Delhi District Court
State vs Mahesh Baisla on 23 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SEEMA NIRMAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -09, SOUTH-EAST
DISTRICT / SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Cr CASES 3190/2019
STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA
FIR NO.78/2019
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
JUDGMENT
(a) C.N.R No. DLSE020143602019
(b) Name of the Complainant Sh. Shiv Shankar Safee
S/o Sh. Madan Safee
(c) Name of accused Mahesh Baisla
S/o Sh. Ved Prakash Baisla
R/o H.no.195, Alliganj, Kotla
Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
(d) Offence charged U/s 379/406/411/ IPC
(e) Date of commission of offence 24.02.2019
(f) Date of Institution 11.04.2019
(g) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(h) Order Reserved on 13.01.2026
(i) Date of judgment 23.01.2026
(j) Final Order ACQUITTED
Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 1 OF 24
STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA
FIR NO.78/2019
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL 16:35:24 +0530
Date: 2026.01.23
Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Accused in person with Ld. counsel Sh. T.M. Subhani.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. Prosecution alleges that on 24.02.2019 at about 4 pm at Pillanji Pul, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS KM Pur, accused Mahesh Baisla dishonestly took from the possession of complainant Shiv Shankar his mobile phone (make Penasonic P-71) without his consent and committed an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.
Thereafter, alternatively, on the aforesaid date, time and place accused was entrusted with aforesaid mobile phone by the complainant which accused dishonestly misappropriated and not returned to the complainant and committed an offence punishable u/s 406 IPC. It is further alleged that 28.02.2019, at unknown time from second floor of H.No. 195, Aliganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, accused got recovered aforeasid mobile phone having IMEI No.354196081160317 and 354196081160325 which he had knowingly/dishonestly retained or received or having reason to believe that the same was stolen property, which was in fact stolen from the possession of complainant Shiv Shankar and thus thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.
Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 2 OF 24
STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA
FIR NO.78/2019
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL 16:35:28 +0530
Date: 2026.01.23
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 27.02.2019 DD entry No. 46A was received at the police station on which IO along with HC Harbir went to INA market New Delhi, where caller/complainant Shiv Shankar was found but no snatcher was found there and complainant/caller had stated to give his statement later. Thereafter on 28/02/2019 the complainant Shiv Shankar came to the PS and gave his written complaint to the IO on which the present case was registered wherein complainant has stated that 24.02.2019 he had bought a second-hand phone from Gaffar market ,model Panasonic P71 and when he reached at Pilanji Pul at around 4 PM, his friend Mahesh Baisla s/o Ved Prakash R/o 195 Aliganj Kotla Mubarakpur met him there and asked his phone for making a call and complainant gave his phone to him. He was sent by Mahesh Baisla to get a cigarette but when complainant came back at the spot then Mahesh Baisla was not there. Complainant went to house of the Mahesh Baisla but Mahesh Baisla was not found there and his family members stated that they do not know anything. He has further stated that on 27.02.2019 he met Mahesh Baisla at INA market and when complainant asked for his phone Mahesh Baisla he started making excuses thereafter complainant called at 100 number and Mahesh Baisla went from there. Complainant stated to give his statement later on. It was requested by complainant to take appropriate action against Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 3 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:35:32 +0530 Date: 2026.01.23 Mahesh Baisla as he had stolen his mobile phone. Thereafter on the statement of the complainant FIR was registered u/s 379 IPC and investigation was carried out. During investigation, recovery of case property i.e. stolen mobile phone of the complainant was effected from the accused Mahesh Baisla on 28.02.2019 and after completion of investigation, final report in the form of charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. for the offences u/s 379/411 IPC was forwarded to the Court against the accused.
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGE:
3. After taking cognizance of the offences by the court, the accused was summoned. Pursuant to his appearance, in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, copy of chargesheet was supplied to accused on 11.04.2019 and a prima facie case against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 379/406/411 IPC was found to be made out.
Accordingly, on 25.04.2019, formal charge for commission of offence punishable under Sections 379/406/411 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 4 OF 24
STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA
FIR NO.78/2019
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2026.01.23
16:35:36 +0530
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
4. Thereafter, the matter was posted for
Prosecution Evidence. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, examined the following witnesses; viz.
i) PW-1 Sh. Shiv Shankar (Complainant),
ii) PW-2 ASI Harbir Singh (recovery witness),
iii) PW-3 Retired SI Malkhan Singh( IO),
iv) PW-4 W/ASI Shushma (Duty Officer qua registration of FIR)
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, also relied upon the following documents:
1) complaint of complainant as Ex. PW1/A,
2) site plan as Ex. PW1/B,
3) seizure memo of mobile phone as Ex. PW1/C,
4) pointing out memo as Ex. PW1/D,
5) arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW1/E,
6) disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW1/F/ Ex. PW2/A,
7) mobile phone make Panasonic of black colour as Ex. P-1,
8) personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW2/B,
9) Tehrir as Ex. PW3/A,
10) FIR no. 78/2019, PS KM Pur as Ex. PW4A,
11) endorsement on Tehrir as Ex. PW4/B,
12) certificate u/s 65B IE Act as Ex. PW4/C, Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 5 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:35:40 +0530
6. In addition to the above mentioned witnesses, accused has also admitted DD no. 46A dated 27.02.2019 in terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 24.07.2025, hence, the said witness was dropped on the submissions of Ld. APP for State.
STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.PC.
7. After prosecution evidence, statements of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein all incriminating circumstances led against him during the trial by the prosecution witnesses was put to him, affording him an opportunity to give their explanation, if any. the accused pleaded innocence and claimed that he have been falsely implicated in the present case. However, accused preferred not to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
8. Ld. APP on behalf of the state has submitted that the ingredients of the offence for which accused is charged are fully established accordingly accused be convicted for aforesaid offences. Whereas Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused and accused be acquitted of charges framed upon him.
Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 6 OF 24
STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA
FIR NO.78/2019
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2026.01.23
16:35:43 +0530
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. counsel for the accused and gone through the case file carefully and minutely. After hearing rival contentions and after appreciation of evidence on file, I am of the considered view that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts for the reasons given below.
DISCUSSION ON POINT OF LAW AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
10. Now, coming back to the facts of the present case, first of all, this court proceeds to examine the identity of the accused and whether the prosecution has been able to establish his liability regarding the alleged offences. The prosecution has examined the complainant Shiv Shankar as PW-1 who deposed in her examination-in-chief that he met accused Mahesh Baisla me him at pilanji pul and asked him the mobile phone to call someone. He has identified the accused in the court thus prosecution has successfully proved identity of the accused.
11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 7 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:35:47 +0530 evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
12. Now accused has been charged under section 379/406/411 IPC.The essential ingredients to prove an offence under Section 379 IPC are:
a) A person must take away of movable property;
b) Such taking away of the property must be done out of the possession of another;
c) The taking away of the property must be without the consent of the person who has a possessory right over the property;
d) While the property is being taken away, the property must move;
e) Such act must be done with a dishonest intention.
13. Now coming back to the facts of the present Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 8 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:35:50 +0530 case complainant/PW-1 has stated in his original complaint EX.PW1/A that he had bought a phone from Gaffar market and met accused who asked his phone for making a call and complainant gave his phone to him. He was sent by Mahesh Baisla to get a cigarette butt when complainant came back at the spot then Mahesh Baisla was not there. In his examination in chief in court also he has stated that accused had asked him to give his mobile phone to call someone thereafter he sent him to bought a ciggrette for him and when he returned accused was not there. Thus from the above statement only it is clear that complainant has given his mobile phone with his consent. Thus ingredients of section 379 IPC are not attracted to the present case.
14. Accused has also been charged under section 406 and 411 of IPC. As per section 406 of the IPC. In Binod Kumar And Others v. State Of Bihar And Another (2014) 10 SCC 663, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "for Section 406 IPC, the prosecution must prove:
(i) entrustment with property or dominion over it; and
(ii) dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use, or disposal of that property in violation of law or legal contract.
Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 9 OF 24
STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA
FIR NO.78/2019
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2026.01.23
16:35:54 +0530
The gist of the offence is misappropriation done in a dishonest manner. There are two distinct parts of the said offence. The first involves the fact of entrustment, wherein an obligation arises in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired. The second part deals with misappropriation which should be contrary to the terms of the obligation which is created."
15. Whereas the essential ingredients to prove an offence under Section 411 IPC are:
(a) The property should be in possession of the accused.
(b)Such property should be 'stolen property' i.e it should have been transferred by theft, extortion or robbery, or which has been criminally misappropriated.
(c) The accused received the same knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
16. In every case under section 411 IPC two facts viz. that a theft was committed and certain articles were stolen, and that the stolen articles were recovered from the possession Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 10 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 Digitally signed PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:35:58 Date: 2026.01.23 +0530 of the accused have to be established by direct evidence. It is elementary that there can be no offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property unless the property which is alleged to be the subject of such receiving, answers the description of stolen property defined under section 410 IPC. Thus in present case prosecution is required to prove the property in question is stolen property of the alleged theft.
17. In Trimbak Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 39, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"12. It is the duty of the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of a person under Section 411 Indian Penal Code to prove, (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property.
18. A three judges' bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court India in Shiv Kumar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 9 SCC 676 has recently held that:
Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 11 OF 24
STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA
FIR NO.78/2019
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2026.01.23
16:36:01 +0530
"411. 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." The penal Section extracted above can be broken down into four segments namely:
Whoever, I. Dishonestly; II. Receives or retains any stolen property; III. Knowing; or IV. 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.
14. "Dishonestly" is defined under Section 24 of the IPC as, "Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly". The key ingredient for a crime is, of course, Mens Rea. This was nicely explained by Justice K. Subba Rao in the case of Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration AIR 1963 SC 1572 in the following paragraphs: -
"9A. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court, in Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 12 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 Digitally signed PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:36:05 +0530 Kotamraju Venkatraadu v. Emperor [(1905)ILR 28 Mad 90, 96, 97] had to consider the case of a person obtaining admission to the matriculation examination of the Madras University as a private candidate producing to the Registrar a certificate purporting to have been signed by the headmaster of a recognized High School that he was of good character and had attained his 20th year. It was found in that case that the candidate had fabricated the signature of the headmaster. The court held that the accused was guilty of forgery. White, C.J., observed:
"Intending to defraud means, of course, something more than deceiving." He illustrated this by the following example:
"A tells B a lie and B believes him. B is deceived but it does not follow that A intended to defraud B. But, as it seams to me, if A tells B a lie intending that B should do something which A conceives to be to his own benefit or advantage, and which, if done, would be to the loss or detriment of B, A intends to defraud B." The learned Chief Justice indicated his line of thought, which has some bearing on the question now Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 13 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:36:10 +0530 raised, by the following observations: "I may observe, however, in this connection that by Section 24 of the Code person does a thing dishonestly who does it with the intention of causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss. It is not necessary that there should be an intention to cause both. On the analogy of this definition, it might be said that either an intention to secure a benefit or advantage on the one hand, or to cause loss or detriment on the other, by means of deceit is an intent to defraud." But, he found in that case that both the elements were present. Benson, J. pointed out at p. 114:
"I am of opinion that the act was fraudulent not merely by reason of the advantage which the accused intended to secure for himself by means of his deceit, but also by reason of the injury which must necessarily result to the University, and through it to the public from such acts if unrepressed. The University is injured, if through the evasion of its bye-laws, it is induced to declare that certain persons have fulfilled the conditions prescribed for Matriculation and are entitled to the benefits of Matriculation, when in fact, they have Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 14 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:36:14 +0530 not fulfilled those conditions for the value of its examinations is depreciated in the eyes of the public if it is found that the certificate of the University that they have passed its examinations is no longer a guarantee that they have in truth fulfilled the conditions on which alone the University professes to certify them as passed, and to admit them to the benefits of Matriculation."
Boddam, J., agreed with the learned Chief Justice and Benson, J. This decision accepts the principle laid down by Stephen, namely, that the intention to defraud is made up of two elements, first an intention to deceive and second the intention to expose some person either to actual injury or risk of possible injury; but the learned Judges were also inclined to hold on the analogy of the definition of "dishonestly" in Section 24 of the Code that intention to secure a benefit or advantage to the deceiver satisfies the second condition."
15. To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, the "believe" factor of the person is of stellar import. For successful prosecution, it is not enough to prove that the accused was either Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 15 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 Digitally signed PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:36:18 +0530 negligent or that he had a cause to think that the property was stolen, or that he failed to make enough inquiries to comprehend the nature of the goods procured by him. The initial possession of the goods in question may not be illegal but retaining those with the knowledge that it was stolen property, makes it culpable.
19. As per the story of the prosecution the accused were arrested in present after the mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused from house of he accused at second floor, when the complainant had taken the police persons to the house of the accused. However, it is stated by the complainant in his cross-examination that the he does not know the exact address of house of the accused. Further alleged recovery of the mobile phone was effected in presence of PW-2 ASI Harbir Singh who has stated that he had gone to the house of the accused that is house No. 195,Pillanji village, where the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded and one mobile phone was seized and accused was arrested thereafter. However perusal of the disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW2/A, and seizure memo the alleged mobile phone Ex.PW1/C as well as the arrest memo of the accused shows the address to be house No. 195, Aliganj, Kotla Mubarakpur. Even Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 16 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:36:22 +0530 the IO of the case PW-3 Inspector Malkhan Singh has stated address of house of accused to be 95, Aliganj, Kotla Mubarakpur. These material inconsistencies create serious doubt regarding the place of recovery, thereby making the alleged recovery highly doubtful. Further complainant had been asked in his cross-examination with respect to bills of the mobile phone and he has also stated that he has written receipt with respect to purchase of the mobile phone which he can produce however despite adjournment during the recording of evidence he could not produce the same and only on later date in his cross-examination he had stated that he do not have any receipt of the mobile phone. In absence of the ownership of the alleged stolen property, the prior possession and the alleged mobile phone being stolen property itself is doubtful. Further complainant has not released the mobile phone on superdari and from this fact it is a possibility that the alleged mobile does not belong to the complainant thus the same cannot be said to be stolen property for the purpose of section 411 IPC.
20. Further duty officer who registered the fire has been examined as PW-4 W/ASI Shushma who has stated that on 28/02/2019 she was posted as HC/DO at PS KM Pur and on that day at about 9:58 PM ASI Malkhan Singh had come to PS and handed over to her. It is stated by PW2 Harbir Singh and PW3 Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 17 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:36:26 +0530 Date: 2026.01.23 Retd. SI Malkhan Singh that FIR was registered before the arrest of accused persons. Now perusal of the record shows that time of arrest of the accused to accused in his arrest memo is shown at 11:30 AM on 28/02/2019 which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful and proceedings being on Ante time than registration of FIR. This discrepancy strikes at the root of the prosecution case and creates doubt about the sequence of events. From above said perfect the possibility of his being planted upon the accused cannot be ruled out and benefit of the same shall be given to the accused.
21. Further complainant has stated in his examination in chief that he met accused again on 27.02.2019 at INA market and when accused refused to hand over the mobile phone they both went to the PS. However as per the statement of PW-2 and PW-3 complainant had come to the PS and thereafter he had taken the police officials to the house of the accused where accused was arrested after recording of his disclosure statement. Further perusal of the record shows that DD No. 46A dated 27.02.2019 Ex.A1 pertains description 'snatcher Pakad Rakha hai.' Which is contradictory to the case of prosecution itself. Thus, in the above circumstances, the genesis of the occurrence does not appear to be natural. Reliance in this regard is placed on Ayodhya Singh v. State of Bihar, Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 18 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:36:29 +0530 Date: 2026.01.23 (SC) Criminal Appeal Nos. 392393 of 1998. D/d. 3.2.2005.
22. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is clear that the case of the prosecution solely rests on the testimony of a solitary witness namely Shiv Shankar complainant. There is no other eye witness of the present case. Accordingly, the accused can not be convicted on the sole testimony of the complainant especially when the same suffers from contradictions and inconsistencies as discussed above. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Laxman Chandar Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay), 2016 (1) AIR Bom.R (Cri) 751, wherein it has been held as follows:
"15. Except Taibai, there was no other witness to the occurrence. The other witnesses i.e. PW No.1 - Laxman Mane, PW 3 - Kashinath Borse, PW 4 - Bhimabai had not witnessed the incident and the alleged assault. The evidence of Kashinath (PW 3) only shows that he had heard exchange of words between the deceased Lahanu and Chander. Bhimabai (PW4) was declared as hostile and questions in the nature of cross-examination were permitted to be put to her. However, nothing which would advance the prosecution version could be elicited from her even pursuant to such Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 19 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2026.01.23 16:36:33 +0530 questioning and she categorically denied having seen the appellant giving a dig by elblow to deceased Lahanu. When the criminal act attributed to the appellant, was sought to be established by the testimony of a solitary witness it was absolutely necessary for the court to arrive at a satisfaction that such solitary witness is 'wholly reliable'. For basing a conviction on the testimony of a solitary witness - without any corroboration - the Court must be satisfied that such witness is 'wholly reliable'. In the instant case, there were a number of infirmities and contradictions in the version of Taibai and these infirmities were noticed and recorded by the learned Sessions Judge himself. Apart from these infirmities and contradictory versions, what cannot be overlooked is that the version of assaulting another by giving him a blow by the elbow, itself is an abnormal happening. Why would the person not give a straight and normal blow, if he wanted to hit another and would instead only give a nudge or dig by elbow, was not considered by the learned Sessions Judge. Somebody intending to cause physical hurt to a person, giving such person only Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 20 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:36:37 +0530 Date: 2026.01.23 a nudge, is quite unheard of. Thus, this improbability coupled with the other infirmities in the evidence of Taibai, and the absence of any corroboration whatsoever to her claim, should have led the learned Sessions Judge to doubt the assertion of Taibai to the effect that the appellant had hit her husband by the elbow."
23. Further, the incident took place on dated 24.02.2019 and the FIR in the present case was registered on dated 28.02.2019 and as such there is delay of 4 days in filing of FIR which has not been explained by the prosecution which assumes importance when the complainant was present in the police station after the incident why the complaint was not given and as such concoction and false implication on the part of the complainant cannot be ruled out and thus benefit of the same should be given to the accused. Reliance in this regard may be placed on Ajay Kumar Jain & Anr. v. State (Delhi) 2013(7) R.C.R.(Criminal) 159, it has been held as follows:
"10. The incident of complainant's abduction took place on 17th August, 1997 and the complainant was released also by the appellants same day but the FIR was lodged on 19th August, 1997 and that delay had not been explained satisfactorily by the Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 21 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 Digitally signed PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:36:41 Date: 2026.01.23 +0530 prosecution. To the police he did not given any reason as to why he had not reported the incident on the date of his abduction itself or even next morning. However, in Court during his evidence he stated that he did not lodge the report with the police same day as he was terrified and that explanation has been accepted by the learned trial Court but in fact that explanation does not inspire confidence since he did not even claim to have informed anyone about the incident nor did he go to any doctor also despite the fact that he had sustained grievous injuries and he claimed that his two teeth had been broken. It is not acceptable that a person who has suffered grievous injuries would not even go to some doctor. And when he was examined by the doctor after he had lodged the FIR on 19.08.1997 PW-8 Dr. A.K. Khare, dental surgeon, had opined the injuries to be fresh and he also clarified that by fresh injuries he meant the injuries to be 2/3 hours duration. That statement of the prosecution's own medical witness also renders the complainant's version that he was abducted by the appellants on 17.08.1997 and thereafter was badly beaten also during the period of his Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 22 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:36:44 +0530 Date: 2026.01.23 confinement highly doubtful. In these circumstances, the delay in lodging of the FIR assumes more significance. So, the prosecution case was doubtful and the plea of false implication taken by the appellants because the complainant owed money to them became probable since the complainant himself had admitted in his evidence that he owed money to them and he did not claim that he had paid the money as was claimed by him in his complaint to the police."
24. Further, it is well settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Clear and unimpeachable evidence is necessary to convict a person. This court finds that such evidence is absent in this case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Anil s/o Shamrao Sute & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 541.
25. So, considering the entire evidence brought on record, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused committed the alleged offences. In the light of discussion made above, this court is of the considered view that the evidence led by the prosecution is highly insufficient and discrepant on the material aspects of the case. It is the bounden Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 23 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:36:48 +0530 Date: 2026.01.23 duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused present in the court beyond the reasonable doubts. In the instant case, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and so he is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, by giving benefit of doubt to the accused, he is acquitted of the charges framed upon him in this case. Case property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after expiry of period of appeal/revision. SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:36:54 +0530 Date: 2026.01.23 Announced in the Open (SEEMA NIRMAL) Court on 23.01.2026 JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts, New Delhi/23.01.2026 It is certified by me that this judgment contains 24 pages and each page is personally signed by me.
SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:36:57 +0530 Date: 2026.01.23 (SEEMA NIRMAL) JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts, New Delhi/ 23.01.2026 Cr CASES 3190/2019 PAGE 24 OF 24 STATE VS. MAHESH BAISLA FIR NO.78/2019 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR