Delhi District Court
State vs Manish@Monu on 19 February, 2026
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAURABH GOYAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
CNR NO. : DLSW020314982022
State Vs. : Manish @ Monu & Ors
FIR No : 210/2022
U/s : 482/411 R/W 34 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act
P.S. : Palam Village
1. Criminal Case No. : 8625/2022
2. Date of commission of offence : 19.05.2022
3. Date of institution of the case : 13.07.2022
4. Name of the complainant : Sh. Suresh Kumar Dhaka
5. Name of accused & parentage : (1) Manish @ Monu S/o Sh. Subhash
Rao
(2) Vishal Sharma @ Jagdeep S/o Sh.
Gyan Chand Sharma
6. Offences complained or proved : U/S 411/482 R/W 34 IPC & U/s
25/54/59 Arms Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 29.01.2026
9. Final order : Acquittal
10. Date of final order : 19.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The accused person namely Manish @ Monu and Vishal Sharma @ Jagdeep are facing trial for offence U/S 411/482 R/W 34 IPC as well as for offence U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act with the allegations that upon the receipt of secret information FIR No. 210/2022 St. Vs. Manish @ Monu & Ors.
2by the police officials on 19.05.2022 at around 9 AM, near Health Centre, Palam Village, both the accused persons were apprehended by the police officials along with one car bearing No. DL 8CAR 9531 and the registration number of the said car on checking was found fake, however, the original registration number of the said car was DL 8CAR 3660 which got stolen on 17.05.2022 from the jurisdiction of PS Paschim Vihar which they both retained dishonestly in furtherance of their common intention knowing and having reason to believe that the same to be stolen property. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 19.05.2022, during the personal search of accused Manish @ Monu, he was also found in possession of one pistol with three live rounds in contravention of Section 3 of Arms Act 1959. Further, the accused Vishal was also found in possession of one Desi Katta along with two live cartridges. After completion of the investigation, the present charge- sheet was filed for conducting trial of both the accused persons for offence U/s 482/411 R/W 34 IPC and also for offence U/s 25/54/59 Arms act against them.
2. After taking cognizance of the offences vide order dated 18.07.2022, the copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charges were heard and charges for offences U/S 411/482 R/W 34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons namely Manish @ Monu and Vishal Sharma @ Jagdeep as well as the charge for offence U/s 25 Arms Act was framed against them vide order dated 27.09.2023. Accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
3. In order to prove allegations against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined total 7 witnesses in all which are as follows:
4. PW-1 SI Suresh Kumar deposed that on 19.05.2022, one secret informer met him at around 7:00 Am and informed that two gang members of Uttam Nagar Gang who used to commit theft of Creta and Breza Cars and also carrying illegal FIR No. 210/2022 St. Vs. Manish @ Monu & Ors.
3arms in their possession will arrive near Health Centre, Palam at around 9-9:30 AM and can be apprehended red handed with illegal arms, if raided. He further deposed that he shared the said information with the Incharge AATS, who directed him to take appropriate action, thus, he prepared a raiding team consisting of ASI Praveen Kumar, HC Hari Om, Ct. Mohit, Ct. Rakesh, Ct. Dharmender with IO kit, printer, Laptop, UPS and vide DD No.2 i.e. Ex. PW1/1, they all alongwith secret informer in a private cars i.e. Santro & Wagonr, went to the place Health Centre, Palam and took their position and at around 9:00 Am one white Creta car bearing NO. DL 8CAR 9531 in which two persons were siting was standing there and at pointing out by the secret informer, who left from there thereafter, they apprehended those persons whose names upon inquiry revealed as Vishal Sharma @ Jagdeep @ Bunty (Driver) and Manish Rao @ Rohit @ Monu S/o Sh. Subhash Rao. He further deposed that upon cursory search of accused Vishal Sharma, one desi katta was recovered from the right side pocket of his pant and on checking the said katta it was found containing loaded cartridge and one cartridge was found from the pocket of accused Vishal. He further deposed that thereafter, he prepared sketch of desi katta along with two cartridges i.e. Ex. PW1/A and that the said desi katta was kept in white plastic box and was tied with the help of doctor tape and was sealed with the seal of HO and given Mark S1 and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that thereafter, upon cursory search of accused Manish Rao one desi katta was recovered from the right side pocket of his pant and on checking the said katta it was found containing one loaded cartridge and two cartridges were found from the pocket of accused Vishal. He further deposed that he prepared sketch of desi katta along with two cartridges i.e. Ex. PW1/C and the said desi katta was kept in white plastic box and was tied with the help of doctor tape and was sealed with the seal of HO and given Mark S2 and the FIR No. 210/2022 St. Vs. Manish @ Monu & Ors.
4same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/D. He further deposed that thereafter, he filled Form FSL and handed over the seal after use to Ct. Rakesh vide seal handing over memo Ex. PW1/E. He further deposed that on inquiry, it was revealed that the said Creta Car was also stolen by both these accused persons from the area of Paschim Vihar and it's original registration number is DL 8CAR 3660 and fake number plate was fixed on it and the said car was also seized vide memo Ex. PW1/F and on checking the said car, tool kits were also recovered with help of which accused persons use to steal the cars which was also also seized vide Ex. PW1/G. He further deposed that thereafter, he prepared Rukka Ex. PW1/H and handed over the same to Ct. Rakesh who got the present case FIR registered and returned back to the spot along with SI Sanjeev Kumar to whom further investigation was marked. He further deposed that SI Sanjeev Kumar prepared site plan at his instance Ex. PW1/I and thereafter, he left the spot. He correctly identified both the accused persons in the court.
The Desi katta along with two cartridges recovered from the possession of Accused Vishal Ex. PX1 (Colly) and the Desi katta along with three cartridges recovered from the possession of Accused Manish Ex. PX2 (Colly) were identified in the court.
MHCM also produced one black colour bag containing some tools i.e. 30 new car keys, two stearing locks, one Chimty with Wire, four LNTE , four Coupler, Chainy, two wire cutter, one torch, one sensor, drill machine, plier and one heavy weight magnet was also produced in the court as Ex. PX3 (Colly). He further deposed that during the investigation, his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by IO.
5. PW-2 HC Mohit initially deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-1 SI Suresh Kumar being accompanying him during the investigation and raid. He FIR No. 210/2022 St. Vs. Manish @ Monu & Ors.
5additionally deposed that pointing out and seizure memo of Maruti Swift Car was prepared as Ex. PW2/A, the pointing out and seizure memo of Hyundai Car was also prepared as Ex. PW2/B, the pointing out and seizure memo of Two Breza Cars was also prepared as Ex. PW2/C & Ex.PW2/D, Recovery site plan was also prepared Ex. PW2/E, Ex. PW2/F, Ex. PW2/G & Ex. PW2/H. He further deposed that accused Vishal was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/I, his personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW2/J and supplementary disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW2/K. He further deposed that accused Manish Rao was also arrested and his disclosure statement was also recorded by SI Sanjeev.
This witness correctly identified both the accused persons in the court. The case property i.e. Desi katta along with two cartridges recovered from the possession of Accused Vishal is exhibited as Ex. PX1 (Colly) and the Desi katta along with three cartridges recovered from the possession of Accused Manish is exhibited as Ex. PX2 (Colly) and the black Colour bag along with some tools exhibited as Ex. PX3 (Colly). This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel whereby he deposed that the Wagonar car was driven by Ct. Rakesh, however, he does not remember it's registration number and even registration of both the vehicles were not mentioned in the DD Entry. He deposed that the Santro Car was driven by SI Suresh and the Public persons were present at the spot of incident. He stated that IO had not served any written notice upon any of those public persons in his presence. He stated that the spot as well as the recovery of case property was not videographed. He stated that he cannot tell if IO had inquired about the source of weapon from the accused persons. He stated that he did not know about the ownership of Santro and Wagonr Cars. He stated that he remained at the spot for about 3-4 hours and that the rukka was sent at around 1 to 1:30 PM. He stated that he did not know the time when Ct. Rakesh returned back FIR No. 210/2022 St. Vs. Manish @ Monu & Ors.
6to the spot. He denied the suggestion that recovery site plan was not prepared in his presence and that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also denied the suggestion that the case property has been falsely planted upon the accused persons to falsely implicate them in the present case. He also denied the suggestion that no such case property was ever found or recovered from the possession of accused or that all the proceedings were conducted while sitting in the PS.
6. PW-3 HC Rajpal deposed that he made endorsement Ex. PW3/A upon the rukka sent by SI Suresh Kumar and got the present FIR registered I.e. Ex. PW3/B (Colly) along with certificate U/s 65 B of IEA.
7. PW-4 SI Sanjeev deposed that on 19.05.2022, after the registration of the present case FIR, further investigation of the present case was marked to him and he went to the spot i.e. Health care Centre, Palam where SI Suresh along with his team met him who apprehended both the accused persons whose name upon inquiry revealed as Vishal and Manish and two country made pistol were also recovered from them and one stolen vehicle, alongwith a tool kit which is used for stealing purposes including 30 keys, two steering locks, four L&T, one torch, sensor, one drilling machine etc. from the possession of those accused persons and they handed over all the prepared documents to him. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan i.e. Ex. PW1/I and he formally arrested both the accused persons namely Vishal and Manish Rao vide memos Ex. PW2/I and Ex.PW4/A, conducted their personal search vide memo Ex. PW2/J and Ex. PW4/B and recorded disclosure statement of accused Vishal i.e. Ex. PW4/C and his supplementary disclosure statement as Ex.PW2/K. He further deposed that he also recorded disclosure statement of accused Manish Rao Ex.PW4/D and also recorded supplementary statement of accused Manish i.e. Ex. PW4/E. He correctly FIR No. 210/2022 St. Vs. Manish @ Monu & Ors.
7identified both the accused persons in the court.
He further deposed that thereafter, on 20.05.2022, he had apprehended the accused Ash Mohd, vide memo Ex. PW4/F, conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW4/G and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW4/H and also recorded his supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW4/I and second supplementary disclosure statement of accused Aash Mohd, was also recorded vide Ex. PW4/J. He further deposed that he had send the case property to FSL through Ct. Ravinder. He identified the photographs of Creta Car with fake number plate as Ex. PW6/A (Colly) and stated that it was seized by SI Suresh during investigation.
He also identified the two fake number plates produced by MHCM PS Paschim Vihar bearing NO. DL 8CAR 9531 as Ex. P4X1 (Colly).
He correctly identified both the accused in the court. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, whereby he admitted that the illegal weapon was not recovered from the accused persons in his presence. He also admitted that he had not joined any public witness during the investigation nor he served any written notice upon them. He also admitted that when he prepared the site plan, public persons were passing through there, however, he had not obtained signatures of any of them upon the same.
8. PW-5 HC Ravinder Kumar deposed that on 27.05.2022, IO of the present case had directed him to deposit the two sealed exhibits to the FSL and MHCM (CP) handed over to him the sealed exhibits/parcels vide RC NO. 131/21/22 dated 27.05.2022 i.e. Ex. PW5/A and he deposited the said exhibits/parcels to FSL Rohini and obtained it's receiving upon the said RC and deposited the RC with the MHCM (CP). He further deposed that during the period the exhibits/parcel remained in his custody, it was not tempered in any manner. He was also cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel whereby he stated that he did not remember the FIR No. 210/2022 St. Vs. Manish @ Monu & Ors.
8DD entry number which he made before his departure.
9. PW-6 HC Sumit brought the photographs of the Creta Car and fake number plate in a sealed pullanda bearing the seal of RK the particulars i.e. E FIR NO.13455/2022, PS Paschim Vihar is written on it and the same was opened with the permission of this court and two number plates bearing DL 8CAR 9531 were taken out. The Photographs of the Hyundai Creta Car which was recovered in the present case with fake number plate are Ex. PW6/A (Colly). He also proved the copy of the register No. 19 as Ex. PW6/B(Colly) (OSR).
10. PW-7 HC Hariom deposed that after the transfer of SI Sanjeev Kumar the investigation of the present case was marked to him and during investigation he obtained FSL report and also obtained the sanction U/s 39 Arms Act and after investigation, he filed the supplementary chargesheet.
11. At the stage, when the matter was listed for PE, the accused got recorded his statement U/s 294 Cr.P.C dated 14.05.2025 whereby he admitted the genuineness of Balastic Examination report dated 29.07.2022 as Ex. P1 (Colly), FSL report dated 19.09.2022 as Ex. P2 (Colly) and Sanction U/s 39 Arms Act as Ex. P3(Colly), pursuant to which the PW at Sr. No. 1 & 2 from the list of witnesses filed in the supplementary chargesheet, were dropped.
12. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, PE was closed on 05.06.2025. Thereafter, statement of the accused persons were recorded U/S 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") on 08.10.2025 wherein they denied all the allegations and claimed their false implication in the present case, however, they had not lead any defence evidence in their favour.
13. The Ld. APP urged that testimony of material witnesses have remained unchallenged in the cross-examination and there is no reason to doubt their testimonies. On the other hand Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused, has argued FIR No. 210/2022 St. Vs. Manish @ Monu & Ors.
9that the alleged recovery cannot be relied upon as no public witness was associated during recovery and or at the time of arrest of the accused despite availability of public persons at the spot of recovery as well as at the place of arrest of the accused. Ld. Counsel for accused also has argued that there is material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and that no public witness was joined in the investigation despite availability of public persons at the spot of incident. It is further argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. I have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. Defence counsel and have perused the case file.
CULPABILITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 482/411 R/W 34 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act
14. After going through the evidence and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution as well as by the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused, it emerges that the accused persons namely Manish @ Monu and Vishal Sharma @ Jagdeep are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 411/482 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Manish @ Monu is additionally charged under Section 25 Arms Act read with Sections 54/59 Arms Act. The prosecution case, in substance, is that on 19.05.2022 at about 9:00 AM near Health Centre, Palam Village, both accused were apprehended pursuant to secret information while traveling in Hyundai Creta car bearing registration No. DL 8CAR 9531, which on verification was found to be affixed with a fake number plate, whereas its original registration number was DL 8CAR 3660, allegedly stolen on 17.05.2022 from PS Paschim Vihar. It is further alleged that upon personal search, one country-made pistol along with live cartridges was recovered from accused Manish, thereby attracting Section 25 Arms Act.
FIR No. 210/2022St. Vs. Manish @ Monu & Ors.
1015. The foundation of the prosecution case rests upon alleged secret information and consequent recovery. The law relating to appreciation of recovery evidence is well settled. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that procedural safeguards in recovery cases are not empty formalities and must be strictly complied with. Though that case arose under NDPS Act, the principle that recovery evidence must inspire confidence applies equally in criminal trials.
16. In the present case, PW-1 and PW-2 have deposed regarding receipt of secret information, constitution of raiding party, apprehension of accused and recovery of pistols and vehicle. However, admittedly the alleged recovery took place at about 9:00 AM at a public place near Health Centre, Palam. PW-2 in cross-examination admitted that public persons were present but no written notice was served upon them to join investigation. PW-4, the second IO, also admitted that no public witness was joined and no signatures of any independent person were obtained on seizure memos or site plan.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Chand v. State of Haryana (1999) 1 SCC 156 has held that where recovery is effected from a public place and independent witnesses are available but not joined without plausible explanation, such omission casts doubt on prosecution case. It was further observed that failure to associate independent witnesses when available makes the recovery suspect unless convincingly explained. In the present matter, no explanation has been furnished for non-joining of public witnesses. No written refusal was recorded. The entire recovery proceedings were conducted only in presence of police officials. This omission assumes significance particularly because the prosecution version involves recovery of two firearms and a stolen vehicle in broad daylight.
18. Further, PW-4 categorically admitted in cross-examination that the illegal FIR No. 210/2022 St. Vs. Manish @ Monu & Ors.
11weapon was not recovered in his presence. Thus, the primary recovery witness remains PW-1 and PW-2 only. Though conviction can be based on testimony of police officials, as held in State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652, where it was held that police testimony cannot be discarded merely because it is official, yet the Court must be satisfied that the evidence is trustworthy and free from suspicion. In the present case, there are material infirmities. PW-2 admitted that registration numbers of private vehicles used by raiding team were not mentioned in DD entry. The rukka was sent around 1:00-1:30 PM, though alleged apprehension was at 9:00 AM, thereby leaving unexplained delay of several hours. No videography or photography of recovery proceedings was done despite availability of modern devices.
19. Coming to offence under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove that
(i) the property is stolen property; (ii) accused was in conscious possession of the same; and (iii) he knew or had reason to believe it to be stolen property. In Sanwat Khan v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 54, the Supreme Court held that mere possession of stolen property is not sufficient; prosecution must prove knowledge or reason to believe that it was stolen. In the present case, though photographs of vehicle and fake number plates were produced and seizure memos proved, no witness from PS Paschim Vihar was examined to conclusively prove theft of vehicle except documentary exhibits. More importantly, the prosecution has not established exclusive conscious possession of both accused. The vehicle was allegedly found stationary. No ownership link or forensic evidence connects accused to theft. Disclosure statements of accused are inadmissible except to limited extent under Section 27 Evidence Act. In Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67, it was held that disclosure statements are admissible only to extent they lead to discovery of fact. In the present case, vehicle was already in possession at time of FIR No. 210/2022 St. Vs. Manish @ Monu & Ors.
12apprehension; no fresh discovery was made pursuant to disclosure.
20. The allegation under Section 482 IPC relates to use of false property mark (fake number plate). However, prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that accused themselves prepared or affixed the fake number plate. Mere presence in vehicle bearing fake number plate, without proof of active participation or knowledge, is insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 482 IPC.
21. Now coming to Arms Act charge against accused Manish and Vishal, the ballistic report and sanction under Section 39 Arms Act stand admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. Thus, existence of firearm and its functional condition is not disputed. However, the crucial question remains whether prosecution proved recovery beyond reasonable doubt.
22. It is settled law that recovery evidence must be free from doubt and chain of custody must be properly proved. Though PW-5 proved deposit of sealed parcels to FSL, there remain foundational doubts regarding initial recovery itself due to non- joining of independent witnesses and contradictions in testimonies as observed above which create doubt regarding fairness of recovery proceedings.
23. Criminal jurisprudence mandates that prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, it was reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Further, in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808, the Supreme Court held that if two views are possible, the one favourable to accused must be adopted.
24. Applying these settled principles, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to remove reasonable doubt regarding genuineness of recovery of firearms and stolen vehicle. The non-joining of independent witnesses without explanation, delay in registration process, inconsistencies in testimony, and absence of FIR No. 210/2022 St. Vs. Manish @ Monu & Ors.
13independent corroboration materially weaken the prosecution case.
25. It is well settled that benefit of doubt must go to accused. The burden never shifts to the accused to prove innocence. The prosecution must stand on its own legs.
26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that both accused persons were in conscious possession of stolen Hyundai Creta vehicle knowing it to be stolen property, or that they used a false number plate within meaning of Section 482 IPC. The prosecution has further failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Manish and Vishal were in conscious and illegal possession of firearm in contravention of Section 3 Arms Act so as to attract Section 25 Arms Act.
27. Accordingly, accused Manish @ Monu and Vishal Sharma @ Jagdeep are hereby acquitted of offences under Sections 411/482 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Manish @ Monu and Vishal Sharma @ Jagdeep are also acquitted of offence under Section 25 Arms Act read with Sections 54/59 Arms Act.
Digitally signed by
SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
Announced in the open court on GOYAL Date: 2026.02.19
14:51:57 +0530
this day i.e. 19th February, 2026 (SAURABH GOYAL)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-01
DWARKA/NEW DELHI /19.02.2026
It is certified that this judgment contains 13 pages and each page bears my Digitally signed by signatures.
SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.02.19
14:52:01 +0530
(SAURABH GOYAL)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-01
DWARKA/NEW DELHI /19.02.2026
FIR No. 210/2022
St. Vs. Manish @ Monu & Ors.