI Sursh Chand inquired from all apprehended accused persons and all accused persons disclosed their involvements in various cases. The witness stated that after that IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused persons namely Dheeraj and Sushil @ Sonu which are already Mark A and Mark B bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that IO SI Suresh Chand arrested the accused Dheeraj, Sushil @ Sonu vide arrest memo which is mark Ex. PW 5/A and Ex. PW5/B both bearing his signature at point A. He also stated that one mangalsutra was recovered at the Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 7 of 19 instance of the accused Sushil and the same was seized vide memo already mark C bearing his signature at point B. He further stated that one locket was recovered at the instance of the accused Dheeraj and the same was seized vide memo already mark D bearing his signature at point B. He stated that he prepared the pointing out memo and he narrated the whole incident to the IO and IO recorded his statement. After that, Photographs of the locket and the chain which are available on record were shown to the witness and the same were correctly identified by the witness. Accused Dheeraj and Sushil both present in the court were correctly identified by the witness. The Ld. Counsels for the accused did not cross examine the witness despite opportunity.
2.6 PW-6/HC Ravi Kumar stated in his deposition that in the year 2012, he was posted at P.S KNK Marg as Constable. He stated that his duty hours were from 8:00 am to 8:00 p.m on 19.03.2012. He stated that he was performing emergency duty and he alongwith ASI Gurgant went to house No. 204, H-Block, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi, as there was a call of snatching at the P.S. He stated that after reaching there, complainant met them and got recorded her statement regarding the snatching of her articles. He stated that thereafter IO prepared the Tehrir and gave the same to him for registration of FIR, he accordingly went to the P.S, got the FIR registered and came back at the spot alongwith original Tehrir and copy of FIR and handed over the same to the IO. He stated that at the spot, they inquired about the stolen articles, but no clue was found. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused in which he stated that there was a call of snatching at the P.S. He stated that they reached at the spot at about 1.30 p.m. 2.7 PW-7/SI Rtd Gurjant Singh S/o Sh. Sarban Singh stated in his deposition that on 19-03-2012 he was posted at KNK MARG thana and he had received DD no.24A at 01:22 PM on telephone call, thereafter he alongwith CT Ravi Kumar went to H Block Sector-16, Rohini where they found Anju Sharma who was present at the spot and he recorded her statement who stated that her Mangal Sutra and locket were snatched by Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 8 of 19 two persons in front of Sajan Sajani Sector 17 Rohini which is already Ex. PW3/A bearing his signatures at point B. He stated that after that he prepared tehrir which is already Ex.PW1/B bearing his signatures at point B and handed over the tehrir to Ct. Ravi who went to PS. KNK MARG to register FIR. He stated that he alongwith Anju Sharma/complainant went to the spot where the incident occurred and he prepared site plant on the instructions of Anju Sharma which is now Ex.PW7/A bearing his signatures at point A. He stated that meanwhile Ct. Ravi Kumar reached the spot and they relieved complainant from the spot and started search of accused and case property but they could not found the same. He stated that thereafter, he alongwith Ct Ravi Kumar went to the PS. KNK MARG and he recorded the statement of Ct. Ravi Kumar. He further deposed that on 16-05-2012 SI Suresh Chand arrested the accused person and handed over to him the Pullandra which is marked "PAI" and including and disclosure statement of accused Dheeraj which is already marke A and dislcosure statement of accused Sushil Marked "B" and arrest memo of accused Sushil already Ex.PW5/A and arrest memo of accused Dheeraj already Ex.PW5/B and recovery memo of both the accused persons which is already marked at mark C & D and also include pointing out memo which is already Ex. PW 2/A. He further stated that after that he interrogated both the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statement which is Ex. PW2/B and PW2/C respectively and bearing his signatures at point B but he arrested the accused persons vide arrest memo which is already exibhited PW 2/D and PW 2/C respectively bearing his signatures at point B. He stated that he requested for test identification prade of accused Dheeraj who refused the TIP procedure which is already Ex. Al and on 19.05.2012 he further requested for TIP of accused Sushil who refused TIP procedure which is already Ex. A2. He stated that thereafter on 21.05.2012 and 22.05.2012 identification of case property was conducted and thereafter he filed charge sheet in the present case. Accused persons present in the court were correctly identified by the witness. The witness was shown five photographs from judicial record which were correctly identified by the witnes, same are Ex.P2.
Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 9 of 19 The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for both the accused in which he stated that he arrested both the accused persons on the basis of pulandra prepared by HC Suresh Chand. He stated that he was not present when the accused persons were firstly arrested. He stated that he knows that on 16.05.2012 there were four persons arrested and two accused belong to present case were handed over to him. He further stated that he does not know whether other cases were alleged against both the accused. He also stated that he does not know where the recovery was conducted, the witness voluntarily added that as the recovery memo was handed over to him. He denied the suggestion that recovery was planted on the accused persons or 4 other accused were arrested for different cases on 16.05.2012. He further denied the suggestion that he as deposing falsely or no recovery was made from the accused.
3. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of both accused persons were recorded on 02.07.2024 under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC, wherein each and every incriminating circumstance appearing in the evidence was put to them individually and distinctly.
Both accused persons denied the allegations in toto, pleaded innocence, and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the present case. Both accused persons chose not to lead any defence evidence.
4. FINAL ARGUMENTS 4.1 Arguments on behalf of the State Ld APP for the State argued that the complainant (PW-3) has categorically proved the occurrence of snatching and has identified accused Dheeraj in Court. The FIR was registered promptly and there is no delay or manipulation. Both accused were apprehended subsequently and stolen property was recovered at their instance, which stands corroborated by police witnesses. Refusal of Test Identification Parade by both accused strengthens the prosecution case. It was contended that minor Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 10 of 19 contradictions are natural and do not go to the root of the matter. 4.2 Arguments on behalf of the Defence.
Ld defence counsel, on the other hand, argued that the present case, even if accepted at face value, does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 382 IPC, as there is no proof of preparation, weapon, or hurt. Though PW-3/A mentions that the complainant fell, no MLC was prepared, no medical evidence was collected, and no contemporaneous witness speaks of any injury. Accused Dheeraj was apprehended nearly two months after the incident, and the court identification without prior TIP is unsafe. Accused Sushil Luthra was never identified by the complainant. The recovery evidence is unreliable as the main recovery witness SI Suresh Chand was never examined, there are material contradictions regarding the place and manner of recovery, even the IO admits he does not know where recovery was effected. Further, refusal of TIP, by itself, cannot substitute proof. In such circumstances, benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
5. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCES INVOLVED Before appreciating the evidence, it is necessary to keep in view the legal contours of the offences charged:
Section 382 IPC requires proof not merely of theft or snatching, but of preparation for causing death, hurt, restraint, or fear thereof, such preparation being prior to or contemporaneous with the act. Section 411 IPC requires proof that:
o the property was stolen, o the accused was in conscious possession thereof, o and that he knew or had reason to believe the same to be stolen. Section 34 IPC requires a meeting of minds and participation in furtherance of common intention.
The prosecution must satisfy these requirements beyond reasonable doubt, and failure on any essential limb is fatal.
Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 11 of 19
6. APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Occurrence of Snatching - Not in Dispute On a cumulative reading of PW-3 (complainant) and the formal police witnesses, the Court finds no reason to doubt that an incident of snatching of the complainant's mangalsutra did take place on 19.03.2012 at about 12:30 PM.
The FIR was lodged promptly. The complainant had no prior enmity with the accused. The occurrence itself stands proved.
However, proof of occurrence is not proof of guilt of the accused for the offences charged.
B. Nature of the Incident - Whether Section 382 IPC is Attracted The prosecution seeks to elevate the incident from a simple snatching to an offence under Section 382 IPC.
It is true that PW-3/A does mention that the complainant fell. PW-3 also states in Court that she felt a jerk and fell down. This fact, therefore, cannot be ignored or brushed aside.
However, the legal question is not whether she fell, but whether the fall was the result of preparation for causing hurt, as required by Section 382 IPC. On this crucial aspect:
No weapon was recovered.
The complainant's reference to a weapon surfaced only during APP-led cross- examination, without description or corroboration.
No MLC was prepared.
None of the police witnesses speak of any visible injury or medical treatment. The earliest police witnesses (PW-4, PW-6, PW-7) do not depose that the complainant complained of hurt requiring medical attention. A fall resulting from the sudden jerk of snatching, without proof of deliberate preparation to cause hurt, cannot ipso facto convert a snatching into an offence Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 12 of 19 under Section 382 IPC.
Criminal law draws a clear distinction between force inherent in snatching and preparatory violence contemplated under Section 382 IPC. The prosecution evidence does not cross that threshold.
C. Identification of Accused Dheeraj PW-3 has identified accused Dheeraj in Court as the person who snatched her mangalsutra. The Court is conscious that court identification is a substantive piece of evidence. At the same time, it is equally settled that the weight to be attached to such identification depends upon the surrounding circumstances, particularly where the accused was previously unknown to the witness. In the present case, the incident occurred on 19.03.2012, whereas the accused was apprehended only in mid-May 2012, i.e., after a gap of nearly two months. During this interregnum, the complainant had no occasion to see the accused again. The incident itself was sudden and fleeting, occurring in the course of a snatching, where the attention of the victim is naturally drawn more towards the loss suffered than towards observing facial features with precision.
It is true that the accused refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade. Such refusal may, in appropriate cases, permit the Court to draw an adverse inference. However, refusal of TIP is not a rule of automatic corroboration of dock identification. The purpose of TIP is to test the memory and observational capacity of a witness who claims to have seen an unknown offender. Where that safeguard is absent, the Court must subject dock identification to heightened scrutiny.
In the present case, the dock identification of accused Dheeraj is the sole connecting link between him and the occurrence. There is no contemporaneous description of distinctive features, no corroborative CCTV footage, and no medical or independent evidence lending assurance to the identification.
In such circumstances, refusal of TIP, by itself, cannot elevate identification in Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 13 of 19 court for the first time into conclusive proof of guilt. To do so would amount to reversing the burden of proof and would expose the process to the risk of conviction based on impression rather than evidence. The Court, therefore, finds it unsafe to rest a finding of guilt solely on the in-court identification of accused Dheeraj.
D. Identification and Role of Accused Sushil Luthra The case of the prosecution against accused Sushil Luthra stands on a footing materially different from that of co-accused Dheeraj.
At the outset, it must be noted that the complainant (PW-3) has not identified accused Sushil Luthra at all. Her evidence is categorical that the person driving the motorcycle was wearing a helmet and that she could not see his face. This is not a wavering or uncertain statement, but a clear and consistent one. The Court finds no reason to doubt this aspect of her testimony.
Thus, unlike accused Dheeraj, there is no evidence connecting accused Sushil Luthra with the act of snatching. The prosecution, therefore, necessarily relies upon the alleged recovery of stolen property to bridge this gap.
However, as discussed later in detail, the recovery evidence in the present case is beset with serious infirmities. Not only is the recovery itself rendered doubtful due to contradictory versions of PW-2 and PW-5, but the Investigating Officer (PW-7) has admitted his lack of personal knowledge regarding the place and manner of recovery. The most material witness on this aspect, SI Suresh Chand, was never examined. In this backdrop, the alleged recovery from accused Sushil Luthra cannot be treated as a substitute for proof of participation in the offence Viewed cumulatively, the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, any role attributable to accused Sushil Luthra in the commission of the offence alleged.
E. Recovery Evidence - The Most Serious Fracture The prosecution seeks to connect both accused persons with the stolen property Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 14 of 19 through alleged recoveries effected pursuant to disclosure statements. Since the offence under Section 411 IPC, as also the corroborative value of recovery for the principal offence, hinges on this aspect, the recovery evidence deserves the closest judicial scrutiny.
At the forefront of this analysis stands PW-2 (HC Praveen Kumar), whose testimony is central to the prosecution version. In his examination-in-chief, PW-2 stated that recovery of the mangalsutra and locket was effected from the "possession" of accused Sushil and Dheeraj. This narration creates a clear impression that the recovery was either from the spot or from the immediate control of the accused persons.
However, when PW-2 entered the witness box for cross-examination, his version underwent a significant and material shift. He categorically stated that:
the mangalsutra was recovered from the house of accused Sushil, from an almirah on the first floor, and the locket was recovered from the house of accused Dheeraj, again from an almirah.
This is not a minor discrepancy of wording. It is a fundamental variation going to the very root of the recovery. Recovery from "personal possession" and recovery from a concealed place inside a residential house are two legally and factually distinct situations, carrying different implications for proof of conscious possession, voluntariness, and credibility.
This inconsistency becomes more pronounced when PW-2's testimony is read alongside PW-5 (HC Rajesh Kumar), who speaks of recovery being effected "at the instance" of the accused, without specifying the place, manner, or presence of any independent witness. PW-5's version does not clarify whether the recovery was from the spot, from the houses, or from elsewhere, thereby adding vagueness where precision was required.
The uncertainty deepens further when the Court considers the testimony of PW-7 (SI Gurjant Singh), the Investigating Officer. PW-7 candidly admitted in cross-
Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 15 of 19 examination that:
he was not present at the time of arrest or recovery, the recovery memos were merely handed over to him, and he does not know where the recovery was conducted. Thus, the officer who ultimately filed the charge-sheet is unable to vouch for the place or manner of recovery, while the witnesses who claim to have witnessed the recovery speak in divergent and inconsistent voices. Most significantly, SI Suresh Chand, the officer who allegedly: received secret information, constituted the raiding party, apprehended the accused, and effected the recoveries, was never examined due to his demise. His non-examination is not a mere procedural lapse; it results in the absence of the most material witness who alone could have clarified and unified the recovery narrative.
Further, despite the alleged recovery from residential houses, no independent public witness was joined, nor is there any explanation forthcoming which inspires confidence. In cases of recovery from private premises, the insistence on independent corroboration becomes even more pronounced.
In criminal jurisprudence, recovery is not a ritualistic formality; it is a fact which must be proved with clarity, consistency, and credibility. The present case is marked by:
shifting stands of PW-2 between chief and cross-examination, vagueness in PW-5's account, complete lack of personal knowledge on the part of the IO, and absence of the principal recovery witness.
Taken cumulatively, these infirmities render the recovery evidence unsafe to rely upon. The Court is left with documents, but without a trustworthy narrative explaining how, where, and in what circumstances the stolen property was actually Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 16 of 19 recovered.
F. Common Intention The prosecution has invoked Section 34 IPC to fasten joint liability upon both accused persons. The Court is conscious that common intention is seldom proved by direct evidence and may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances. However, such inference must arise from clear, consistent, and reliable material, and not from conjecture.
In the present case, the evidence does not disclose any prior meeting of minds, pre- arranged plan, or concerted conduct between the accused. The complainant's testimony establishes the presence of two persons on a motorcycle, but mere physical proximity or simultaneous presence does not, by itself, constitute common intention.
More importantly, where the very participation of one of the accused (Sushil Luthra) remains unproved, invocation of Section 34 IPC becomes legally untenable. Common intention presupposes participation; it cannot be used to supply proof of participation where the evidence is otherwise lacking.
The prosecution evidence, far from demonstrating a shared design, leaves unanswered questions regarding:
the identity of the driver, the role played by him, and the nexus between the two accused at the time of the incident. In such circumstances, the application of Section 34 IPC would amount to stretching the doctrine beyond its legitimate limits, which the Court is not prepared to do.
7. Culpability of the Accused Persons -- Individualised Assessment 7.1 Accused Dheeraj So far as accused Dheeraj is concerned, the prosecution case rests primarily on his identification by the complainant in Court, coupled with the alleged recovery of a Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 17 of 19 part of the stolen jewellery. While the complainant has identified him as the person who snatched her mangalsutra, such identification occurred after a considerable lapse of time and without the aid of a Test Identification Parade, despite the accused being previously unknown to her. In the absence of any contemporaneous corroboration-- such as CCTV footage, medical evidence, or reliable recovery--the dock identification remains the sole incriminating circumstance. As already noticed, the recovery evidence is beset with serious contradictions and cannot be safely relied upon. The cumulative effect of these infirmities renders it unsafe to hold that the prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, either the aggravated offence under Section 382 IPC or the offence under Section 411 IPC against accused Dheeraj.
7.2 Accused Sushil Luthra The case against accused Sushil Luthra stands on an even weaker footing. The complainant has not identified him at all and has consistently stated that the driver of the motorcycle was wearing a helmet. There is thus no ocular evidence connecting him with the occurrence. The prosecution seeks to implicate him solely on the basis of alleged recovery, which, for reasons already discussed, suffers from fatal inconsistencies and remains unproved in the absence of the principal recovery witness. The conviction of accused Sushil Luthra under Section 174-A IPC, based on his own plea of guilt, cannot be used to lend assurance to the prosecution case in respect of the present offences. In the absence of credible evidence establishing either participation in the occurrence or conscious possession of stolen property, the charges under Sections 382 and 411 IPC cannot be sustained against him.
8. CONCLUSION The record before the Court discloses a proven incident of snatching, but it does not disclose proof of guilt in the manner required by criminal law. The prosecution has been unable to bridge the distance between suspicion and certainty: the identification is unsafe, the recovery unreliable, and the theory of joint liability unsupported by Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 18 of 19 cogent evidence. Criminal courts do not decide cases on conjecture or moral conviction, but on legally admissible proof tested against the standard of reasonable doubt. Measured against that standard, the prosecution case falls short. The benefit of such doubt must, therefore, necessarily enure to the accused.
8. In light of the discussion, accused persons namely Dheeraj S/o Sh. Triloki and Sushil Luthra S/o Sh. Ashok Luthra are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under u/s 382/411/34 IPC.
ORDER: ACQUITTED Pronounced in open court on 22.12.2025 in presence of the accused person. This judgment contains 19 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
(HIMANSHU
SEHLOTH SEHLOTH)
Date:
2025.12.22
16:28:31 +0530
JMFC-03 / North / Rohini Courts
22.12.2025
Cr. Case 5286479/2016 State Vs. Dheeraj and ors. Page No. 19 of 19