Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Sangwan on 27 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, (NEW DELHI), PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Amit Sangwan
FIR No. 57/2011
U/s 419 & 420 r/w 34 IPC
PS : Vasant Kunj North
Date of Institution : 17.05.2012
Date of Judgment : 27.02.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 45456/16
2. Name of the Complainant : Ms. Champa Chauhan, W/o
Sh Vijay Kumar Chauhan, R/o
B-66, DDA Flat, LIG, Phase-1,
Qutub Enclave, Kawaria, Delhi.
3. Date of commission of offence : 27.02.2011
4. Name of accused : Amit Sangwan, S/o Sh. Prem
Singh, R/o H. No. 1952, Sector
3, Rohtak, Haryana
5. Offence charged : 419 & 420 r/w 34 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Sharwan
8. Final Order : ACQUITTAL
State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 1 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:27:18 +0530 BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1.Briefly stating, the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint filed by Ms. Champa Chahuan who was working a primary teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya, JNU, New Delhi. On 27.02.2011, she was working as invigilator in Room No. 3 on the ground floor of the Kendriya Vidyalaya, JNU, New Delhi.
During the invigilation, she found out that the accused Amit Sangwan was appearing in the examination against roll no. 370210022 by impersonating himself as another person namely Amresh Kumar. After obtaining the question paper from the complainant, the accused rushed out of the examination room and handed over the said question paper to his accomplice / co-accused Prateek Sangwan.
2.After the registration of the FIR, the investigation was conducted by the police officials of PS Vasant Kunj North and was concluded by filing the charge sheet. As per the charge- sheet, the co-accused Prateek Sangwan could not be found. Charge for the offence punishable u/s 419 & 420 r/w 34 IPC was framed against the accused Amit Sangwan vide order dated 23.05.2017 to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to face trial.
State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 2 of 22 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.02.27 17:27:29 +0530
3.In order to bring home the guilt against the accused Deepak, four witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The complainant Ms. Champa Chauhan was examined by the prosecution as PW-1. She deposed that she was working as a primary teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, JNU since 2004. On 27.02.2011, she was working as invigilator in room no. 3 of the ground floor of the school in the LIC Assistant Administration Officer examination. The schedule timing of the exam was from 9 AM. She firstly put up OMR sheet on each bench in room no. 3 in the absence of the candidates at about 8:55 AM. As soon as the bell of the school rang for giving the question papers, she put up the question paper on each table on which she had already put up OMR sheet. When she was giving instruction regarding the filling of the OMR sheet, one student entered in the room and took the question paper on the table which was situated near the door and fled away with the question paper. After seeing the same, she informed the Principal regarding the said incident. She also stated that the student fled away with the question paper and he was wearing blue colour jacket. She gave a written complaint to the Principal of the school regarding the said incident. The said State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 3 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:27:43 +0530 complaint is Ex. PW-1/A. After some time, police came in the school as the Principal informed them regarding the incident to the police. The arrest memo of the accused and personal search memo of the accused were prepared by the police in her presence. The seizure memo of the blue jacket was prepared by the police in his presence. She correctly identified the accused in the Court.
4.PW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. During the cross-examination, she stated that she remained in the school on the day of the incident till her duty hours which was from 9 AM to 12 noon. She left the school after her duty hours were over. She further stated that the police never recorded her statement in the present case. She also could not remember the particulars of the case as the police officials gave her the file on the day when her examination in chief was recorded. She also stated that she did not see the accused and she also could not identify the accused as she had only seen his back. She denied the suggestion that she had never told the description of the accused either to the principal of the school or to the police as she had not seen him. She stated that she had only seen the State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 4 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:27:56 +0530 back side of the accused and told only about the colour of the jacket. She also stated that she could not identify the accused as she did not see him. She also failed to identify the accused even when the accused was pointed towards him. She also stated that the police never obtained her signatures on any paper. She denied the suggestion that whatsoever she had deposed in her examination in chief, the same was done under the pressure from the principal of the school and at the instance of the police. She also denied the suggestion that she never identified the accused at any point of time nor the accused was arrested in her presence nor his arrest memo was prepared in her presence nor any seizure memo of the jacket was made in her presence. She denied the suggestion that she had deposed falsely on the earlier date when her examination in chief was recorded in the Court.
5.PW-2 was the principal of the school where the examination was being held. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that he was working as a Principal in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, JNU from 2007 to 2014. On 27.02.2011, he was Principal cum centre superintendent regarding the examination of LIC Assistant Administrative Officer. The centre regarding the State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 5 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:28:06 +0530 examination in the KVS, JNU was fixed at the level of KVS Head Quarters. At about 9:10 AM, one of his teachers Champa Chauhan who was working as invigilator in the room no. 3 regarding the fact that one student fled away after taking one question paper from the table from her room. She also gave his identification. On the basis of the said identification, he checked the students and the said student was identified by her from room no. 17 where he was sitting and writing in the examination as a candidate. The said student disclosed his identity as Amit Sangwan and also confessed his guilt. He also gave a written confession that he had taken away question paper from room no. 3. The said written confession is Mark X. Thereafter, he informed the police regarding the incident. After some time, police came and he gave a written complaint Ex. PW-2/A regarding the incident. The arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused was prepared by the IO in his presence. The seizure memo of the jacket of the accused was also prepared in his presence. He correctly identified the accused in the Court. He also handed over to the police the admit card of the accused and his mobile phone.
State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 6 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:28:16 +0530
6.PW-2 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he deposed that on 27.02.20211, the schedule time of the examination was from 9 AM to 12 noon. The lady invigilator who was working in the room no. 3 have the description of the clothes/jacket of the student who fled away with the question paper from room no.
3. After receiving the said facts, he started to search the student who fled away with the question paper. He further stated that before forenoon the student was identified by the teacher/invigilator after which he apprehended him before the completion of the examination. He also stated that the student was appearing in the said examination in room no. 17. He further stated that the police was informed regarding the incident of taking away of question paper by a student in the forenoon itself. He could not tell the exact time. He also stated that the teacher had given a written complaint to him in this regard. He also stated that the police had reached in the school in the forenoon itself after receiving the information. He again said that he could not state the exact time when the police came at the spot. He could not say as to how long police remained at the spot. He could not tell at what time, the State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 7 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:28:25 +0530 accused was arrested by the police. He further stated that he remained in the school on the said date till afternoon. He also stated that nothing was seized from the possession of the accused except jacket by the police in his presence. He did not remember whether the invigilator in room no. 17 disclosed any timing of the accused reaching that room.
7.During the cross-examination, PW-2 was asked as to whether the question papers in the examination hall were issued without verifying the roll number of the candidates. He stated that when the ring went for starting the examination, the booklet was kept on each desk with serial number. He did not remember the seal number of the booklet which was stolen.
He also did not remember about the roll number to which the said booklet was to be given. He also did not know the name of the student to whom the said booklet was to be issued. He also had no knowledge as to whether any other booklet bearing a different number was issued to the person appearing on the seat from where the questioned booklet was stolen. He did not remember how many candidates were appearing in the room no. 3. He also stated that the record regarding the same might be available with the agency State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 8 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:28:35 +0530 conducting the exam. He denied the suggestion that he was unable to tell the above said facts as he was deliberately hiding the same to save his skin. He also denied the suggestion that the questioned booklet which was stolen from room no. 3 was never taken by the accused or he was falsely implicated by him in connivance with the invigilator of the said room. He also denied the suggestion that the confession mark X was never made by the accused or that he was forced to write the same under threat. He also stated that the police did not record his statement. He voluntarily stated that he had given his own statement to the police in writing. He also stated that nothing had happened in his presence with regarding to the missing of the question paper from room no. 3. He also stated that his complaint to the police was based on the complaint given to him by the invigilator. He also stated that the copy of the FIR was given to him by the police. He also did not remember at what time and on which day, copy of FIR was given to him. He also stated that the police had left the school before he left. He did not remember as to whether the police recorded his statement in the present case on 27.02.2011. He also stated that he had identified the accused on the basis of State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 9 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:28:44 +0530 the jacket colour which was worn by the accused. He did not remember as to whether he allowed the accused to complete his exam or not as the matter pertained to the year 2011. He further stated that the accused Amit was apprehended by him from room no. 17 of the examination. He was confronted with his earlier statement given to the police where it was not recorded.
8.PW-3 is the investigating officer of the present case. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 27.02.2011, he was posted at PS V.K North as Sub Inspector. On that day, he was on emergency duty. After receiving DD No. 24A Ex. PW-3/A, he along with Ct. Naveen reached at Central School, JNU Campus, New Delhi where S.M Garg, the Principal of the school met him. He handed over a typed complaint Ex. PW-2/ A and the statement of the Champa Chauhan Ex. PW-1/A along with confession statement of the accused Mark X and admit card of the accused. He was informed that the accused had taken way the question paper and fled away from the school and after sometime, he was apprehended by the staff of the school and interrogated. Thereafter, PW-3 prepared rukka Ex. PW-3/B and got the present FIR registered through State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 10 of 22 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.02.27 17:28:53 +0530 Ct. Naveen. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW-3/C. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded after serving him a notice of arrest. The disclosure statement is Ex.
PW-3/D and the notice is Ex. PW-3/E. Thereafter, the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-1/C. He also seized the blue colour jacket of the accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/D. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the witnesses and got conducted the medical examination of the accused. During the course of the investigation, he sent a notice to LIC and statement of Amrish Kumar was recorded. A letter was also received from EdCIL (India) Ltd. by which attested copt of admit card of Amrish Kumar Ex. PW-3/F was received. He correctly identified the blue colour jacket in the Court which was produced in the Court.
9.PW-3 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination, he stated that he got the information at about 5:45 PM. It was a PCR call. After receiving the PCR call, he went to the spot where he met the Principal, accused, complainant and other staff members. He enquired from the complainant about the incident. He further State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 11 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:29:02 +0530 stated that no inquiry report in writing was prepared. He also stated that the complainant told that the incident took place at about 9 AM. He also stated that the complainant stated that there was delay in calling the police and making the complaint as examination was going on. He further stated that he had asked about the timing of the examination but he did not remember the timing of the same. He also stated that he was handed over the roll number / admit card of the accused Ex. PW-3/D-1. He admitted that the said exhibit would show that the examination was from 9 AM to 12 noon. He could not tell as to why delay was made in making the complaint as the examination was already concluded at 12 noon. He also stated that he did not recover anything from the candidate during the course of the investigation. He again stated that the jacket was seized vide memo Ex. PW-1/D which was handed over to him by the police. He denied the suggestion that the said jacket was handed over by the accused as the same was handed over by the school staff. He also denied the suggestion that the complainant Champa was not present in the school when he reached at the school after receiving the PCR call. He also denied the suggestion that he did not State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 12 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:29:10 +0530 conduct any investigation or that he had conducted one sided investigation or that he did not conduct fair and impartial investigation. He also denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was given by the accused or that he reduced the contents on the same by his own on the blank paper and got the signature of the accused over black paper. He admitted that the complaint Ex. PW-2/A was not typed in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that he did not take in possession the CCTV footage which was installed on the entry gate of the school. He also admitted that he did not record the statement of the gatekeeper of the school who was on duty on the day of the incident when the candidates entered the school. He also stated that the no recovery was effected at the behest of the accused nor any person was arrested on his pointing out alleged to have been involved in this case. He also denied the suggestion that he had conducted the investigation in the mechanical manner and did not try to verify as to whether the accused was involved in the present case or not. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
10.PW-4 Ct. Ram Rattan had produced register no. 19 with State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 13 of 22 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.02.27 17:29:20 +0530 respect to entry no. 2296 which was made regarding the deposition of a blue colour jacket belonged to the accused. The said entry is now Mark RR. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he admitted that he did not have any personal knowledge about the present case and he also did not make any entry under his handwriting or signature.
11.The accused had also admitted the factum of the registration of the FIR, endorsement made on the rukka, certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, Ex. A-1 to A-3 respectively, u/ s 294 Cr.P.C. Hence, formal proof of these documents was dispensed with.
12.Thereafter, at the request of the Ld. APP, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 03.11.2023. Thereafter, statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 06.03.2024 wherein the accused denied the incriminating materials against him. He also stated that he was falsely implicated by the staffs of the centre to save their skin as they were having no knowledge as to who had taken way the alleged question paper from the examination centre. He was captivated in the examination centre till evening and when State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 14 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:29:30 +0530 they could not get any clue about the incident, he was framed in the case. He did not choose to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
13.During the final arguments, Ld. APP for the State argued that the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The accused was duly identified by the Principal of the examination centre. The complainant and the principal of the examination centre had completely supported the case of the prosecution.
14.Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The complaint in the present was given to the police with much delay. Also, the complainant who had seen the person taking away the examination paper and at whose instance, the accused was apprehended subsequently did not identify the accused. She also did not depose that the accused was apprehended at her instance. No recovery of the stolen exam paper was effected from the accused. Also, the prosecution did not examine any witness to show that the accused was appearing in the examination in place of some other person.
State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 15 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:29:42 +0530
15.I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
16.In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"i) The onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does is shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less.
ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
17.It is a settled law as well as matter of common knowledge that evidence of complainant/ victim and other public witnesses is the best available evidence and the case can be proved beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of testimony State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 16 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:29:51 +0530 of said witness only.
18.In the instant case, after going through the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case for the reasons discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.
19.First and foremost, it should be noted that the complainant and the eye-witness of the incident PW-1 turned hostile on the point of identification of the accused. While she correctly identified the accused in her examination in chief, she turned hostile in her cross-examination and stated that she did not see the person who fled away after taking question paper from the examination room clearly and could only see him from back and his jacket. She also stated that she was given the file by the police officials on the day when her examination in chief was recorded.
20.The failure of the PW-1 in identifying the accused as the person who fled away from the examination room with the question paper would put dent in the case of the prosecution. It cannot be ignored that PW-1 was not only the invigilator of State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 17 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:30:00 +0530 the room from where one person fled away with the question paper rather as per the prosecution, the accused was subsequently apprehended from another room at the instance of the PW-1. Thus, the fact that PW-1 turned hostile on the point of identification of the accused would severely weaken the case of the prosecution.
21.Secondly, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused was subsequently apprehended during the examination from another room at the instance of the PW-1 as the person who had fled away with the question paper. However, interestingly, no statement in this regard was made by the PW-1 in her testimony. She did not state that the accused was subsequently apprehended at her instance from another room. In fact, she did not make any statement regarding the manner in which the accused was apprehended or the place from where she was apprehended.
22.Thirdly, there are multiple contradictions and loopholes in the testimony of the Principal of the examination centre i.e. PW-2. He was not the eye-witness of the incident. He did not see the accused fleeing away with the question paper. However, he apprehended the accused during the State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 18 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2025.02.27 17:30:08 +0530 examination from another room where the accused was appearing in the examination. He had stated that he had apprehended the accused at the instance of the complainant PW-1. However, PW-1 did not make any such statement in his testimony. Further, the alleged incident of fleeing away with the question paper happened at around 9 AM. The information about the same was immediately made by PW-1 to PW-2. However, PW-2 who was also the superintendent of the examination centre did not inform the police about the same immediately. The information was given to the police at 5:45 PM. No reasonable explanation was given by PW-2 as to why the police was not informed immediately after the incident or shortly after the completion of the examination. After receiving the information from PW-1, PW-2 did not even bother to inform the police at that time rather chose to start searching the accused on his own. After allegedly apprehending the accused from another examination room, he also got the confession of the accused recorded. Thereafter, he again did not inform the police immediately after the completion of the examination rathe informed the police only at 5:45 PM. The conduct of the PW-3 after State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 19 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:30:17 +0530 receiving the information about the present case would raise serious doubts over his credibility.
23.The delay in giving information to the police would raise many doubts. It would be very difficult to believe that the accused would first steal the question paper then he would go outside the examination centre, would hand over the question paper to some other person, would thereafter come back inside the examination paper and would appear in the examination himself. It would also be difficult to believe that the accused was able to do these acts by his own without any person seeing him exiting the examination centre and entering back into the examination centre. It would further be difficult to believe that the accused would come inside the examination centre by wearing the same jacket after fleeing away with the question paper.
24.Fourthly, there are loopholes in the claim of the prosecution that the accused was appearing in the examination after impersonating another person namely Amresh Kumar. It should be noted that not even a single evidence was brought on record by the prosecution in order to prove its claim. The complainant PW-1 stated that the accused entered into the State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 20 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR ANIMESH Date:
KUMAR 2025.02.27
17:30:32
+0530
examination room and took away the question paper from the desk which was near the door and fled away. Nowhere in her statement did PW-1 state that the accused was appearing in the examination in place of another person namely Amresh Kumar. In fact, the perusal of the testimony of the PW-1 would show that the accused was not even present inside the examination room no. 3 when the PW-1 had distributed the question paper. He was not appearing in the examination in the said room.
25.Last but not the least, the investigating agency did not conduct the investigation in the present case in a proper manner. No CCTV footage of the examination centre was seized. It would have been a crucial piece of evidence which could have shown the accused exiting or entering back into the examination centre. The gatekeepers who were posted at the gate of the examination centre were not examined. No investigation was conducted on the point as to what happened to the person whose question paper was allegedly taken away by the accused i.e. whether he could appear in the examination or not.
26.Also, another accused Prateek Sangwan to whom the State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 21 of 22 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.02.27 17:30:40 +0530 accused Amit Sangwan had handed over the question paper after taking away the same could not be apprehended by the investigating agency. In fact, his details could also not been obtained. No CDR of the accused Amit Sangwan was examined in order to find out the details of the accused Prateek Sangwan. The question paper which was allegedly stolen was also not recovered.
27.Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the accused namely Amit Sangwan is acquitted for the offences U/s 419 & 420 r/w 34 IPC. Pronounced in open Court, on this Day of 27th February, 2025.
This judgment consists of 22 signed pages.
(ANIMESH KUMAR) Judicial Magistrate First Class-02 New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts State Vs. Amit Sangwan, FIR No. 57/2011, PS Vasant Kunj North, Judgment dated 27.02.2025 Page No. 22 of 22 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.02.27 17:30:51 +0530