Delhi District Court
State vs Hemant Gaur on 2 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ISRA ZAIDI: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-04, NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
JUDGMENT
Cr. No. of the case 466299/2015
CNR Number DLNE02-000447-2008
FIR Number 78/2008
Police Station Dilshad Garden
Name of the Complainant/Informant Sh. Joga Singh Name of the Accused, his 1. Hemant (Since expired) parentage and address
2. Atbir S/o Sh. Nannu Singh R/o Gali No. 1, 60 foota Road, Garima Garden, Ghaziabad, UP Permanent address: Village Indore Kheda, PS Dikai, District Bulandshehar, UP.
3. Bobby S/o Sh. Pratap Singh R/o Gali No. 1, 60 foota road, Garima Garden, Ghaziabad, UP Permanent address: Village Shahpur, PS Mandrak, Ghaziabad, UP.
Date of Commission of offence 02.05.2008
Date of institution 20.09.2008
Offences complained of U/s. 392/365/34 IPC
Offences charged of U/s. 365/392/420/482/34 IPC
Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of final arguments 02.02.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 02.02.2026 Final Order Acquitted ISRA FIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur Page 1 of 15 ZAIDI Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.02.02 15:58:01 +0530 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
01. Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present complaint are that on on 02.05.2008 at about 02.10 a.m. at GT Road Flyover, neat Telephone Exchange Garden, Delhi, accused Atbir and Bobby alongwith one Hemant Gaur (deceased) and one Vicky (since not arrested) abducted one Joga Singh and Praveen with intent to keep them, committed robbery of one truck bearing no. RJ14-2G-7095 make TATA from the possession of the Complainant Joga Singh, belonging to Kartar Singh and also cheated complainant Joga Singh and his cleaner Praveen by representing himself to be recovery agents of M/s Tata Finance and forced them to hand over the possession of truck bearing No. RJ14-2G-7095 make TATA to the accused persons and had also put up false number plate bearing no. DL8C-NA-8241 on Indica Car, Silver colour, correct registration number whereof was discovered to be HR-51Y-8871. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the accused persons under section 392/365/34 IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
02. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 365/392/420/468/471/34 IPC was filed before the Court against the accused persons. The then Learned Magistrate took cognizance on 20.09.2008 and accused persons were summoned to face the trial. On their appearance in the Court, copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to them as per norms. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.01.2015, charge under sections 365/392/420/482/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
03. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses. Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
FIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur ZAIDI 2026.02.02 Page 2 of 1516:06:48 +0530 PROSECUTION WITNESSES S. No. Witness No. Name of the witness
01. PW1 Sh. Joga Singh
02. PW2 ACP Arun Kumar Sharma
03. PW3 Sh. Veer Bhan @ Perveen
04. PW4 Sh. Kartar Singh
05. PW5 Retired SI Ashok Kumar
06. PW6 ASI Sanjay Kumar
07. PW7 Retired SI Sheela
08. PW8 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Meena
09. PW9 Sh. Gaurav
10. PW10 Retired SI Jagdish DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION S. No. Ex./Mark Nature of documents
01. Ex. PW1/A Complaint
02. Ex. PW1/B Seizure Memo of car
03. Ex. PW2/C Seizure Memo of Truck
04. Ex. PW1/D-1 Seizure Memo of recovered documents
05. Ex. PW1/D-2 Disclosure Statement of accused Bobby
06. Ex. PW1/D-3 Disclosure Statement of accused Atbir
07. Ex. PW1/D-4 Disclosure Statement of accused Hemant
08. Ex. PW1/D-5 Arrest memo of accused Hemant
09. Ex. PW1/D-6 Arrest memo of accused Atbir
10. Ex. PW1/D-7 Arrest memo of accused Bobby
11. Ex. PW1/D-8 Personal Search Memo of accused Hemant
12. Ex. PW1/D-9 Personal Search Memo of accused Atbir
13. Ex. PW1/D-10 Personal Search Memo of accused Bobby
14. Ex. PW7/A FIR Digitally signed by FIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 3 of 15 ZAIDI 2026.02.02 16:06:56 +0530
15. Ex. PW8/A Report of vehicle bearing No. RJ14-2G-7095
16. Ex. PW9/A Report of vehicle bearing No. HR-51Y-8871
17. Ex. PW10/A Site Plan STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED U/S. 313 Cr.PC.
04. Statement of accused Atbir on 19.08.2025 and Bobby on 22.12.2025 were recorded 313 Cr.P.C. The accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present matter, they were not present at the spot, even they do not know the complainant. No defence evidence was led by the accused persons despite granting him an opportunity.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
05. The Court heard final arguments on behalf of the both the parties on 02.02.2026. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the case against the accused persons are false and frivolous and has prayed that accused persons be acquitted of the offences charged. He pointed out various discrepancies in the version of the prosecution witness. Learned APP for the State submitted that accused persons be convicted of the offences under the above-mentioned sections as there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused persons. This Court has heard the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. The Court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
06. In the instant case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 365/392/420/482/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt:
Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
FIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur ZAIDI 2026.02.02 16:07:05 Page 4 of 15 +0530 Section 365 IPC provides that "Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine".
Section 392 IPC provides that "Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
Section 420 IPC provides that "Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 482 IPC provides that "Whoever uses any false property mark shall, unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE
07. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
FIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur ZAIDI 2026.02.02
16:07:12 Page 5 of 15
+0530
08. PW1, Sh. Joga Singh, in his examination in chief, deposed that he could not recall the date of incident, but it happened 8-9 years back, when he was returning from Anand Parvat after unloading the iron pipes and when he reached Shahdra Flyover, UP Border, one white colour car came in front of his truck bearing no. RJ-02-7095. He further deposed that 4-5 persons came out of the car and they entered forcefully in his truck and disclosed themselves employees of TATA Finance Company. He further deposed that one person sat on the driver seat. He deposed that four persons forcefully had taken him and conductor in their said car and two persons had taken his truck towards Bhopura. He further deposed that the said four persons had taken him and conductor to Kale Khan and thereafter, ISBT.
09. He deposed that the said four persons had asked him and conductor to get down from the car near Kashmiri Gate. He deposed that in the meantime, the police came at the spot and enquired from him and said four persons. He deposed that he had narrated the incident to the police and police enquired from said four persons who introduced themselves employees of TATA Finance Company. He deposed that police had taken him and said four persons to PS and recorded his complaint Ex. PW1/A. The witness could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of time.
10. During cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he denied the suggestion that he have been won over by the accused persons, therefore, he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons and that he had taken money from accused persons out of the court and therefore, in collusion with accused persons, he is not identifying them. The witness was not cross-examined by the Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
11. PW2 ACP Arun Kumar Sharma, in his examination in chief, has deposed that on 02.05.2008, he saw Indica Car bearing No. DL-8CNA-8241 in suspicious condition at Ring Road. He further deposed that thereafter, he went near the said car, in which five persons were sitting inside the car. He deposed that he made an enquiry Digitally signed FIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 6 of 15 2026.02.02 ZAIDI 16:07:22 +0530 from that persons and one Joga Singh told him that he was the driver of a truck and his helper/cleaner Praveen was with him and rest of the persons were Hemant, Bobby and Atvir. He deposed that Joga Singh and his cleaner were stopped by them and those were claiming that they were employees of Tata finance and the non-payment of EMI, they took the truck in their possession and also confined both of them i.e. Joga Singh and Praveen. He deposed that he made enquiry from said accused persons, who told that they are the employees of Tata Finance and due to non-payment of EMI, they took the possession of said truck from Joga Singh in the area of Dilshad Garden.
12. PW3 Sh. Veer Bhan @ Perveen, in his examination in chief deposed that in 2008, however, he could not tell the date of incident, deposed that on that day four persons came in the car claiming themselves as financier and took away their truck and them forcefully. He deposed that in the meanwhile, police came at the spot and on suspicion, they inquired from those said four persons and they also narrated them about the Incident. He further deposed that thereafter, the police took all of them to the PS. He deposed that their statements were recorded. The witness deposed that he could not identify the accused due to lapse of time as the matter dates back to 2008.
13. During cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, witness could not tell the date of incident as 02.05.2008, registration number of the truck as RJ14 2G-7095. He denied the suggestion that 02.05.2008, they were going in the truck towards Loni border and when they reached near Shahadara fly over, they were stopped by the accused persons who came there in a car. He could not tell the number of the said car as DL8C-NA-8241. The witness could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of time. He denied the suggestion that he has won over by the accused persons and due to this reason he could not identify the accused persons and that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
Digitally signedFIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 7 of 15 2026.02.02 ZAIDI 16:07:30 +0530
14. PW4 Sh. Kartar Singh, in his examination in chief deposed that in the year 2008, the truck bearing No. RJ14-2G-7095 was owned by him. He deposed that he received a call from police and inquired him about the ownership and financier of the said truck. He further deposed that he went to PS with finance record and his truck was financed by HDFC Bank and produced the record to the police, who recorded my statement. The witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
15. PW5 Retired SI Ashok Kumar, in his examination in chief deposed that on 02.05.2008, he along with HC Vijender and Ct. Sanjay went to PS Kashmiri Gate, where the concerned SHO PS Kashmiri Gate handed over three accused to HC Vijender. He deposed that the accused persons had abducted truck driver and his helper and the fourth person who was with the accused, had abducted truck driver and helper in his Indica Car. He deposed that the concerned SHO had doubt regarding the apprehension of truck driver and helper by the accused. He further deposed that HC Vijender reached at the spot and recorded the statement of driver Joga Singh and prepared a Rukka. He deposed that the Indica car was taken into possession, Disclosure Statement of accused was recorded by the IO/HC Vijender and site plan was prepared. He deposed that thereafter, IO arrested the accused persons namely Hemant, Atbir & Bobby.
16. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW5 testified that accused persons were not apprehended by him, prior to registration of FIR. On being questioned by Ld. Defence Counsel that "whether before the filing of the compliant by the complainant had he gone along with the police officials to apprehend the accused persons, to which he deposed that "As per the instruction of SHO PS Kashmiri Gate, they were gone to conduct the inquiry there". On being questioned by Ld. Defence Counsel that "Whether SHO PS Kashmiri Gate had joined their team to conduct the inquiry?", to which he replied that " IO/HC Bijender had inquired the SHO PS Kashmiri Gate regarding the matter". On being questioned by Ld. Defence Digitally signed FIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 8 of 15 2026.02.02 ZAIDI 16:07:38 +0530 Counsel that " whether IO HC Bijender recorded the statement of SHO PS Kashmiri Gate ?, the witness testified that " He only inquired". On being questioned by Ld. Defence Counsel that "Whether IO recorded any written statement of SHO PS Kashmiri Gate", the witness deposed that it was not recorded in my presence. On being question by Ld. Defence Counsel that "Whether he along with the IO and apprehended persons had come at PS prior to any complaint of the complainant, the witness answered affirmatively. He voluntarily stated that for the purpose of the inquiry only as there was one call which was already made 100 Number. On being questioned by Ld. Defence Counsel that 'whether he had not stated in his examination in chief that who made call on 100 number', the witness deposed that 'he forgot to depose the same in my examination in chief'.
17. He did not know about the ownership of Indica Car. He testified that no statement of the owner of said vehicle was recorded prior to the registration of FIR and his statement might be recorded by the IO later on. He denied all the suggestions put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
18. PW6 ASI Sanjay Kumar deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW5 Retired SI Ashok Kumar. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW6 did not remember whether IO had marked any departure entry regarding their departure and that exact time when those five persons were brought to PS Dilshad Garden. He testified that no statement of any of those persons were recorded in which they stated anything kidnapping/abduction. He further testified that the Truck had not come when those five persons were being taken to the PS Dilshad Garden. He testified that no statement of SHO PS Kashmiri Gate was recorded in his presence. He further testified that no statement of those five persons were recorded when they were being brought to the PS Dilshad Garden. He testified that no public persons were joined as a witness in the present case. He testified that they only came to know about the name of the fourth accused however they did not get any other particulars of that person. He denied all the suggestions put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
Digitally signed by FIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
Page 9 of 15ZAIDI 2026.02.02 16:07:46 +0530
19. PW7 Retired Sheela, in her examination in chief depose that on 02.05.2008, Ct. Sanjay came to PS and handed over rukka to him, on which, he registered an FIR Ex. PW7/A. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW7 testified that FIR was typed by W/Ct. He could not remember whether he had given the Certificate u/s. 65-B IEA. He denied all the suggestions put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
20. PW8 Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Meena, in his examination in chief had brought the report Ex. PW8/A of the particulars of the vehicle bearing No. RJ14-2G-7095, which was registered on 10.08.2004 in the name of Kartar Singh. He deposed that on 30.10.2015, the registered owner obtained the NOC from their authority to register the same with UP (Bijnor) authority. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW8 admitted that he has not mentioned his designation at the signature in the report. He denied all the suggestion put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
21. PW9 Sh. Gaurav, brought the report Ex. PW9/A of particulars of the vehicle i.e. Tata Indica car bearing No. HR-51Y-8871, which was registered in the name of Pankaj Singh and subsequently, it was registered on the name of Ranjeet Singh. He further deposed that on 07.03.2014, the registered owner namely Pankaj Singh had transferred the ownership to Ranjeet Singh and obtained the NOC from their authority to register the same with Kurukshtra (Pehowa) authority. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW9 admitted that he had signed the document Ex. PW9/A above the stamp on the said document. He admitted that he had not mentioned his designation in the document Ex. PW9/A. He denied all the suggestion put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
22. PW10 Retired SI Jagdish, in his examination in chief deposed that on 02.05.2008, he alongwith Ct Sanjay reached at the spot i.e. Near Shahdara flyover, near telephone exchange, where they met HC Bijender and HC Ashok, who handed Digitally signed by FIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI Page 10 of 15 ZAIDI 16:08:22 2026.02.02 +0530 over the custody of the accused persons namely Hemant Gaur, Atbir and Boby and the possession of a Truck RJ14-2G-7095 and one Indica Car DL-8CN-8211 (again said 8241). He deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW-10/A. He further deposed that accused Hemant handed over two blue folders containing authority letters of 20 companies. He further deposed that accused Boby handed over the number plate of two vehicles. I seized the above mention case property vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-1/D-1 bearing my signature at point C. He deposed that he interrogated the accused persons and arrested them vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-1/D5, Ex. PW-1/D6 and Ex. PW-1/D7. He deposed that he recorded the statement of the witnesses and thereafter, the photographs of the said vehicles were clicked. He deposed that he deposited the case property into the Malkhana and produced the accused before the SHO concerned.
23. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW10 deposed that he seized the case properties i.e. Indica car and Truck Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW2/C. He further testified that he also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused persons i.e. Ex. PW-1/D2, Ex. PW-1/D3 and Ex. PW-1/D4.
24. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW10 admitted that he had not apprehended the accused persons but he had arrested accused persons and that no document were recovered from the possession of accused Boby and Atbir and that accused persons were not apprehended in the present case during the checking duty and they were apprehended by SHO Kashmiri Gate. He further admitted that no FIR was registered in PS Kashmiri Gate. He testified that the rukka was already prepared in the present case. He testified that no public persons was made witness in the present case. He admitted that the spot was a high road, however it was not a residential area. He denied all the suggestions put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
25. PW1 has not deposed in line with his previous statement. He was cross examined by the Ld APP for the State but he could not identify the accused persons.
Digitally signed by FIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Page 11 of 15 Date:
ZAIDI 2026.02.02 16:08:29 +0530 No reliance can be placed upon uncorroborated testimony of witness. In every criminal trial, the identity of the malefactor must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
26. PW3 has also failed to identify the accused. He was cross examined by the Ld. App for the State but he denied the suggestions put to him by the Ld APP and nothing adverse could be culled out from his testimony against the accused persons.
Indeed, the first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the offender, for even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the offender beyond reasonable doubt.
27. Onus is, thus, on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person facing the trial is, in fact, the same person who committed the offence.
28. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the identity of the accused in the case of Ashraf vs State held as under:-
"....However, in case a witness is completely hostile with regard to identity of the accused even in his examination- in-chief and nothing could be elicited from him to show the involvement of the accused in the offence in the cross-exam- ination by the APP, such a testimony cannot be accepted and made the basis of the conviction....."
29. It is no longer res integra that sole testimony of complainant can be relied upon to convict an accused provided the same is reliable and credit-worthy. In the case of Lallu Manjhi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC 401 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had classified oral testimony of witnesses into three categories wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The testimony of PW1 and PW3 have not supported the case of Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
FIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur ZAIDI 2026.02.02 16:08:37 Page 12 of 15 +0530 prosecution. The main witnesses does not appear to be credible and reliable. They refused to identify the accused persons.
30. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as all the material prosecution witnesses, namely PW1 Joga Singh and PW3 Praveen, who were the alleged victims of the incident, did not support the prosecution on the crucial aspect of identification of the accused persons and categorically stated that due to lapse of several years they were unable to identify the accused in court. No Test Identification Parade was conducted on record to establish the identity of the accused which could have been relevant under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
31. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution version regarding the manner of apprehension of the accused, registration number of the Indica car, recording of statements, and the sequence of events leading to registration of FIR, which create serious doubt about the prosecution story.
32. PW1 testified in his cross-examination that the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded. At this stage it is germane to mention section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
"Section 27 how much of information received from the accused may be proved- provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered may be proved.
In the case of Md. Inayatulla Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC483 it was held that for the application of section 27 of the IEA the statement must be split into its components and to separate the admissible portion. Only those components or portion which were the immediate cause of discovery would be relevant and rest must be rejected." Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI FIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur ZAIDI 16:08:44 2026.02.02 Page 13 of 15 +0530
33. Disclosure statement cannot be admissible there is no recovery pursuant to the disclosure statement and there is no independent witness to the same. Derivative use of custodial statement is not permissible in law. Disclosure statement is admissible only in evidence if something is recovered from the accused which is not within the knowledge of the police before recording the disclosure statement of the accused. Hence, the same becomes inadmissible in law.
34. Further, the prosecution has failed to lead any convincing evidence to prove that the accused were impersonating recovery agents or were using false or forged number plates. The testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses are silent about the allegation of using fake number plate which as alleged. Neither the investigating officer nor any other witness has proved the essential ingredients of offences for which the accused persons were charged. The testimony of police witnesses remains uncorroborated and suffers from inconsistencies. There is also no reliable evidence to prove the use of false number plates or commission of forgery.
35. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the main prosecution witnesses have not supported the case and have failed to identify the accused persons in court.
36. It is an adage that law works on the wheels of evidence. Every criminal trial is a journey of discovering and unfolding the truth. But in the present case no sufficient evidence is there on record to warrant the conviction of the accused person. In the case of Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI 178 (2011) DLT 529 it was held that where it is possible to have both views one in favor of prosecution and one in favor of accused, the later one should prevail. The prosecution could not prove by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
FIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur ZAIDI 2026.02.02 16:08:50 Page 14 of 15 +0530 prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt.
37. Therefore, keeping in view the overall conspectus of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this Court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Therefore, this Court gives benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly, accused Atbir and Bobby are acquitted for offences punishable u/s 365/392/420/482/34 IPC.
Pronounced in the open Court on 02.02.2026.
Digitally signedISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.02.02 ZAIDI 16:08:58 +0530 (Isra Zaidi) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04 North East/KKD/Delhi
Judgment contains 15 pages and each page bears my signature.
FIR No. 78/2008 State Vs. Hemant Gaur Page 15 of 15