Delhi District Court
State vs Amit on 19 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI BENIWAL, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-12, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURT, DELHI
State Vs. Amit & Others
FIR No.34/2019
Under Section 342,392,411,506 r/w 34 IPC
PS Kamla market
CNR No. : DLCT-0200-9445-2019
Crl. Case No. : 4700/2019
Date of institution of the case : 30.03.2019
Date of commission of offence: 14.02.2016
Name of the complainant : Aaqib Hussain
S/o Aaqil Hussain
Name of accused and address : 1. Amit
S/o Sh.Rakesh
2. Meera
D/o Sh.Sunil
3. Murshid
S/o Sh.Mohd Rashid
All R/o Kotha No.54,
GB Road, Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 342,392,411,506 r/w 34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquittal Digitally
signed by
BHARTI
BHARTI BENIWAL
BENIWAL Date:
2025.07.19
STATE VS. AMIT & OTHERS 15:40:04
FIR NO.34/2019, PS KAMLA MARKET +0530
PAGE 1 OF 8
Date of reserving judgement : 06.08.2025
Date of judgment : 19.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Amit, Meera and Murshik are facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under Section 342, 392, 411 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") in connection with case FIR No.34/2019 registered at PS Kamla Market.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.02.2019, complainant Aaqib Hussain was roaming in the streets of GB Road and at about 10:30 AM, when he reached shop number 42, a young boy, allured him by saying that a dance program/performance was taking place on the second floor of Kotha No.64. He took him to the second floor of the building, and he found that no such program was going on. Thereafter, accused Amit, Meera, Murshid, and Rahul (not apprehended), in furtherance of their common intention, wrongly confined the complainant, and robbed him of Rs.80,000/- and his wallet containing 75 Dollars, Aadhaar Card and amount of Rs.500- 600/-. That amount of Rs.20,000/- was recovered from accused Amit, Rs.20,000/- was recovered from Murshid and Rs.20,000/- was recovered from Meera. That while committing the above mentioned act, they had also threatened the complainant with Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI BENIWAL BENIWAL Date:
STATE VS. AMIT & OTHERS 2025.07.19
FIR NO.34/2019, PS KAMLA MARKET 15:40:07
+0530
PAGE 2 OF 8
injury to his reputation, person, and property, with intent to cause alarm.
3. IO conducted the investigation. After completion of investigation, the present charge-sheet was filed under Section 342, 392, 411 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Cognizance of offence was taken. The copy of charge-sheet was supplied under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. After giving opportunity to state as well as accused for making submissions on charge, a charge for offence under Section 342, 392, 411 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 2 witnesses. Complainant Aaqib Hussain was examined as PW1. SI Dinesh (Investigating Officer) was examined as PW2.
6. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and hence, PE was closed.
7. Thereafter, separate statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons were recorded, wherein all the incriminating material that appeared in evidence against them, was put to which they stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
Digitally
signed by
BHARTI
BHARTI BENIWAL
BENIWAL Date:
2025.07.19
15:40:11
+0530
STATE VS. AMIT & OTHERS
FIR NO.34/2019, PS KAMLA MARKET
PAGE 3 OF 8
8. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of State as well as the accused.
9. On the basis of evidence on record, the following points arise for determination in the present case:
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 14.02.2019 at about 10:30 AM at Second Floor, Kotha No. 54, GB Road, accused Amit, Meera and Murshid, in furtherance of their common intention had wrongly confined, complainant Aaqib Hussain and robbed Rs.80,000/-, wallet containing $75, Aadhar Card and amount of Rs.500-600/-, from the pockets of complainant ?
(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that amount of Rs.60,000/- belonging to the complainant were recovered from possession of accused Amit, Meera and Murshid, and thereby, they have committed offence punishable under section 411 IPC?
(iii) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention had threatened complainant Aaquib Hussain with injury to his person, reputation, or property with intent to cause and thereby committed offence punishable under section 506 IPC ?
STATE VS. AMIT & OTHERS FIR NO.34/2019, PS KAMLA MARKET PAGE 4 OF 8
(iv) Final Order.
10. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the aforementioned points for determination, my findings on the said points are as under:
Point No. I : No Point No. II : No Point No. III : No Point No.IV : Accused Amit, Meera and Murshid are acquitted.
11. In a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts before accused is asked to put his defence. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the story of the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
12. The entire prosecution case hinges upon the sole testimony of the complainant, Aquib Hussain, who is also the purported victim and the star witness in the matter. While the complainant did narrate the incident in question during his deposition, it is of considerable legal significance that he has completely resiled from his earlier statement insofar as the identity of the offenders is concerned. On the crucial aspect of identification, the complainant categorically deposed that the persons present in court on the date of his Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI BENIWAL BENIWAL Date:
2025.07.19 15:40:16 STATE VS. AMIT & OTHERS +0530 FIR NO.34/2019, PS KAMLA MARKET PAGE 5 OF 8 examination, namely, the accused persons, were not the individuals who had committed the alleged offence against him.
13. Owing to this clear deviation from his prior version, the prosecution declared the complainant hostile. Despite extensive cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the complainant did not budge from his stand and steadfastly denied the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the alleged acts. During his cross-examination, all three accused were specifically pointed out to the complainant in open court, and he unequivocally denied that they were in any manner involved in the incident.
14. In criminal jurisprudence, identification of the accused is a fundamental requirement to bring home the charges against them. Where the complainant, who is the principal and only eyewitness to the incident, fails to identify the accused and retracts from his previous statement implicating them, such testimony loses its probative value. In the absence of any other independent or corroborative evidence connecting the accused to the offence, reliance solely on a witness who has turned hostile on the point of identity cannot form the basis of a conviction.
15. Given that the complainant has failed to identify the accused as perpetrators of the alleged acts, the essential ingredients of the offences under Section 342 IPC (wrongful confinement), Section Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI BENIWAL BENIWAL Date:
2025.07.19 STATE VS. AMIT & OTHERS 15:40:19 +0530 FIR NO.34/2019, PS KAMLA MARKET PAGE 6 OF 8 392 IPC (robbery), and Section 506 IPC(criminal intimidation) are not satisfied. In the absence of positive identification, the involvement of the accused remains unproven, and any finding of guilt would rest purely on conjecture and speculation, which cannot be the basis of a legally sustainable conviction.
16. Turning to the charge under Section 411 IPC (dishonestly receiving stolen property), it is the case of the prosecution that certain currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused persons. However, the evidentiary value of this recovery is seriously undermined by the manner in which the alleged seizure was effected. It is an admitted position that the alleged place of occurrence is a densely populated area, where independent witnesses were readily available. Despite this, the investigating agency failed to associate any independent or public witness at the time of recovery, nor has any explanation been furnished as to why no efforts were made to do so.
17. The absence of public witnesses at the time of recovery, especially when such witnesses were easily available, casts a shadow of doubt over the fairness and credibility of the investigation. It is well settled that when a recovery is made in such circumstances, without the presence of any neutral or independent witnesses, the evidentiary value of such recovery becomes highly questionable. In the present case, the seizure memo is signed only by police Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI BENIWAL BENIWAL Date:
2025.07.19 15:40:22 +0530 STATE VS. AMIT & OTHERS FIR NO.34/2019, PS KAMLA MARKET PAGE 7 OF 8 officials, and in the absence of any independent corroboration, it does not inspire confidence.
18. Therefore, in the absence of credible identification of the accused, and in light of the tainted recovery proceedings devoid of independent verification, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The cardinal principle of criminal law mandates that the benefit of doubt must always enure to the accused. The evidence brought on record is wholly insufficient to establish the charges under Sections 342, 392, 411, and 506 IPC.
19. Accordingly, all three accused are acquitted of all charges levelled against them.
20. File be consigned to Record Room.
Pronounced in open court on the 19th day of August, 2025. This judgment contains 08 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI BENIWAL
BENIWAL Date:
2025.07.19
15:40:26 +0530
(BHARTI BENIWAL)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-12, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI STATE VS. AMIT & OTHERS FIR NO.34/2019, PS KAMLA MARKET PAGE 8 OF 8