Delhi District Court
State vs Chirag Shokken on 23 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT KARAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-08, WEST DISTRICT, ROOM NO. 30, TIS HAZARI, DELHI.
FIR No. : 642/14
U/s : 380/511/34 IPC
P.S. : Mianwali Nagar
State Vs. Chirag Shokeen
JUDGMENT:
a) CNR No. : DLWT02-005479-2014
b) Sl. No. of the Case : 72157/2016
c) Name & address of the : Bharat Nainani S/o Sh. Kishor Kumar
complainant R/o H.no.11, J K Apartment, Jawalaheri,
Paschim Vihar West, New Delhi
d) Name & address of accused : Chirag Shokeen S/o Niranjan Singh,
R/o H.no. 175, Village Peeragharhi, New
Delhi.
e) Date of Commission of : 28.08.2014
offence
f) Offence complained off : u/S 380/511/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Final Order : Acquitted
i) Date of such order : 23.09.2025
j) State Represented by : Ms. Priya Narang, Ld. APP.
Date of Institution : 26.10.2014
Final arguments heard on : 23.09.2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 23.09.2025
FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 1/16
JUDGEMENT
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 28.08.2014 at about 5.30 am at National Market Vardhman Plaza, Ground Floor (ATM), ICICI Bank, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Mianwali Nagar, accused alongwith his accomplice in furtherance of their common intention dishonestly attempted to commit theft from the ATM Machine (i.e. place used for custody of property ) by breaking open the same and accused was apprehended after a brief chase and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 380 IPC read with Section 511/34 IPC
2. After investigation, challan for offence 380/511/34 IPC was filed. The compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C was done.
3. Notice for committing the offence punishable under Section 380/511/34 IPC was framed against both the accused on 09.09.2015 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses.
5. PW-1 Amit Rohilla deposed that about 2 years back, date month and year PW1 does not remember. PW1 was working at the company of M/s Blueberry Pvt. Ltd. at Paschim Vihar as IT head. On that day, PW1 was on duty at his office and his duty hour was from 07.00 PM to 05.00 AM. At about 05.30 AM when PW1 got down from office FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 2/16 building and saw that one person was inside ATM of ICICI Bank which was installed in the same building on the ground floor. PW1 could not see his face and thereafter PW1 left the spot. After 10 minutes from the way PW1 informed to the company Manager namely Sh. Jonny Sharma regarding this and PW1 told him that one person is inside the ATM, and doubted that there might be something wrong and asked him to check. On the next day, PW1 came to his office and informed that some persons were attempting to commit a theft in the ATM machine and they were apprehended by the staff of our office and handed over to the police. Nothing was happened in my presence. Thereafter, Ld. APP for the State seeks permission to cross examine the witness as PW1 was reziling from his statement. PW1 denied the suggest that on 27.08.2014, PW1 was working in the company situated at 221 second floor, Vardhman Plaza Paschim Vihar. PW1 denied the suggest that PW1 disclosed in his statement that when PW1 got down from the building at Ground Floor PW1 saw that at the gate of ATM Cabin one white colour bed sheet was hanging at the door of the ATM Machine and one person was standing outside for look out. PW1 denied the suggest that PW1 stated to the police that PW1 heard the noise that the drill machine being used inside the ATM. PW1 denied the suggest that PW1 has not stated to the police that PW1 immediately made a call to one of his co workers in his and thereafter two of his colleague namely Deepak Sharma and Bharat Nainal came from the office and after seeing them the boy who was standing at outside the ATM machine and the boy who was inside the ATM started running from there and Bharat and FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 3/16 Deepak chased them. PW1 denied the suggest that on the next evening PW1 came to the office and police inquired PW1 and his statement was recorded. PW1 denied the suggest that PW1 is deposing falsely as PW1 has been won over by the accused.
6. PW-2 Sh. Deepak Sharma deposed that PW2 is residing at the above stated address. PW2 does not remember the date of incident however, it was occurred in the year 2014. At that time, PW2 was working as Agent in the technical support situated at Vardhman Plaza Paschim Vihar. At that time his duty hours were from 10.00 PM to 07.00 AM. At around 07.00 AM PW2 was returning at home from his work place. There was one Amit Kumar. Technician and he log off at 05.00 AM in the morning and he saw that some persons are doing wrong thing in ATM Machine situated near by the office where PW2 was working. Immediately, Amit Kumar apprised the matter to the Manager namely Rajesh Sharma and thereafter Amit Kumar left the spot. On such information all the staff members of the company came at the spot. PW2 also came at the spot. On reaching at the spot PW2 saw that accused Chirag Shokeen was apprehended by one person namely Bharat Nihlani. Thereafter, they all staff members returned to their office and police officials came there after 10-15 minutes and inquired about the incident. Police officials recorded the statement of Bharat Nihlani. Police officials also inquired from PW1 and recorded his statement. Thereafter, Ld. APP for the State seeks permission to ask leading question from the witness. PW2 denied the suggestion that the date of incident FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 4/16 is 27/28.08.2014. It was apprised by Bharat Nihlani that accused Chirag Shokeen was committing theft in the ATM.
7. PW-3 Ct. Rakesh Kumar deposed that on 28.08.2014 PW3 was posted at PS Mianwali Nagar as constable. On that day, PW3 was deputed to perform patrolling duty/beat duty at beat area no. 8 which covers village peeragarhi. On the aforesaid date, at about 05-06 AM PW3 received information from person namely Bharat Ninani regarding that two persons are damaging the ATM machine at Vardhman Plaza, Bhera Enclave. On receipt of this information PW3 immediately rushed towards the aforesaid place where person namely Bharat Ninani along with one person namely Deepak were already present. At the same point of time they apprised to PW3 that the persons who were damaging the ATM Machine are hidden in a park which was situated nearby the place of incident. Promptly, when they rushed towards the aforesaid park for the purpose to search the persons who attempted to damage the ATM Machine, two persons tried to fled away from that park, however, one of them was apprehended at that time while the second one succeed to fled away from the spot. The person who was apprehended disclosed his name as Chirag Shokeen and then he was taken back at ATM machine where he attempted along with his accomplice to commit the offence of theft and therefrom one black colour bag with cutter, one screw (peckas) and one white chaddar were recovered. In the meantime, the complainat Bharat Ninani called at 100 number and on this PCR van official along with IO ASI Umed Kumar came at the spot. The crime FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 5/16 team official were also called at the spot. Therealter, PW3 recorded statement of complainant and on the same, rukka/tehrir was prepared by the IO and handed over to Ct. Virender for registration of FIR at PS. At that time, IO seized the aforesaid articles and the pullanda of the same was prepared. Thereafter, Ct. Vijender returned at the spot along with original rukka/tehrir and then present accused Chirag Shokeen was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW 3/A. The aforesaid articles were seized vide memo Ex. PW3/B. After completion of aforesaid proceedings, the present accused was taken at PS where he was put behind the bars after his medical examination and the case property as above mentioned was deposited with MHC(M).
8. PW-4 HC Parvinder deposed that on 28.08.2014 PW4 was posted as Constable at Mobile Crime Team, West District, Delhi. On that day at about 6.15 pm information was received by Si Kalyan Singh (IC. Mobile Crime Team, West District, Delhi) regarding theft at ATM ICICI Bank, National Marker, Delhi. On this information PW4 alongwith SI Kalyan Singh and Ct. Naveen (photographer) reached at the aforesaid placed where the offence was committed where from the chance-print/fingerprint was lifted under the supervision of Sl Kalyan Singh and the report of the same was prepared which is already on record and hereby marked as Mark P4/1. The photographs of the place of incident where from the chance-print/finger prints were lifted were taken by Ct. Naveen. The said photographs are already on record and hereby marked as Mark P4/2 (Colly.).
FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 6/16
9. PW-5 Ct. Naveen deposed that on 28.08.2014 PW5 was posted as Constable at Mobile Crime Team. West District, Delhi. On that day at about 6.15 pm information was received by Sl Kalyan Singh (IC. Mobile Crime Team, West District, Delhi) regarding theft at ATM ICICI Bank, National Market, Delhi. On this information PW5 alongwith Si Kalyan Singh and Ct. Parvinder reached at the aforesaid placed where the offence was committed where from the chance-print/fingerprint was lifted under the supervision of Si Kalyan Singh and the report of the same was prepared which is already on record and hereby marked as Mark P4/1. The photographs of the place of incident where from the chance-print/finger prints were lifted were taken by PW5. The said photographs are already on record and hereby marked as Mark P4/2 (Colly.) and hereby exhibited as Ex. PW5/A (Colly.). PW5 has brought the negatives of the photographs which are taken on record today as Ex. PW5/B (Colly.).
10. PW-6 SI Kalyan Singh deposed that on 28.08.2014, PW6 was posted at Mobile Crime Team West District as SI. On that day, PW6 received information from District Control Room regarding theft at National Market, Vardhman Plaza Ground Floor, ICICI Bank ATM, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. On this information, PW6 alongwith Ct. Parminder and Ct. Naveen who were part of the mobile crime team went to the above said spot where PW6 met with ASI Umed Singh. They found the ATM machine in broken condition. At the request of ASI, Umed Singh they picked up the three chance prints and FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 7/16 also took some photographs of the spot. Thereafter, the report of the above said chance prints and also the photographs were prepared and were handed over to the concerned IO.
11. PW-7 Avinash Kumar deposed that PW7 was deposing on behalf of Abhay Prakash, ICICI Bank. The whereabouts of Mr. Abhay Prakash are not known to the bank. PW7 was deposing on the behalf of the bank and the authority letter of the same issued by Deputy Branch Manager Swati Yadav is now taken on record. Authority letter is Ex.PW-7/A. The required CCTV footage in the present case is not available with the bank as the memory of DVR of the CCTV Camera is of only 90 days and hence the same is not available as the present matter pertains to the year 2014.
12. PW-8 ASI Umed Singh deposed that on 28.08.2014, PW8 was posted at PS Mianwali Nagar as ASI. On that day, PW8 was on night emergency duty from 08.00 pm to 08.00 am. On that PW8 received one DD No. 8A that two persons are trying to commit theft from the ATM machine with the help of one drill machine at National Market Vardhman Plaza, Ground Floor, ICICI Bank, ATM, Paschim Vihar, Delhi and the copy of the said DD Entry is Mark-8/A. On this information, PW8 alongwith Ct. Virender went to the above said spot where they found that the electric wires of the ATM machine, CCTV Camera and one alarm installed at the ATM were cut down. PW8 also found that the cover of the ATM machine was open. PW8 also found that complainant namely Bharat Nainani, Deepak and one Ct. Rakesh had already apprehended the accused and and the above said persons produced the accused to PW8. The above said persons also produced FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 8/16 to PW8 one bag which was found containing drill machine, wire cutter and one screw driver. One bed sheet was found lying near the bag. PW8 made inquiry from the accused on which he revealed his name as Chirag Shokeen. PW8 made a telephonic message to the crime team including the photographer and the finger print expert to visit the spot. After some time the above said crime team visited the spot and took the photographs of the spot and picked up the chance prints of the spot. The crime team prepared one report and handed over the same to PW8 vide Ex.PW-6/A. PW8 recorded the statement of complainant namely Bharat Nainani in his handwriting vide Ex.PW-8/A. Thereafter, PW8 prepared the rukka on the backside of the complaint vide Ex.PW-8/B and handed over the same to Ct. Virender to get the FIR lodged from PS Mianwali. As per his directions, Ct. Virender left the spot. PW8 recorded the statement of Sl Kalyan (IC Crime Team), Ct. Naveen (photographer) and Ct. Parminder (finger print expert) and relieved them from the investigation of the present case. In the mean time, Ct. Virender returned to the spot and handed PW8 the copy of FIR alongwith original rukka. Thereafter, PW8 prepared the seizure memo of the bag which was recovered from the possession of the accused vide Ex.PW-3/B. Thereafter, PW8 prepared the site plan of the spot on the instance of the complainant vide Ex.PW-8/C. Thereafter PW8 arrest the accused and got conduct his personal search vide memos Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-8/D. Thereafter, PW8 recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW-8/E. The information of the arrest of the accused was shared with the mother of the accused namely Smt. Meenu. PW8 recorded FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 9/16 the supplementary statement of the complainant and the statement of witnesses namely Deepak, Amit, Ct. Virender and Ct. Rakesh u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, PW8 alongwith Ct. Virdender alongwith accused and the case property returned to the PS. The accused was sent for medical examination at SGM hospital from where he returned to PS. Accused was produced before the court from where his PC remand was obtained for the search of the co-accused Mikka but he could not be traced. On the next day, the accused was produced before the court from where he was sent to JC. During the course of investigation, PW8 obtained the photographs alongwith the negatives of the spot from the crime team and the same is already Mark P-4/2 (colly) and Ex.PW-5/A. PW8 also requested the branch of ICICI Bank for the CCTV Footage of the ATM but the same could not be placed on record as the said bank failed to produce it before me. After completion of the investigation in the present case, PW8 prepared the challan against accused Chirag Shokeen and filed it before the concerned Court. At this stage, the attention of the witness is draw towards the photographs which already form part of the judicial file. On seeing the same, witness correctly identifies the spot and the same are already Mark P-4/2.
13. PW-9 ASI Usha Devi deposed that on 28.08.2014 PW9 was posted at PS Mianwali Nagar as Duty Officer and his duty hours were 8.00 am to 4.00 pm. On that day at about 8.25 am Ct. Virender came to the PS alongwith one rukka already Ex.PW8/A, PW9 made endorsement on the same already Ex.PW8/A at point A to A1 on the basis of FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 10/16 the same PW9 got the FIR EX.PW9/A (OSR) registered and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Virender to hand over the same to ASI Umed as investigation of the present case was marked to him.
14. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. had been recorded and attention of the accused was drawn towards the incriminating evidence appearing against to which the accused stated that the evidences were incorrect and the PWs were interested witnesses, who had falsely implicated accused and accused was innocent. Accused opted to lead DE but on next date of hearing counsel for accused stated that accused did not wish to lead DE.
15. I have heard the submission of the parties and have perused the records carefully.
16. Ld. counsel for accused relied upon judgment passed by Supreme Court of India case title Datar Singh vs State of Punjab 1975 AIR Supreme Court 1193 :-
"Here, we may refer to the evidence of Ballistic expert Shri J. K. Sinha, D. W. 10, Assistant Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, who was not produced by the prosecution probably because he had made a report showing that it was not possible to connect the cartridges with the gun as the impressions made by the hammer were to indistinct. The gun was proved, from its licence, to belong to Mohan Singh, the son-in-law of Thakar Singh. It was not sent for examination of any finger prints on it. Had there been such evidence of the appellant's finger prints on the gun, it would have furnished strong corroborative evidence. In the circumstances of the case, we find it difficult to link the gun with the actual weapon with which the murder was committed. It is not inconceivable that it was left deliberately outside by someone to confuse the investigating authorities."
FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 11/16
17. In case title Tomaso Bruno and Another vs state of U.P. passed by Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal no.142 of 2015 :-
"In the instant case three persons (foreign nationals) stayed in a hotel room in the night - In the morning one person was found dead due to strangulation Prosecution held the other two guilty of offence - Defence version that on the night they had gone out for sight seeing and when they came that found the deceased lying dead-CCIV cameras were installed in the hotel Prosecution failed to produce CCTV footage to prove that accused persons were not gone out of hotel Prosecution which was in possession of the best evidence (CCTV footage) ought to have produced the same Held, it is a fit case to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act that the prosecution withheld the same as it would be unfavourable to them had it been produced."
18. In case title Sunder vs State (N.C.T. of Delhi) passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal no.450 with 602 of 2002 :-
"Criminal Appeal No. 450/2002 has been filed by Sunder and Criminal Appeal No. 602/2002 by Sathir Singh under section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ("TADA in short) against the judgment and order dated 5th and 6th May, 1998 passed by the Designated Court, Delhi By the said judgment the appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 399 and 402, Indian Penal Code as also Section 25 of the Arms Act. Besides these two appellants, the three other accused who were convicted by the Designated Court by common judgment were Suleman, Chiman and Sadhu Ram. Suleman and Sadhu Ram were also convicted under Section 5 of the TADA Act. We are, however, not concerned with their caves since the appeals filed by the said three were decided by this Court in case reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1707: 1999 CrilJ 2525: 1999(4) SCC 146, Suleman and others v. State of Delhi and their conviction under Sections 399 and 402, Indian Penal Code was set aside. The conviction and sentence under TADA Act was, however, maintained and also the conviction and sentence for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. For offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the Designated Court has imposed on each of the appellants sentence of one year and fine of Rs. 400/-
2. It is not in question that for reasonsstated in Suleman's case (supra) the conviction and sentence of the appellants as well for offences under Sections 399 and 402, Indian Penal Code deserves to be set aside.
FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 12/16
3. That leaves the question in respect of conviction and sentence of the two appellants before us for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
4. Challenging the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellants have made two submissions (1) Designated Court had no jurisdiction to try the case against the appellants, and (2) Recovery of knives from the appellants has not been proved and, therefore, the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
5. The basis of the first submission is the non-framing of charge under any provision of TADA Act against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the non-framing of charge against the appellants under TADA Act, the Designated Court had no jurisdiction to try them for offences under Sections 399 and 402, Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act as Sections 11 and 12 of the TADA Act only confer power on the Designated Court to try offences under TADA Act and under other penal laws only when there is also a charge under the TADA Act. The submission is that if there is no charge against the accused under TADA Act the only course open to the Designated Court is to transfer the case under Section 18 of the TADA Act for trial of other offences by a Court having jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Sukhbir Singh and others v. State of Haryana, (JT 1997(8) SC
379).
6. In support of the second contention, learned counsel for the parties have taken us through the testimony of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6. P.W. 2 is a Head Constable Chand Singh, P.W. 3 is Inspector Ram Pal Sharma and P.W. 6 is
5. L. Om Prakash. The testimony of P.W. 3 has no relevance in so far as the recovery from the appellants is concerned. According to the case of the prosecution, knives were recovered from the appellants. The recovery of knives is evidenced by Recovery Memos, P.W. 2/P (in respect of Sunder) and P.W. 2/Q (in respect of Sathir Singh). The recoveries were sought to be proved in the testimony of P.W. 2 Chand Singh. The said witness was, however, declared hostile. We have examined his testimony. It is not possible and safe to place any reliance on testimony of P.W. 2. The aforesaid two documents of recovery are witnessed by Head Constable Prakash Chand and ASI Rajbir Singh besides P.W. 2. Despite the fact that P.W. 2 was declared hostile, prosecution did not think it appropriate to examine the aforesaid other two witnesses of Recovery Memos, or at least one of them. Out of three witnesses of recovery, the senior most was ASI, FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 13/16 other being two Head Constables. We have also examined the testimony of P.W.6 5.1. Om Prakash. There are material contradictions in the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.6. Under these circumstances we have no option but to hold that the seizure of knives from the appellants has not been proved.
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the decision in Suleman's case (supra) the recovery against the appellants also stands proved. In the said decision the Court relying on the aforesaid prosecution witnesses held that the seizure of the fire-arms against the appellants before the Court in Suleman's case stood proved. We are not concerned with the seizure of the fire-arms. Regarding recovery of knives except a passing reference there is no discussion in Suleman's case. In any event, we are not concerned in these appeals with the question of recovery of fire-arms or knives from Suleman, Chiman or Sadhu Ram, the appellants in Suleman's case. In the present appeals, we are concerned with the recovery of the knives from the two appellants. It cannot be said that since the recovery against the three appellants in Suleman's case was held to be proved, it is not open to the appellants in the present appeals, to urge to the contrary. These appellants were not parties in Suleman's case and factual finding therein cannot hind them Keeping in view Suleman's judgment, with the assistance oflearned counsel for the parties, we minutely examined the original case record since the State had not filed the record as was required by it under the Rules. On examination thereof, we have no doubt that the recovery from the appellants of the knives has not been proved and. therefore, their conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act cannot be maintained."
19. Ld. counsel for accused further relied upon the judgment case title Pawan Kumar vs Delhi Administration passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court Criminal Appeal no.113 of 1987, Suraj Mal vs State (Delhi Administration) passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal no.202 of 1974, Kanan and others vs State of Kerala passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal no.245 of 1973, Selvaraj @ Chinnapaiyan vs State represented by Inspector of Police passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal no.892 of 2009, Vijay Singh vs State of M.P. passed by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court Criminal Appeal no.78/1990 and Shingara Singh vs State of Haryana and Anr. passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal no.682-683 of 1996.
20. Indian Penal Code provides that :
FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 14/16 Section 380 Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 511 Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
21. In the present case PW1 has stated that he was working at M/s Blueberry Pvt Ltd at Paschim Vihar as IT Head. He has further stated that at 5.30 am when he got down from the office building he saw one person inside ATM of ICICI Bank installed in the same building. He has further stated that he could not see the face of the accused, however, he has informed the company manager i.e.. Sh. Johny Sharma regarding this. It is apparent that PW1 has not seen any of the accused specifically.
22. PW2 has stated that he was working as agent in the Technical Support at Vardhman Plaza Paschim Vihar. He has further stated that at about 7.00 am he was returning home from his work. He has further stated that Sh. Amit Kumar has apprised the matter to the Manager Rajesh Sharma. PW2 has further stated that on reaching the spot he saw accused Chirag Shokeen who has been apprehended by Sh. Bharat Nihlani. PW2 correctly identified the accused in the court. In the cross examination, PW2 has stated that accused was not arrested in his presence. PW2 has further stated that he had seen accused for the first time in the court.
23. PW3 i.e. Ct. Rakesh Kumar has not depicted the prosecution story in succinct manner. PW3 has stated that accused Chirag Shokeen was arrested from the park and the other accused fled away. The place of arrest of the accused creates a doubt on the story FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 15/16 of the prosecution. Whereas PW1 and PW2 have stated that accused was arrested from the spot, police officials have stated that accused was arrested from the park.
24. The photographs filed by the IO have been perused. In the photographs it is clearly seen that CCTV Camera has been installed. It is not clear as to why CCTV camera footage was not obtained by the IO. The chance prints have also not been obtained by the IO. There is no eye witness to the incident who has actually seen the face of the accused committing the crime. The story put forth by the public witnesses and the police officials regarding the whole incident does not add up. The benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.
25. In conclusion, the accused Chirag Shokeen stands acquitted of offence under section 380/511/34 of IPC.
ANKIT Digitally signed by
ANKIT KARAN SINGH
KARAN Date: 2025.09.23
SINGH 18:49:46 +0530
Dictated & Announced (Ankit Karan Singh)
in Open Court JMFC-08/West/Delhi
On 23.09.2025
FIR No. 642/14 State V. Chirag Shokeen 16/16