Delhi District Court
State vs Neeraj Kumar on 16 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT; DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY: DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
Cr. Case No. 2425/2023
In the matter of :
State Vs. Neeraj Kumar
E FIR No. 457/2022
PS : Dwarka Sector-23
U/s: 379/411 IPC
1. CNR No. of the case : DLSW020765472022
2. Date of commission of offence : 08.12.2022 and 09.12.2022
3. Date of institution of the case : 24.12.2022
4. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Shakti Solanki
S/o Late Sh. Man Singh
R/o. H. No. 1041, Gali No.4, Solanki
Mohalla, Village Shahbad
Mohamadpur, New Delhi.
5. Name, parentage and address : Sh. Neeraj Kumar
of accused persons S/o Sh. Prem Singh
R/o. H. No. 18, Gali No.5, Harijan
Basti, Village Shahbad Mohamadpur,
New Delhi.
6. Offence charged : 379/411 IPC
7. Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Date of final arguments : 23.04.2026
9. Date of judgment : 16.05.2026
State Vs. Neeraj Kumar
FIR No. 457/2022, PS Sec 23 Dwarka DEEPALI Page No.1 of 9
SRIVASTAVA
Digitally signed by
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
Date: 2026.05.16
04:35:36 +0530
10. Final arguments addressed by : Sh. Digvijay Singh, Ld. APP for State.
Sh. Arvind Aggarwal, Ld. Legal Aid
Counsel for accused.
11 Final Order : Accused Neeraj Kumar is acquitted
for the offence U/s 379/411 IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. Present case emanates from complaint given by one Sh. Shakti Solanki, on the basis of which aforesaid FIR was registered u/s. 379/411 IPC. Upon filing of chargesheet u/s. 379/411 IPC, cognizance of the offence was taken, accused was summoned, copy of the chargesheet was supplied to him and charge was framed under Section 379/411 IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined following witnesses:
2.1 PW1- Sh. Shakti Solanki - He is the complainant in the present case, whose bicycle was stolen and is alleged to be recovered from the accused.
2.2 PW2- Jasdeep Singh- He is the public witness who provided the pen drive containing the footage / video clip where the accused could be seen near the place of incident.
2.3 PW3- ASI Mukesh - He is the formal witness involved in the investigation of the present case alongwith the IO. 2.4. PW-4 SI Sanjeev Kumar- He is the IO of the case, conducted the investigation, recovered the case property, prepared the chargesheet and State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Digitally signed by FIR No. 457/2022, PS Sec 23 Dwarka DEEPALI Page No.2 of 9 DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.16 04:35:43 +0530 filed the same in the Court.
3. All the witnesses were duly cross examined by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused. In the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, Prosecution has relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Exhibits Documents
1. Ex. PW-1/A Statement of complainant Shakti Solanki
2. Ex.P-1 Photograph of bicycle
3. Ex.P-2 Copy of Register No.19
4. Ex.PW-1/X1 Site Plan
5. Ex.PW-2/A Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
6. Ex.PW-3/A Arrest Memo
7. Ex.PW-3/B Personal Search Memo
8. Ex.PW-3/C Disclosure statement of accused
9. Ex. PW-4/A Tehrir
10. Ex.PW-4/B Seizure and pointing out Memo of another bicycle
11. Ex.PW-4/C Seizure and pointing out Memo of another bicycle
11. Ex.A-1 Cop of FIR without contents.
4. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC on 01.04.2026, wherein entire incriminating evidence was put to him. Accused stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case. Accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
5. Final arguments heard. Record perused. I have heard Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused and Ld. APP for the State as well as perused the material and evidence on record.
State Vs. Neeraj Kumar
FIR No. 457/2022, PS Sec 23 Dwarka signed by Page No.3 of 9
Digitally
DEEPALI
DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.16
04:35:51
+0530
6. It is trite that in a criminal case, prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. That is, the standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of accused. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
7. In the present case, it is noted that as per the case of prosecution, the FIR was registered upon the complaint of PW-1 Shakti Solanki on 09.12.2022 with respect to the theft of his bicycle. It has been stated in the complaint (Ex.PW-1/A) that on 08.12.2022, he had parked his bicycle outside his house but when he checked his bicycle at around 06:00 p.m, he could not find the same. It is stated by the complainant that he had purchased the said bicycle around six months back and it is Red and Black in colour. On its seat, it is written Hercules and has chasis number PB501234. As per Ex. PW1/A, it has been stated by the complainant that some unknown person had taken his bicycle.
During his deposition before the court, the complainant has reiterated the facts as stated in Ex. PW1/A. However, it has been deposed by the complainant that at that time, he had made PCR call upon which police came and recorded his statement. As per record, no document has been placed on record to show the PCR call as stated to be made by the complainant. During the examination of PW-1, MHC (M) produced the State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Digitally FIR No. 457/2022, PS Sec 23 Dwarka signed by Page No.4 of 9 DEEPALI DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.16 04:35:59 +0530 photographs of the bicycle which has been duly identified by the witness. PW-1 during his examination has stated that accused was also seen in the CCTV footage of camera installed at the house of his cousin Jasdeep which was given by him to the police. Jasdeep Singh has deposed that he has installed the CCTV Cameras outside his office, which was provided by him to the IO in a pen drive alongwith certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. However, during his examination, PW2 admits that no notice was given to him by any police official for providing the CCTV footage neither any invoice of the device / CCTV or DVR was seized by the IO. It is also admitted by him that no log book was being maintained for the CCTV footage and at the same time, no pointing out memo regarding the location of the CCTV footage or seizure memo as well as handing over memo for the pen drive was prepared by the IO. PW2 admits to the fact that the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, provided by him also do not contain any serial number, model number or the IP address of the CCTV camera nor mentions the date, time and duration of the video which was procured.
8. PW-3 ASI Mukesh has deposed that the IO had prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. Upon searching of the CCTV cameras near the spot, one CCTV footage was found to be installed near the spot, which was checked and then one person was seen in the video riding the bicycle. Upon showing the video to a secret informer, the name of the person was disclosed to be Neeraj Kumar by the secret informer. It is to be noted that there is no record pertaining to the identification of the accused by so-called secret informer. Thereafter, it is stated by PW-3 that during the State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Digitally FIR No. 457/2022, PS Sec 23 Dwarka signed by DEEPALI Page No.5 of 9 DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.16 04:36:07 +0530 investigation, a raiding team was formed and at about 09:40 p.m, one person was found to be riding one bicycle who was identified by the secret informer, stopped and inquired who disclosed that he has stolen the said bicycle. Thereafter, the bicycle was recovered at his instance vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/D. Perusal of Ex. PW3/D, reflects that there is no independent witness to the same. Though chasis number and the description which is mentioned in the seizure memo is same as stated by the complainant, it be noted that during the entire investigation, no record / photographs or tracing of the chasis number has been placed on record in order to prove the identity of the recovered bicycle to be of the complainant. At the same time, as per the photographer which have been place on record, it could be seen that the bicycle appears to be very old and even colour could not be seen to be Black and Red. During the cross examination of PW-3 ASI Mukesh, it has been admitted by him that no photographers / tracing (on blank paper) of chasis number of the bicycle was taken by the IO. PW-4 also during his cross examination has admitted that no videography was done at the time of the recovery and no photographs / tracing (on blank paper) of chasis number of the bicycle was taken by him. It is also admitted by the IO that the cycle in photographs Ex. P-1 has rusted and its colour is also being worn out. At the same time, it has been admitted by him that similar types of cycles are readily available in the open market but each have their own serial / chasis number. Thus, as per the testimony of the IO PW4 as well as PW3, it could be seen that the identification of the recovered vehicle is doubtful.
9. Apart from the absence of public witnesses, it is also noted State Vs. Neeraj Kumar Digitally FIR No. 457/2022, PS Sec 23 Dwarka signed by DEEPALI Page No.6 of 9 DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.16 04:36:13 +0530 that no photographs at all were clicked at the time of alleged recovery of stolen property and no videography was made. There is nothing on record to show the condition of alleged stolen property at the time of recovery from the possession of accused person. Even more important is the fact that after the alleged recovery, case property has not been sealed. PW-1 as well as PW-3 in whose presence the stolen articles have been stated to have been seized have not deposed anything regarding the sealing of the case property. IO PW-4 has nowhere stated about seal handing over memo of the case property and nothing has been placed on record in order to show as to how the case property was sealed and to whom the seal was handed over after sealing the same. As such, the possibility that the case property was not sealed at all cannot be ruled out which raises doubt about the identity of the case property which has been stated to have been recovered. There is nothing on record to show the chain of custody from the date of seizure and its deposition in the Malkhana.
10. It must also be noted that PW1/complainant has not seen the person who had stolen his bicycle. At the same time, in the absence of any independent witness to the alleged seizure and doubt about the identity of the case property, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Accused has been alleged to be driving / riding one bicycle as per the CCTV footage, however the authenticity of the CCTV footage is questionable as PW-2 Jasmeet has clearly admitted that the certificate given by him u/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act, do not contain the details of the camera as well as its IP address. Thus the same cannot be relied upon as the cogent piece of evidence. Complainant has himself stated that he was State Vs. Neeraj Kumar DEEPALI FIR No. 457/2022, PS Sec 23 Dwarka SRIVASTAVA Page No.7 of 9 Digitally signed by DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.16 04:36:20 +0530 not present at the time of the incident and at the same time, the secret informer who identified the accused finds no mention in the chargesheet as well as the entire trial. Though, even if it is assumed that the accused was seen in the CCTV footage riding a bicycle, in the absence of clear identity of the bicycle which has been stated to be recovered at the instance of the accused, it cannot be proved by the prosecution that the accused is the person who stole the bicycle. Nothing has been stated during investigation that any chance print were lifted by the IO.
The complainant has though disclosed the specific identity marks of his bicycle as well as chasis number, however as per the admission of PW-3 as well as PW4, no steps were taken by them during the investigation for tracing the chasis number of the recovered bicycle in order to compare it with the original chasis number. Thus, it could not be established by the prosecution that the recovered bicycle is the one belonging to the complainant. Thus, there is serious doubt on the identification of the case property as the property of complainant, especially considering the high possibility of similar bicycles being available in the market, which is also admitted by the IO. Hence, it cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that property recovered from accused is the stolen property of the complainant in the present case or that the accused has stolen the bicycle of the complainant.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is seen that there is no evidence to prove the charge against the accused Neeraj Kumar except his disclosure statement. The alleged recovery is clouded in suspicion, as no public witnesses were attempted to join investigation.
Digitally
State Vs. Neeraj Kumar signed by
DEEPALI
FIR No. 457/2022, PS Sec 23 Dwarka DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA Page No.8 of 9
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.16
04:37:00
+0530
12. In view of the discussion above, the charge against the accused person has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Neraj Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Singh stands acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 379/411 IPC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DEEPALI Announced in the open court DEEPALI SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
on 16th May-2026.
2026.05.16 04:37:05 +0530 (Deepali Srivastava ) Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (SW) Dwarka Courts: New Delhi.
State Vs. Neeraj Kumar FIR No. 457/2022, PS Sec 23 Dwarka Page No.9 of 9