Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Amit on 17 February, 2026

                                     1

 IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01
     DISTRICT- SOUTH WEST, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
           Presided by: Sh. SAURABH GOYAL, DJS




State Vs. Amit & Ors.
FIR No. 02133/25
PS Palam village
U/s 317 (2)/ 3 (5) BNS
1) Cr. Case No.                          :   5526/2025
2) CNR No.                               :   DLSW020675732025
3) Date of institution of the case       :   20.05.2025
2) The date of commission of offence :       24.03.2025
3) The name of the complainant           :   Sh. Sandeep Kumar
                                             S/o Sh. Basti Ram

4) The name & parentage of accused :         1) Amit
                                             S/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar.
                                             2) Tushar @ Tusu
                                             S/o Sh. Rafiq

5) Ld. APP for the State                 :   Sh. Sudhanshu Saini

6) Offences involved                     :   U/s 317 (2)/ 3 (5)BNS
7) The plea of accused person            :   Pleaded not guilty
8) Final order                           :   Acquitted
9) Judgment reserved on                  :   17.02.2026
10) Judgment announced on                :   17.02.2026


State Vs Amit & Ors.
FIR no. 02133/2025
                                      2

       BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:

1.

Briefly, the allegations of the prosecution are that the present case FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant Sh. Sandeep Kumar regarding theft of Motorcycle bearing NO. DL 9SBR 4178 Black Splendor, which was stolen on 15.01.2025 between 10 AM to 5:00 Pm from H NO. RZF-406, Khasra NO. 51/25, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi. Upon the complaint of the complainant, the present case FIR was registered. During the investigation of the present case, and on the information provided by HC Pappu Ram, from PS Dwarka North, who is the IO in case FIR NO. 8623/2025 PS Dwarka North, the stolen Motorcycle of the complainant was recovered at the instance of accused persons namely Amit and Tushar @ Tusu. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet for trial of accused persons namely Amit and Tushar for the offence U/S 317 (2)/ 3 (5) BNS was submitted in the Court.

2. Investigation was conducted into the allegations. Upon completion thereof, charge sheet was filed and cognizance of offence was taken vide order dated 20.05.2025 and the accused persons put their appearance before the court and the compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. was done by providing copy of the charge sheet and annexed documents to the accused. Upon finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, the charge for the offence punishable U/S 317 (2) BNS was framed against both the accused persons vide order dated State Vs Amit & Ors.

07.07.2025, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.

3. However, at the stage of PE, the main star witness and also the only independent witness listed in the list of witnesses in the present case relied upon by the prosecution i.e complainant Sh. Sandeep Kumar S/oSh. Basti Ram did not appear to depose before the court despite service of summons even through DCP Concerned upon him, thus, this witness was dropped from the list of witnesses. For proving the offence U/s 317 (2) BNS, the first and foremost requirement is that the property recovered from the accused persons should be stolen property. However, the complainant has not appeared in the court to identify the case property nor he got released the case property on Superdari. Thus, there is no evidence to associate the accused persons with the case property alleged to be belonging to the complainant.

4. Remaining prosecution witnesses were dropped as they were all formal witnesses. Examining the remaining formal witnesses would have been a futile exercise at the cost of judicial time and resources as their testimonies, even if accepted unrebutted, would not have been sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Considering the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Anr: 1996 JCC 507 and the PE was closed vide order dated 17.02.2026.

5. In the absence of any incriminating evidence against the State Vs Amit & Ors.

accused persons, recording of statement of accused persons Under section U/s 316 R/w 351 BNSS (281 r/w section 313 Cr.P.C) was dispensed with.

6. Final arguments were heard and record of the case has been perused.

7. It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but, the golden rule of the criminal jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own legs.

8. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the police officials and even recovery of case property has not been proved from the possession of accused as no public witnesses were joined by the police officials during investigation and recovery proceedings and the complainant i.e. the star witness in the present case namely Sh. Sandeep Kumar remained unserved and thus, remained unexamined in the present case who could prove the allegations leveled against the accused. 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.

State Vs Amit & Ors.

CULPABILITY OF ACCUSED U/S 317 (2) BNS

9. As discussed in the preceeding paragraphs of this judgment, in the present case, on the basis of the recovery, the accused was charged for the specific offence punishable U/S 317 (2) BNS. Section 317 (2) BNS deals with the offence of dishonestly receiving stolen properties. It reads as under:

"317 (2) BNSS. 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."

10. In the case of Rajender Kumar Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1983) 23 Del LT 42, it was held that in order to bring home the guilt of the person under this provision, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the following:

(i) That the stolen property was in the possession of the accused;

(ii) That some person, other than the accused had the possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and

(iii) That the accused had knowledge that the property was the stolen property.

11. Therefore, the crucial fact which needs to be established by the prosecution in order to bring home the culpability of accused is the fact of recovery of stolen article from the possession of accused persons and existence of knowledge about the same being a stolen property.

State Vs Amit & Ors.

12. First and foremost, it should be noted that as per the prosecution story the stolen article of the complainant was recovered from the accused persons. However, as per the prosecution story, the accused persons were arrested by the police officials with stolen articles of some other cases and thereafter, recovery of the stolen Motorcycle in the present case was also effected on the disclosure of the accused persons. However, no independent witness has been cited to the recovery of said case property from the possession of accused persons. Thus, alleged recovery of the case property from the accused persons could not be conclusively established by the prosecution in as much as no public witness or independent witnesses were examined or mentioned in the list of witnesses other than the complainant i.e. Sh. Sandeep Kumar.

13. As the star witness of prosecution PW Sh. Sandeep Kumar has also failed to appear who was the only public independent witness cited by the prosecution in the present case and even the case property has not been identified by the complainant in the court which casts doubts regarding the ownership of the stolen motorcycle belonging to the complainant as well, thus, the recovery of the case property from the accused persons cannot be conclusively established from the possession of the accused. Since there was nothing incriminating evidence which has come on record against the accused, as such, the accused persons namely Amit and Tushar @ Tusu are acquitted from the charge for offence punishable U/s 317 (2) BNS / 3 (5) BNS.

State Vs Amit & Ors.

14. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by accused persons, if any, furnished at the time of commencement of trial stands canceled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands canceled.

                                                          Digitally signed by
                                          SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
                                          GOYAL       Date: 2026.02.17
                                                      15:46:11 +0530
Pronounced in the open                     (SAURABH GOYAL)
Court on 17.02.2026                     JMFC-01 South West District
                                           DWARKA/NEW DELHI

It is certified that this judgment contains 7 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.02.17 15:46:15 +0530 (SAURABH GOYAL) JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka/ New Delhi State Vs Amit & Ors.