Delhi District Court
State vs Sandeep And Ors on 26 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CNR No. DLSH01-006730-2020
SC No. 198/2020
FIR No. 16529/2020
PS : Madhu Vihar
U/s : 379/411/413/34 IPC
STATE
VS.
(1) SANDEEP,
S/o Sh. Amar Singh,
R/o Village Niyora, PS Rajpura,
Sambhal, UP.
(2) RAKESH,
S/o Sh. Sukhram,
R/o Village Kheda Chabutra,
PS Gunnor, Sambhal, UP.
(3) DINESH,
S/o Sh. Ghanshyam,
R/o Village Kiradi, PS Baijoi,
Sambhal, UP. .... Accused persons
Date of Institution of case 03.11.2020
Date of case reserved for Judgment 24.02.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 26.02.2026
Decision Accused Sandeep, Rakesh
and Dinesh acquitted u/s
411/34 & 413 IPC each.
State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 1 of 27
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26
16:11:06 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, on 20.07.2020, complainant Usha got registered an online e-FIR no. 16529/2020, u/s 379 IPC regarding theft of her motorcycle make Hero Splendor bearing no. DL7SCG5620 from front of her house at A-179, Chander Vihar, Mandawali, Delhi-110092 on 19- 20.07.2020 between 10:30 pm to 07:00 am. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant and recorded her statement. ASI Sudhir Kumar of PS PIA informed on 21.07.2020 that accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh were arrested in FIR No. 191/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act and 411 IPC, PS PIA on 21.07.2020 and the said stolen motorcycle of complainant was recovered from them. Then, section 411/34 IPC was added in the present FIR and accused persons were formally arrested in the present case and they were found to be habitual offenders of stealing the vehicles.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons namely Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh u/s 379/411/413/34 IPC and after filing of charge sheet, cognizance of offences was taken against the accused persons.
CHARGE
3. Charge for the offences punishable u/s 411/34 & 413 IPC was framed against accused persons namely Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh by Ld. Predecessor on 19.05.2022. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 2 of 27Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:11:12 +0530 ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
4. Admission/denial of documents u/s 330 BNSS (u/s 294 Cr.P.C.) was conducted on 15.03.2023 and accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh had not disputed the following documents:
(i) FIR No. 016529/2020 dt. 20.07.2020, PS Madhu Vihar, Ex.P1/A.
(ii) Certificate u/s 65B IEA, Ex.P1/B.
(iii) DD No. 55A dt. 24.07.2020, PS Madhu Vihar, Ex.P1/C.
(iv) DD No. 57A dt. 21.07.2020, PS Madhu Vihar, Ex.P1/D.
(v) DD No. 34A dt. 25.07.2020, PS Madhu Vihar, Ex.P1/E.
(vi) FIR No. 191/2020, PS PIA, Ex.P1/F. In view of above-said admission, the requirement of evidence of following witnesses was dispensed with:
(a) Insp. Shivaji Chauhan (mentioned at Sl. No. 7 in the LoW).
(b) Ahlmad of FIR No. 191/2020, PS PIA (mentioned at Sl. No. 7 in the LoW).
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution examined six witnesses (6) in its favour to prove the case.
6. PW1 Usha Srivastava deposed that about 1.5 years back since 17.01.2023 i.e. 19.07.2020, her husband had parked motorcycle make Hero Honda bearing no. DL7SCG5620 registered in her name at A-79, Gali No. 7, Chander Vihar, Delhi and on the next day in the morning on 20th, her vehicle was not there in the gali where it was parked in the evening of previous day.
7. PW1 further deposed that her husband had lodged the complaint online to the police and on the same day, police had come there and conducted the necessary action. After 10-15 days of the incident, her son received a telephone message from the State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 3 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.02.26 16:11:18 +0530 PS Madhu Vihar that her motorcycle was recovered. Her vehicle was released from PS through her son. On 20.07.2020, IO prepared the site plan at her instance, Mark-Z and recorded her statement. PW1 got released her motorcycle on superdaari vide superdarinama, Ex.PW1/A and correctly identified her said motorcycle from the 4 photographs, Ex.P1/X1 to Ex.P1/X4.
8. PW2 ASI Sudhir Kumar deposed that on 20.07.2020, he was posted as ASI at PS Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi and on that day at about 9 PM, further investigation of the case FIR No. 191/2020, PS PIA u/s 411 IPC and 25 Arms Act was marked to him. Ct. Yograj handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR No. 191/2020 to PW2. PW2 along with Ct. Yograj reached at Road No. 56, Oppo. Tarang Banquet Hall, Village Ghazipur, where he met SI Narender Kumar, Ct. Shiv Kumar and Ct. Rohit, who produced accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh to PW2.
9. PW2 further deposed that 1st IO/SI Narender Kumar produced three sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of NK and also produced one bullet motorcycle (without number plate), which was found to be stolen in the Case e-FIR No. 016539/2020 u/s 379 IPC, to PW2. IO/SI Narender Kumar also handed over seizure memos of abovesaid motorcycle and pullandas of recovered knives and country made pistol along with cartridges.
10. PW2 further deposed that he arrested accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh vide arrest memos dated 20.07.2020, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C and correctly identified signature of Ct. Rohit and Ct. Yograj on the same. PW2 recorded disclosure statements of accused Sandeep, Rakesh and State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 4 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:11:23 +0530 Dinesh vide statements, dt. 21.07.2020, Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F. Personal search of accused Sandeep, Dinesh and Rakesh were also conducted vide memos, Ex.PW6/B (OSR), Ex.PW6/C (OSR) and Ex.PW6/D (OSR).
11. PW2 further deposed that accused persons disclosed that they could get recover six stolen motorcycles from a parking of park in front of Ghazipur Sabji Mandi, Delhi. Thereafter, accused persons took them to the above said park and got recovered six motorcycles including the stolen motorcycle of present case i.e. DL7SCG5620 make Hero Honda Splendor, which was found to be stolen in the present case. PW2 seized the above said six motorcycles vide seizure memo, Ex.PW6/A (OSR) bearing his signature at point B and signature of Ct. Yograj and Ct. Rohit at point C and D respectively. PW2 gave information at PS Madhu Vihar and they returned to PS and deposited the case property i.e. above said motorcycles in the malkhana. On 24.07.2020, HC Ramkesh Meena (IO of the present case) came at PS PIA and recorded his statement. PW2 had correctly identified the 4 photographs, Ex.P1/X1 to X4 of said stolen motorcycle bearing no. DL7SCG5620. PW2 had correctly identified accused Sandeep and Dinesh in the Court and identity of accused Rakesh was not disputed (who was exempted that day).
12. PW3 Insp. Narender Kumar deposed that on 20.07.2020, he was posted as SI at PS Patparganj Industrial Area and on that day, he along with Ct. Shiv Kumar, Ct. Yograj and Ct.
Rohit was on picket duty at Road No. 56, opposite Tarang Banquet Hall, Ghazipur, Delhi. At about 05:30 pm, they saw one State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 5 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:11:27 +0530 black colour bullet motorcycle (without number plate) coming from Ghazipur underpass side and going towards Anand Vihar.
13. PW3 further deposed that he gave indication to stop the driver of the above-said motorcycle, but he tried to turn the motorcycle and in that process, the driver and pillion riders fell down on the road. PW3 along with other police staff managed to apprehend all of the above-said three persons i.e. driver and pillion riders of above said motorcycle. On interrogation, name of accused Sandeep came to be known as driver and accused Rakesh was sitting in the middle of seat and accused Dinesh was sitting on the last seat. PW3 further deposed that thereafter, PW3 conducted the search of accused Sandeep and Rakesh, one buttondar knife was recovered from possession of each of them and one loaded katta and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Dinesh.
14. PW3 further deposed that he prepared the sketch of above-said knives, katta and cartridges and then seized the same vide separate seizure memos with the seal of 'NK'. Thereafter, on checking the above-said bullet motorcycle, it was found to be stolen from the area of PS New Ashok Nagar. PW3 prepared the rukka, Ex.PW3/A and got registered the FIR No. 191/2020 dated 20.07.2020, PS PIA through Ct. Yograj. PW3 further deposed that after registration of FIR, further investigation was marked to 2nd IO/ASI Sudhir Kumar. After registration of FIR, PW3 handed over the sealed pulandas and other relevant documents to ASI Sudhir. On 24.07.2020, HC Ramkesh Meena (IO of the present case) came at PS PIA and recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 6 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:11:33 +0530 in the present case. PW3 had correctly identified accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh in the Court.
15. PW4 Amit Srivastava deposed that on 29.08.2020, he along with his father went to PS Madhu Vihar and got released the motorcycle bearing no. DL7SCG5620 Splendor on superdaari, vide panchnama dt. 29.08.2020, Ex.PW4/A, which was registered in the name of his mother Usha Srivastava.
16. PW5 ASI Ramkesh deposed that on 20.07.2020, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Madhu Vihar and on that day, after registration of e-FIR i.e. 016529/2020, PS Madhu Vihar u/s 379 IPC. The investigation of the above said FIR was marked to him and he recorded the statement of Smt. Usha u/s 161 Cr.PC regarding the theft of motorcycle bearing no.
DL7SCG5620 and prepared the site plan, Ex.PW5/A (Mark-Z) at the instance of complainant Usha. Thereafter, he searched for the case property and accused, but in vain.
17. PW5 further deposed that on 21.07.2020, he received information vide DD No. 57A from ASI Sudhir, PS PIA regarding the recovery of aforesaid motorcycle. On 24.07.2020, he went to PS PIA and collected the photocopy of relevant documents of case FIR No. 191/2020, PS PIA from the IO/ASI Sudhir. Thereafter, PW5 went to Mandoli Jail and formally arrested accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh vide arrest memos dt. 24.07.2020, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D and disclosure statements of accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh were recorded vide statements dt. 24.07.2020, Ex.PW5/E, Ex.PW5/F and Ex.PW5/G respectively.
State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 7 of 27
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26
16:11:39
+0530
18. PW5 further deposed that on 25.07.2020, he seized the motorcycle bearing no. DL7SCG5620 vide seizure memo, Ex.PW5/H, from PS PIA vide RC No. 67/21/20, Ex.PW5/I. On 29.08.2020, as per the directions of Hon'ble Court, the aforesaid motorcycle was released to Amit Kumar Srivastava vide panchnama Ex.PW4/A. PW5 collected the previous involvement and conviction report regarding accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh from SCRB, Ex.PW5/J, Ex.PW5/K and Ex.PW5/L respectively. PW5 prepared the charge-sheet u/s 379/411/413/34 IPC and submitted it before the Hon'ble Court. PW5 had correctly identified the 4 photographs of the stolen motorcycle bearing No. DL5SCG5620., Ex.P1/X1 to Ex.P1/X4. PW5 had correctly identified accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh in the Court.
19. PW6 HC Shiv Kumar deposed that on 20.07.2020, he was posted as Constable at PS Patparganj Industrial Area and on that day, he along with Ct. Yograj, Ct. Rohit and SI Narendra Kumar was on picket duty at Road No. 56, opposite Tarang Banquet Hall, Ghazipur, Delhi. At about 05:45 pm, they saw one black colour bullet motorcycle (without number plate) coming from Ghazipur underpass side and going towards Anand Vihar. SI Narendra Kumar gave indication to stop to the driver of the above-said motorcycle, but he tried to turn the motorcycle and in that process, the driver and pillion riders fell down on the road.
20. PW6 further deposed that he along with other police staff managed to apprehend accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh and accused Sandeep was driving the said motorcycle, State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 8 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:11:44 +0530 accused Rakesh was riding pillion and accused Dinesh was sitting at the rear seat. PW6 further deposed that SI Narendra Kumar conducted the search of accused Sandeep and Rakesh, one buttondar knife was recovered from possession of accused persons each and one loaded katta and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Dinesh.
21. PW6 further deposed that SI Narendra Kumar prepared the sketch of above-said knives, katta and cartridges and then seized the same vide separate seizure memos with the seal of 'NK'. Thereafter, on checking the above-said bullet motorcycle, it was found to be stolen from the area of PS New Ashok Nagar. IO prepared the rukka, Ex.PW3/A and got registered the FIR No. 191/2020 dt. 20.07.2020, PS PIA through Ct. Yograj and then, further investigation was marked to 2 nd IO/ASI Sudhir Kumar and SI Narendra Kumar handed over the sealed pulandas and other relevant documents to ASI Sudhir.
22. PW6 further deposed that accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh were arrested by ASI Sudhir vide arrest memo, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C, personal search of accused Sandeep, Dinesh and Rakesh vide memos, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D (OSR) were prepared and disclosure statements of accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh were recorded vide statements, Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F respectively. PW6 further deposed that accused persons disclosed that they could get recover six stolen motorcycles from a parking of park in front of Ghazipur Sabji Mandi, Delhi. Thereafter, accused persons took them to the above said park and got State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 9 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.02.26 16:11:48 +0530 recovered six motorcycles including the stolen motorcycle of present case i.e. DL7SCG5620 make Hero Honda Splendor, which was found to be stolen in the present case. IO seized the above said six motorcycles vide seizure memo, Ex.PW6/A. IO gave information at PS Madhu Vihar. They returned to the PS. PW6 had correctly identified 4 photographs, Ex.P1/X1 to X4 of the above said stolen motorcycle i.e. DL7SCG5620. PW6 had correctly identified accused Sandeep and Dinesh in the Court and identity of accused Rakesh was not disputed.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS u/s 351 BNSS/313 Cr.P.C.
23. Statements of the accused persons namely Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C./351 BNSS and they denied the incriminating evidence put to them and stated that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and they were falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case without any fault on their part and they are innocent.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDING ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED PERSONS
24. Ld. counsel for the accused persons argued that they are falsely implicated by the police and they are innocent and they were never convicted in any such case prior to this case and their disclosure statements were falsely recorded by the IO on his own and nothing was recovered at their instance or from their possession and false recovery of stolen vehicles is shown from the public place, which was accessible to all. There is no State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 10 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.02.26 16:11:53 +0530 independent witness to the recovery of the stolen motorcycle and there is no video or photography of the recovery, which was shown as joint recovery and as such recovery is not admissible in law. There is no eye-witness to the theft of alleged motorcycle DL7SCG5620 and there is no charge of theft and they had not not stolen the same as such accused persons have no knowledge, if it was a stolen motorcycle. The accused persons are not habitual of dealing in stolen properties. Thus, prosecution could not prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
25. Ld. Addl.PP for State has argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons as there are several cases of theft and robbery registered against them and list of the same is filed by the IO including one of conviction and they have made separate disclosures regarding involvement in the theft of one motorcycle in the present case and they got recovered the stolen motorcycle of this case as well as other stolen motorcycles. The recovery is proved by the police witnesses and factum of theft is proved by the complainant Usha. The accused persons are habitual of receiving or retaining the stolen properties, which is evident from the cases registered against them.
26. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.
27. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses including complainant/PW1 Usha Srivastava.
State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 11 of 27Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:11:58 +0530
28. The charge against accused persons are u/s 413 & 411/34 IPC.
Section 411 IPC. Dishonestly receiving stolen property:- Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 413 IPC: Habitually dealing in stolen property: Whoever habitually receives or deals in property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 34 IPC. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:-
When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
29. The present case was registered on the complaint of complainant Usha, who got registered an online e-FIR no. 16529/2020, u/s 379 IPC dt. 20.07.2020, regarding theft of her motorcycle make Hero Splendor bearing no. DL7SCG5620 from front of her house at A-179, Chander Vihar, Mandawali, Delhi-110092 on 19-20.07.2020 between 10:30 pm to 07:00 am.
30. In the present case, PW1 Usha proved that her motorcycle bearing no. DL7SCG5620 was stolen on the night of 19-20.07.2020 and her husband got registered an e-FIR, Ex.P1/A, which is admitted by accused persons and in her cross- examination, also accused persons have not disputed the same, but she stated that she had not seen the persons, who committed State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 12 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.02.26 16:12:03 +0530 theft of her said motorcycle.
31. PW1 got released the said motorcycle on superdaari and correctly identified it in photographs, Ex.P1/X1 to X4. PW1 proved the site plan, Ex.PW5/A (Mark-Z), prepared at her instance.
32. PW4 Amit Kumar Srivastava also proved that the stolen motorcycle was released on superdaari vide panchnama dt. 29.08.2020, Ex.PW4/A, which was registered in the name of his mother Usha Srivastava and the same is corroborated by PW5, who also identified the said motorcycle from photographs, Ex.P1/X1 to Ex.P1/X4, but the same is not disputed by accused persons.
POLICE WITNESSES
33. PW2 ASI Sudhir was the IO of FIR No. 191/2020, PS PIA and during investigation, he along with Ct. Yograj reached Road No. 56, Village Ghazipur, opposite Tarang Banquet Hall, Delhi and met SI Narender Kumar, Ct. Shiv Kumar and Ct. Rohit and they produced accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh and SI Narender produced one bullet motorcycle without number plate, stolen in e-FIR No. 016529/2020 u/s 379 IPC and he proved the arrest of said accused persons in that case vide arrest memos, dt. 20.07.2020, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C (OSR) and recorded their disclosures, dt. 21.07.2020, Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F (OSR) and conducted their personal search, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D (OSR) and one red/black colour Lava and one black colour Vivo mobile phones were recovered from accused Sandeep and Rakesh and the same is State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 13 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:12:08 +0530 corroborated by PW6, but they are not connected with present case and nothing was recovered from accused Dinesh in their personal search.
34. PW2 stated that all accused persons disclosed that they had stolen 14 motorcycles from different locations including the present one i.e. DL7SCG5620 from Chander Vihar, Mandawali, Delhi and they had parked the same near park at Ghazipur Sabji Mandi, Delhi to sale the same and they could get the same recovered from nearby the said park.
35. Accused persons took PW2 to the said park at Ghazipur Sabji Mandi, Delhi and got recovered 6 motorcycles including DL7SCG5620 Hero Splendor, which was stolen in the present case, which was seized by PW6 vide seizure memo, Ex.PW6/A (OSR) and this fact is corroborated by PW2. PW2 correctly identified the said motorcycle from photographs, Ex.P1/X1 to Ex.P1/X4.
36. In his cross-examination, PW2 and PW6 admitted that they had not made any public person as witness during recovery of said motorcycle, which was recovered from park, opposite Sabji Mandi or during his arrest, personal search and disclosure.
No video recording or photography of the recovery was done nor any public witness was made a witness either at the time of recording of disclosure or recovery and the said motorcycle was recovered from an open place accessible to all and it is not stated by the IO in his deposition as to since when said motorcycles were lying there and there is no charge of theft u/s 379 IPC against any of the accused persons.
State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 14 of 27Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:12:14 +0530
37. PW6 in his cross-examination, stated that he did not remember about any departure entry and no such entry was proved, which doubts his presence at the place of recovery. There is no time of recovery mentioned by the IO in his deposition, which coupled with above facts, also cast a doubt on recovery of said motorcycle.
38. PW3 Insp. Narender Kumar proved the fact that on 20.07.2020, he along with other police staff apprehended accused persons with one black colour bullet motorcycle (without number plate) at about 05:30 pm, near Tarang Banquet Hall, Ghazipur, Delhi and accused Sandeep was driving it, accused Rakesh and Dinesh were sitting in the middle and rear seat and PW3 correctly identified them and one buttondar knife was recovered from accused Sandeep and Rakesh each and one loaded katta and two live cartridges were recovered from accused Dinesh and he prepared rukka, Ex.PW3/A and got registered FIR No. 191/2020, PS PIA, which is also corroborated by PW6, but the said recovery has no connection with the present case as it is subject matter of that FIR No. 191/2020, PS PIA.
39. PW5 ASI Ramkesh proved the site plan, Ex.PW5/A regarding theft of motorcycle i.e. DL7SCG5620, but that is not disputed by accused persons. PW5 received information vide DD No. 57A, Ex.P1/D from PW2 regarding recovery of said motorcycle and on 24.07.2020, he went to PS PIA and collected the relevant documents and formally arrested accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh vide arrest memos, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D, their disclosure statements, Ex.PW5/E, State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 15 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:12:19 +0530 Ex.PW5/F and Ex.PW5/G, but the said disclosure statements are not admissible as there is no recovery effected from the said disclosure and accused persons had only disclosed about the theft of said motorcycle and no charge of theft is framed against any of them in the present case nor there is any eye-witness or CCTV footage of theft, so accused persons cannot be linked to theft of the present motorcycle and even they had not disclosed that the said motorcycle was recovered from whom and from which place and at what time. Accused persons have retracted their disclosure statements during trial.
40. PW1 seized the said motorcycle vide seizure memo, Ex.PW5/H vide RC, Ex.PW5/I. PW5 exhibited the previous involvements of the accused persons from SCRB Data of accused Sandeep, Rakesh, Dinesh, Ex.PW5/J, Ex.PW5/K and Ex.PW5/L i.e. a computerized copy and there is no certificate u/s 65B IEA filed with the same to prove the same as per law. Further they only mention the previous involvements of accused persons and nothing is reflected that they were convicted or not.
41. In his cross-examination, PW5 admitted that he had not filed any previous conviction report of accused persons rather only previous involvement and he was not aware of conviction of accused persons and recovery was not effected in his presence.
42. In Ajay Sethi Vs. State of NCT of Delhi of DB of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 30.08.2017, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, upheld the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Banne Singh @ Pahalwan Vs. State of Rajasthan dated 15.01.2014, wherein it was held that:
State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 16 of 27Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:12:24 +0530 "49. Something more is required to establish that the offender is in the habit of dealing with or receiving stolen property. Since the offence under Section 413 IPC is inter-related with and is an aggravated form of Section 411 IPC, the State would have to prove and establish that the offender was convicted repeatedly, twice or more than twice, for offence under Section 411 IPC so as to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he is in the habit of dealing with or receiving stolen property. Therefore, the conviction under Section 413 IPC is based on repeated convictions for offence under Section 411 IPC. Due to previous conviction, a punishment of different kind is prescribed in Section 413 IPC which the accused is required to undergo.
50. Hence, while prosecuting a person for offence under Section 413 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following factors:
Firstly, the property in question has been stolen from a place. Thus, the prosecution must bring the property within the ambit of Section 410 IPC within the definition of stolen property. Secondly, the offender has been dealing with or receiving stolen property. Thirdly, the offender knew or had a reason to believe the property to be stolen. Fourthly, he has been repeatedly convicted, i.e twice or more than twice, of offence under Section 411 IPC. It is only after the prosecution establishes these factors that the court would be legally justified in concluding that the offender is habitually dealing with or receiving stolen property and in imposing the punishment as prescribed by Section 413 IPC".
43. Thus, in light of Ajay Sethi (Supra) the charge u/s 413 IPC would not sustain against the accused persons as they were not proved to be convicted twice or more in offence u/s 411 IPC. Thus, prosecution failed to prove the charge u/s 413 IPC against accused persons.
State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 17 of 27Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:12:29 +0530
44. As regards the charge u/s 411 IPC, the recovery of stolen motorcycle of the present case, the same was effected in FIR No. 191/2020, PS PIA and not in this case, and IO of that case i.e. PW2 and that of present case i.e. PW5, have not deposed specifically that they got to know about the information of the fact that stolen motorcycle was lying in park near Ghazipur Sabji Mandi, Delhi and at what time, disclosures were made and at what time, recovery was effected and have not explained why public persons were not made a witness.
45. In Abdul Jabbar Vs. State of Kerala, 2025: KER:
61858, Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that while recovery under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act can be a crucial piece of evidence, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction as it is not substantive evidence and needs to be corroborated by other evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
46. In Manoj Kumar Soni Vs. State of MP, AIR 2023, SC 3857, it was held that disclosure statements are not so strong a piece of evidence, sufficient on their own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption u/s 114(a) Evidence Act must be drawn considering other evidence on record and without corroboration from other cogent evidence, it must not be drawn in isolation. It was further held that solely relying on the disclosure statement made by the accused, conviction under Section 411 of IPC is also not permissible.
State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 18 of 27Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.02.26 16:12:35 +0530
47. In K Venkateshwar Rao @ Venkatal @ I Rao Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police AP, 2002 (6) SCC 247 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while the charge of dacoity has not been proved by the prosecution, the charge u/s 412 IPC of retaining the stolen articles of dacoity fails automatically.
48. In the instant case also, there was no charge u/s 379 IPC framed or proved against the accused persons by the prosecution and as such the charge u/s 411 IPC automatically fails in view of K Venkateshwar Rao (Supra).
49. No independent public person was made a witness during any of the recovery proceedings and stereo type answers were given by police officials that no public person joined the investigation.
50. In Ravindra Nath Prusty Vs. State of Orissa, 1984 Cr.LJ 1392, Hon'ble Orissa High Court held that "10.... One of the formalities that has to be observed in searching a person is that searching officer and others assisting him should give their personal search to the accused before searching the person of accused. ..... This rule is meant to avoid the possibility of implanting the object, which was brought by the search. There is no evidence on record whatsoever, that the raiding party gave their personal search to the accused before the latter's person was searched..... No independent witness had witnessed the search. In the above premises, my conclusion is that search was illegal and consequently, the conviction based thereon is also vitiated."
51. In Radhey Shyam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No. 2203/2010 decided on 12.04.2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
7. Thus, PW4, who claims to be an eye witness, could not identify a single accused by name in the Court though she claimed that she State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 19 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:12:40 +0530 was in a position to identify the accused by their names as well as their respective father's name.
9. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the identity of the named accused as assailants of the deceased has not been established in the Court beyond a reasonable doubt. Then what remains is the evidence of the alleged recovery of the weapons of assault at the instance of the accused. The conviction cannot be sustained only on the basis of the alleged recovery.
52. In the case of Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1983 (1) SCC 143, it was held by this Court as follows:-
"5. ....If evidence otherwise confessional in character is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is obligatory upon the Investigating Officer to state and record who gave the information; when he is dealing with more than one accused, what words were used by him so that a recovery pursuant to the information received may be connected to the person giving the information so as to provide incriminating evidence against that person."
Further, in the case of Subramanya v. State of Karnataka 2022 SCC Online SC 1400, it was held as under: -
84. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence, the site of burial of the dead body, clothes etc., then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses would arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence etc. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch-witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 20 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:12:45 +0530 incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of the independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two independent witnesses (panch-witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as may be led by the accused. If from that particular place anything like the weapon of offence or blood stained clothes or any other article is discovered then that part of the entire process would form the second part of the panchnama. This is how the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. If we read the entire oral evidence of the investigating officer then it is clear that the same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter."
53. Similar view was taken in the case of Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC Online SC 1396, wherein it was held that mere exhibiting of memorandum prepared by the Investigating Officer during investigation cannot tantamount to proof of its contents. While testifying on oath, the Investigating Officer would be required to narrate the sequence of events which transpired leading to the recording of the disclosure statement.
69. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that neither the disclosure memos were proved in accordance with law nor the recovery of the weapons from open spaces inspire confidence and were wrongly relied upon by the High Court as incriminating material so as to reverse the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
54. IO has not followed the ratio of these above judgments nor deposed so, which affects the credibility of the State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 21 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:12:50 +0530 recovery of the motorcycle.
55. In Mohd. Inayatullah V. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered "the offence of theft and that the accused had made a statement of the place where the stolen drums were kept by him. Finding the admissible portion of the statement to be only the location of three drums, it was held that the information taken in conjunction with the facts discovered, was insufficient to draw the presumption that the accused was the thief or the receiver of the stolen property, with the knowledge that the it was stolen. The drums in question were found in the compound or yard of a musafirkhana (rest place for travellers) and it was neither lying concealed nor was the compound under the lock and key of the accused."
Similarly, the said fact was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka, 2025 INSC 1135 dt. 22.09.2025.
56. In the present case, the joint recovery is shown from the open place i.e. park near Ghazipur Sabji Mandi, Delhi, which was accessible to all and that the said motorcycle was not hidden with any object nor it was any secluded area and thus, the said recovery is not proved from the accused persons.
57. Thus, the recovery of the stolen motorcycle of the victim from the possession/at the instance of accused persons has not been proved as per law as the disclosures of accused persons were recorded by PW2 and PW2 and PW6 have not deposed specifically that they got to know about location of said motorcycle in question only when disclosures were made by State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 22 of 27 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2026.02.26 16:12:56 +0530 accused persons. Even if it is considered as proved, then also the recovery alone is not sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of other corroborating evidence and it is not proved that the said motorcycle in question was actually stolen by all the accused persons.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
58. Accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh denied the incriminating evidence put to them in their statements u/s 351/BNSS/313 Cr.PC and they stated that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and they were falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case without any fault on their part and they also pleaded that they had not committed theft of motorcycles nor got them recovered. The prosecution case is weak as it is not proved that theft was committed by accused persons nor recovery was proved, so the defence of the accused persons is probable and plausible. Even the admitted documents do not prove any offence against the accused persons.
59. In Kailash Gour and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported in MANU/SC/1505/2011, (2012) 2 SCC 34, Apex Court has observed that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on the altar or inefficiency, inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by the police. The benefit arising from any such faulty investigation ought to go to the accused and not to the prosecution.
60. In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, dt. 13.10.2022, in Crl. Appeal No. 242/2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is settled principle of law that when two views are possible from the prosecution evidence, the one which is State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 23 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:13:10 +0530 favourable to the accused shall have to be taken and the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused.
61. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the Judgments titled as 'Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur', reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC) in this respect.
Reference may also be made to the Judgment titled as 'Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan', reported as (2013) 5 SCC 722, wherein it was held that the large distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied and the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons.
CONCLUSION
62. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh qua offence punishable u/s 411/34 & 413 IPC each, thus, a benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons on the basis of above-noted principles and facts State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 24 of 27 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.02.26 16:13:16 +0530 established on record.
63. Consequently, the accused Sandeep, Rakesh and Dinesh are acquitted of the offences u/s 411/34 & 413 IPC each. Bail bond is cancelled and surety stands discharged.
64. The charts as per the judgment of Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat, (CA No. 2973/2023) of Hon'ble Supreme Court are annexed herewith.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 26th FEBRUARY, 2026. Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2026.02.26 16:13:21 +0530 (KUMAR RAJAT) ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi/26.02.2026 State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 25 of 27 Chart for Witnesses Examined Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witnesses No. PW1 Usha Eye-witnesses NA NA Witness of last seen circumstances NA Medical Jurist PW5 ASI Ramkesh Meena Investigating Officer PW2 ASI Sudhir Kumar PW1 Usha Complainant/First Informant Chart for Exhibited Documents.
Exhibit Description of the Proved by/Attested by
No. Exhibit
1. Inquest NA
Panchnama/Memo
2. Recovery (motorcycle PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5, No. DL7SCG5620 and PW6 make Hero Honda Splendor, seizure memo, Ex.PW5/H and photographs of the same, Ex.P1/X1 to X4) Panchnama/Memo
3. Arrest memos of PW5 and PW2/PW6 accused Sandeep, State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 26 of 27 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2026.02.26 16:13:29 +0530 Rakesh and Dinesh (Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D (in present case).
Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C respectively in FIR No. 191/2020, PS PIA.
4. Post-mortem Report NA
5. FSL Report NA Chart for Material Objects Material Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by Object No.
1. Weapon of offence NA
2. Clothing accused/victim NA
3. Mobile Phone/Electronic NA Object
4. Vehicle Motorcycle No. PW2, PW5 and PW6 DL7SCG5620 make Hero Honda Splendor, Ex.PW1/X to X4
5. Purse/earrings/identity NA card Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.02.26 16:13:34 +0530 State Vs Sandeep & Ors. FIR No. 16529/2020 PS Madhu Vihar Page 27 of 27