Delhi District Court
State vs Junaid Khan on 11 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-01
EAST DISTRICT, KKD COURTS, DELHI.
TITLE: : State v. Junaid Khan
FIR No. : 958/2021
CNR No. : DLET020008252022
P.S. : Mayur Vihar
Date of commission of offence : 10-12-2021
Name of Informant/complainant : Sh. Mukesh Kumar
Name of accused : Junaid Khan
Offence/s complained of : s. 379/411 I.P.C.
Cognizance under section/s : s. 379/411 I.P.C.
Charges framed under section/s : s. 411 I.P.C.
Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty
Date of hearing Final Arguments: : 11-07-2025
Date of pronouncement : 11.07.2025
Final Order : Acquittal
For the Prosecution : Ld. APP
For the accused. : Sh. Lavi Tyagi
Present : Pritu Raj
J.M. F.C.-01,
KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 958/21 State v. Junaid Khan Page no. 1
JUDGEMENT
1. The accused Juanid Khan is facing trial for the offense u/s 411 Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter 'I.P.C. ').
2. Stated succinctly, the facts germane for the prosecution of the case that on 10-12- 2021, the accused was found in possession bicycle belonging the complainant Mukesh Kumar knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property. Hence, the present case.
3. Mayur Vihar P.S. registered in relation to the above incident e-FIR no. 958/2021 on 09-12-2021 and, after investigation, submitted the charge sheet on 01-02-2022 against the accused. Cognizance was taken vide. order dated 01-02-2022 and ac- cused entered appearance on 28-03-2023.
4. Charges were framed u/s 411 I.P.C. on 26-07-2023 and read over to the accused , in Hindi, to which he denied the incident and claimed to be tried.
5. Despite attempt, the complainant remained unserved through the DCP concerned. He was accordingly dropped from the list of witnesses on 11-07-2025. Since nothing FIR No. 958/21 State v. Junaid Khan Page no. 2 incriminating had come on record against the accused, SA was dispensed with. Final arguments were heard and the matter was listed for judgment on 11-07-2025.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
6. The primary issue to be decided in the present case is whether the prosecution has been able to prove it's case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In criminal proceedings, the case of the prosecution must be proved beyond all reason- able doubt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of reasonable doubt and an accused is innocent unless proved guilty. (Raja Naykar v. State of Chattis- garh 2024 INSC 56). With this backdrop, this Court will proceed to examine whether the prosecution has proved it's case against the accused beyond all reason- able doubt.
7. The case against the accused is that he had been found in possession of the bicycle of the complainant, knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property. The complainant of the present case remained unserved through the DCP concerned and was dropped from the list of witnesses. In the absence of the com- plainant, the factum of the bicycle being stolen remains unproved as is the owner- ship of the same. The other witnesses are police witnesses and hence the charge u/s 411 IPC against the accused stands negated.
FIR No. 958/21 State v. Junaid Khan Page no. 3
DECISION
8. In view of the above observations and discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proving its case against the accused. It is well settled that the burden which lies on the prosecution is to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and not merely on the preponderance of probabilities. The case of the prosecution must stand on its own two legs. Re- liance in this regard is placed on S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P, 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"...... In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it 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. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negate it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..........................."
9. The accused Junaid Khan S/o Sh. Javed Khan is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.
10. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2025.07.24 17:47:10 +0530 Announced in open Court (PRITU RAJ) on 11th of July, 2025 Judicial Magistrate-01 East, KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 958/21 State v. Junaid Khan Page no. 4