Delhi District Court
State vs Anuj @ Banda on 26 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-05, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS
Presided over by- Devanshu Sajlan, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 9159/2021
Unique Case ID -: DLSE020259372021
No.
FIR No. -: 341/2021
Police Station -: Sarita Vihar
Section(s) -: 380/457/411 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
ANUJ & ORS.
.... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Sh. Teerathram
(1) Anuj @ Banda
(2) Arun Kumar
2. Name of Accused :
(3) Aman
(4) Neeraj
Offence complained of or
3. : 380/457/411 IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
5. Date of registration of FIR : 02.06.2021 Date of filing of
6. : 08.12.2021 chargesheet
7. Date of Reserving Order : 19.11.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025 Proceedings qua accused Arun abated
9. Final Order :
Accused Neeraj is acquitted Anuj @ Banda and Aman Cr. Case 9159/2021 State Vs. Anuj & Ors. Page 1 of 9 Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI Kumar (Acquitted) Argued by -: Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. counsel for accused Anuj @ Banda and Aman Kumar.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION-:
A. FACTUAL MATRIX:
1. Briefly put, the case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 30.05.2021 to 31.05.2021 in between 10:26 PM PM to 07:26 am H. No. 25/108 Sapera Gali, Aali Gaon, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar, accused Anuj @ Banda and Aman Kumar in furtherance of their common intention alongwith their accomplice Arun Kumar (expired) committed lurking house trespass by night in order to committing of any offence and accused Anuj @ Banda and Aman Kumar stole the LED TV make Panasonic, Gold Chain and cash of Rs. 10,000/- belonging to complainant namely Sh. Teerath Ram and the LED TV was recovered from the possession of accused Neeraj, and thereby the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable u/s 380/457/411 IPC.
2. Charge was framed against the accused Anuj @ Banda and Aman Kumar u/s 380/457/411 IPC and charge was framed against accused Neeraj u/s 411 IPC.
3. At the outset, parties submit that complainant wish to compound the matter. Statement of the complainant has been recorded. In view of the statement of the complainant, the accused Neeraj is acquitted of the offence under Section 411 IPC.
Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA Cr. Case 9159/2021 State Vs. Anuj & Ors. Page 2 of 9 BISHNOI PROSECUTION EVIDENCE -
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : Sh. Teerath Ram (complainant) PW-2 : Sh. Harish Saini PW-3 : HC Satish PW-4 : HC Vikram PW-5 : ASI Rakesh DOCUMENTARY EVIDENE Ex. PW-1/A : Complaint of the complainant Ex. PW-1/B : Site plan Ex. PW-1/C : Bill of LED TV Ex. PW-3/A : Seizure memo of LED TV Ex. PW-3/B : Arrest memo of accused Anuj @ Banda Ex. PW-3/C : Arrest memo of accused Arun Kumar Ex. PW-3/D : Arrest memo of accused Aman Ex. PW-3/E : Personal search memo of accused Aman Personal search memo of accused Arun Ex. PW-3/F :
Kumar Personal search memo of accused Anuj Ex. PW-3/G :
@ Banda Disclosure statement of accused Anuj @ Ex. PW-3/H :
Banda Disclosure statement of accused Arun Ex. PW-3/I :
Kumar
Ex. PW-3/J : Disclosure statement of accused Aman
Ex. PW-3/K : Disclosure statement of accused Neeraj
Ex. PW-3/L : Fard nishandehi
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE -
Digitally ANEEZA signed by Cr. Case 9159/2021 State Vs. Anuj & Ors. Page 3 of 9 BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI
4. The Statement of Accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 19.11.2025 and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to the accused persons who stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case as the case property has been planted upon them. The accused persons chose not to lead any evidence in their defence and therefore, the defence evidence was closed, and matter was fixed for final arguments. Thereafter, final arguments were heard, and the judgement was reserved.
ARGUMENTS -
5. I have heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
6. It is argued by the learned APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that recovery from the accused persons has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has argued that even the complainant (PW-1) candidly admits that he was not present at his house at the time of alleged theft, and therefore he neither witnessed the occurrence nor can disclose the date, time or identity of the actual offenders. PW-1 further admits in his cross- examination that he does not know the accused persons, and does not know from whose possession the LCD TV was allegedly recovered. It is argued that the recovery is shown only on the basis Digitally ANEEZA signed Cr. Case 9159/2021 State Vs. Anuj & Ors. Page 4 of 9 by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI of disclosure statements allegedly made by co-accused Arun, Anuj and Aman and hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. DISCUSSION-
8. In order to consider the allegations qua section 411, IPC, it is pertinent to refer to the definition of 'stolen property'. It is defined in section 410, IPC and the relevant portion is as follows:
"Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as stolen property...".
9. The law on section 411, IPC was explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 39 and the said judgment was recently re-iterated in Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 9 SCC 676. It was held in Trimbak (supra) that to bring home the guilt under section 411, IPC the prosecution must prove: (i) that the property was stolen; (ii) that the stolen property was in possession of the accused; (iii) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it; and (iv) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property.
Non-joining of independent persons in investigation
10. In the present case, no independent public person was joined in the investigation/ proceedings to witness the recovery/ search/proceedings.
11. Accordingly, non-joining of public persons in investigation is an unexplained missing link in the prosecution case.
Digitally ANEEZA signed Cr. Case 9159/2021 State Vs. Anuj & Ors. Page 5 of 9 by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI
12. It is a well settled position of law that non-joining of public witnesses creates doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case which creates a doubt on the fairness of the investigation and recovery proceedings. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1987 SCC OnLine Del 290, wherein it had been observed as under:
... According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 7.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should have deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of a serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused. Further, in Anoop Joshi v. State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been Digitally ANEEZA signed Cr. Case 9159/2021 State Vs. Anuj & Ors. Page 6 of 9 BISHNOI by ANEEZA BISHNOI made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC.
Non-applicability of presumption u/s 114 of Indian Evidence Act in the present matter
13. As per the testimony of the complainant, the alleged incident happened on 11/12.10.2015. There is no eye witness to the incident of alleged theft. Further, there is no CCTV footage which has been placed on record which reflects the presence of the accused at the scene of alleged theft. Further, as per the testimony of complainant, the complainant had also not seen the accused at the scene of crime. Therefore, there is no direct evidence that the accused committed theft at the house of the complainant after committing house trespass/house breaking. However, Ld. APP has relied upon section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act to contend that the court is required to presume that the person from whom alleged recovery has been made is either the thief or he has received the goods knowing them to be stolen.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
14. Now coming to this present case, only public witness has been stated by the prosecution which is complainant himself and has been examined as PW-1. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not seen the alleged incident of theft and hence, he could not tell the date and time of the same. He also admitted that he did not know the accused persons and also admit that he did not Digitally signed ANEEZA by Cr. Case 9159/2021 State Vs. Anuj & Ors. Page 7 of 9 BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI know from whose possession aforesaid LCD TV was recovered. However, the other witnesses are police officials and the shop owner of the place from where the alleged stolen LCD TV was purchased by the complainant. During cross-examination of PW3, PW4, they have admitted that no CCTV footage of the offence is present and that there is no witness of the offence. They have also admitted that no recovery has been effected from the accused persons namely Aman and Anuj. They have also admitted that no eye-witness has been examined and that complainant came to know about this theft after some days of theft because during the alleged incident he was not present at his home. Even during the cross-examination of PW-5, he has admitted the absence of any eye-witness, CCTV footage and presence of complainant at his house during the alleged incident.
It is pertinent to mention here that complainant / PW-1 has stated that it was someone who was known to him who called him on his telephone to inform him that there has been a theft at his home. However, neither he has stated the name of that person nor any call detail record has been placed on record to corroborate the same.
CONCLUSION
15. In the present case, the entire prosecution version with respect to the alleged recovery of the stolen Panasonic LED TV from the possession of accused Neeraj rests solely upon the disclosure statements of co-accused persons Arun, Anuj and Aman, who were allegedly apprehended on the basis of secret information.
Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA Cr. Case 9159/2021 State Vs. Anuj & Ors. Page 8 of 9 BISHNOI It is a settled law that a disclosure statement of a co-accused has no evidentiary value unless it leads to a lawful and proved recovery. In the present matter, no independent public witness was joined at the time of the alleged pointing out or recovery. All material witnesses to recovery are police officials and their depositions remain uncorroborated by any independent source. It further emerges from the testimonies of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 that there is no CCTV footage, no eyewitness, and no public witness, despite the alleged recovery having taken place in a residential locality. The prosecution has offered no explanation for non-joining of public witnesses, which raises a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the alleged recovery.
16. Resultantly, the accused is entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt. The accused Anuj @ Banda S/O Sh. Ganga Ram and Aman Kumar S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar are hereby acquitted for the offences under Section 380/457/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Pronounced in open court on 26.11.2025 in presence of accused. This judgment contains 09 pages, and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
(Dr. Aneeza Bishnoi) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05 South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/26.11.2025 Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI Cr. Case 9159/2021 State Vs. Anuj & Ors. Page 9 of 9