Delhi District Court
State vs Surender on 10 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-05, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS
Presided over by- Dr. Aneeza Bishnoi, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 2841/2022
Unique Case ID No. -: DLSE020064932022
FIR No. -: 323/2020
Police Station -: Sarita Vihar
Section(s) -: 392/34 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
SURENDER & ANR.
.... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Sh. Mitra Sen
Surender and Manoj @
2. Name of Accused :
Govinda
Offence complained of or
3. : 392/34 IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of registration of FIR : 09.04.2021 Date of filing of
6. : 28.03.2022 chargesheet
7. Date of Reserving Order : 09.12.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026
9. Final Order : Acquitted Argued by -: Ld. APP for the State. Digitally Sh. Gaurav Bidhuri, Ld. Counsel for accused ANEEZA signed BISHNOI by Surender. ANEEZA BISHNOI Cr. Case No.2841/2022 State Vs. Surender & Anr. Page 1 of 8
-:J U D G M E N T:-
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.08.2020, at about 07:15 PM, near by Jasola Apollo Metro Station, within the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar, both accused persons in furtherance of their common intention robbed purse containing driving license, ATM card, ID card and cash of Rs. 11,000/- belonging to complainant Mitra Sen and key of car bearing registration No. DL12CU-008, which was being driven by the complainant and thereby accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s 392/34 IPC.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED -
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charge under sections 392 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ANEEZA PROSECUTION EVIDENCE -
BISHNOI
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and Digitally by ANEEZA signed BISHNOI Cr. Case No.2841/2022 State Vs. Surender & Anr. Page 2 of 8 documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : Sh. Mitrasen PW-2 : ASI Om Prakash PW-3 : ASI Niranjan Sharma PW-4 : HC Manoj Kumar PW-5 : HC Amit Kumar PW-6 : Inspector Benkatesh Kumar PW-7 : ASI Virdass PW-8 : HC Sajjan Singh DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW-1/A : Complaint of the complainant Ex. PW-5/1 : Arrest memo of accused Surender Arrest memo of accused Manoj @ Ex. PW-5/2 :
Govinda Personal search memo of accused Ex. PW-5/3 :
Surender Personal search memo of accused Manoj Ex. PW-5/4 :
@ Govinda Ex. PW-5/5 : Disclosure statement of accused Surender Disclosure statement of accused Manoj Ex. PW-5/6 :
@ Govinda
Ex. PW-5/7 : Pointing out memo
Ex. PW-6/A : Site plan
Ex. PW-7/A : Tehrir
Ex. PW-7/A : PCR form/certified copy
Ex. PW-8/A : Rukka
Ex. PW-8/B : Site plan
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED-
5. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA Cr. Case No.2841/2022 State Vs. Surender & Anr. Page 3 of 8 BISHNOI circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused persons was recorded without oath under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC. The accused persons stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
They have not robbed the purse containing driving license, ATM card, ID card and cash Rs. 11,000/- and key of car of complainant.
ARGUMENTS -
6. I have heard 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.
7. It is argued by the learned APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case and the State has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for accused has submitted that there is no public witnesses in the present case and neither any recovery has been effected from both the accused persons. It is further argued that complainant has himself admitted that it was park when the alleged incident took place and that he identified the accused persons in the police station itself which is not legal. Further, it is argued that they were apprehended in another matter after two months and this is case was planted upon them merely on the basis of their disclosure statement. INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE -
9. The accused has been charged for the offence under ANEEZA Section 392 of the IPC. For the offence under Section 392 IPC, it BISHNOI Digitally signed by Cr. Case No.2841/2022 State Vs. Surender & Anr. Page 4 of 8 ANEEZA BISHNOI must be proved that the accused committed either theft or extortion amounting to robbery, and it is to be further proved that other ingredients of the offence were fulfilled by the acts of the accused. For theft amounting to robbery, it is to be proved that the accused has voluntarily caused or attempted to cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint to the victim. Further, for commission of the offense of theft, the essential ingredients are: (i) There must be a dishonest intention of a person to take the property; (ii) the property must be movable; (iii) the property must be taken out of the possession of another person/complainant; (iv) the property must be taken without the consent of that person/ complainant; (v) There must be some moving of the property in order to accomplish the taking of it.
10. Therefore, the prosecution was required to satisfy the aforesaid ingredients to bring home the charge against the accused. 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.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE -
11. The case of the prosecution hinges on the testimony of the star witness, PW-1/Sh. Mitrasen, who is the complainant and alleged victim, has deposed regarding the incident dated 24.08.2020. However, his testimony suffers from material infirmities. As per his own version, the alleged incident occurred at about 07:15 PM and it ANEEZA BISHNOI Digitally Cr. Case No.2841/2022 State Vs. Surender & Anr. Page 5 of 8 signed by ANEEZA BISHNOI was dark at the spot. He also admitted during cross-examination that no public persons were joined during investigation and no case property was recovered from the accused persons in his presence. Admittedly, no medical examination of PW-1 was conducted despite the allegation of having been pushed to the ground. These facts create a serious doubt regarding the manner of occurrence of the incident as alleged. Further, the identity of the accused persons is the most crucial aspect in the present case. PW-1 admitted that the incident took place in darkness and the accused persons came from behind. In such circumstances, the possibility of proper identification of the assailants at the time of incident becomes doubtful. Though PW-1 identified the accused persons in the court, it is pertinent to note that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted during investigation. Identification of the accused persons for the first time in the court, without any prior TIP, carries a weak evidentiary value and cannot be solely relied upon. PW-2 ASI Om Prakash has merely deposed about the disclosure statements of the accused persons made in another FIR. It is a settled proposition of law that disclosure statements made to police officers are inadmissible in evidence except to the extent of recovery. In the present case, no recovery of robbed articles has been effected pursuant to the alleged disclosure statements. Hence, the testimony of PW-2 does not advance the prosecution case in any manner. PW-3 ASI Niranjan Sharma, PW-4 HC Manoj Kumar and PW-8 HC Sajjan Singh are police witnesses relating to FIR No. 375/2020 and not eyewitnesses to the present incident. They have ANEEZA BISHNOI themselves admitted that they have not investigated the present case Digitally signed by Cr. Case No.2841/2022 State Vs. Surender & Anr. Page 6 of 8 ANEEZA BISHNOI and have no personal knowledge regarding the alleged robbery. Their testimonies, therefore, have no direct bearing on the occurrence of the offence in question. PW-5 HC Amit Kumar and PW-6 Inspector Venkatesh Kumar (IO) have deposed regarding arrest, disclosure statements and pointing out memos. However, it is noteworthy that the pointing-out memo does not constitute any substantive evidence, particularly when the place of incident was already known to the police. Moreover, despite alleged refusal of accused persons to participate in TIP, no effort was made to secure their identification through any independent or scientific means. PW-7 ASI Virdass has only proved the formal aspect of registration of FIR and preparation of tehrir. His testimony does not throw any light on the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged offence. It is also an admitted position that no independent public witness was joined at any stage of investigation, despite the incident allegedly having taken place at a public place. No CCTV footage was collected or produced on record. No robbed property was ever recovered from the possession of the accused persons. These lapses in investigation cast a serious doubt on the prosecution version. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The prosecution is required to stand on its own legs and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the cumulative effect of the inconsistencies, absence of recovery, doubtful identification and lack of corroborative evidence entitles the accused persons to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed ANEEZA to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable BISHNOI Digitally signed by Cr. Case No.2841/2022 State Vs. Surender & Anr. Page 7 of 8 ANEEZA BISHNOI doubt.
13. Now coming to the present case it is an admitted fact that no CCTV footage of the alleged incident has been recovered and this case has been registered against the accused persons merely on the basis of their disclosure statement, which cannot be stated to be best form of evidence against them. No TIP of the accused persons have been connected and they have been identified by the complainant as alleged in the police station. In addition to this PW6/IO has stated in his evidence that no clues were found about the accused persons at the place of alleged incident.
-:CONCLUSION:-
15. It is a settled position of law that the onus and duty to prove the case against the accused persons is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt which it has failed to do in the present case. As mentioned above, there are various discrepancies in the prosecution version and the fact that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are not in consonance with each other and neither any public witness have been brought on record, he is entitled to be acquitted.
16. Resultantly, the accused namely Surender S/o Sh.
Pratap Singh and Manoj @ Govinda S/o Sh. Ravinder Singh are hereby ACQUITTED for the offence under Section 392/34 IPC.
Pronounced in open court on 10.02.2026 in presence of the accused.
This judgment contains 08 pages, and each page has been signed by the Digitally
undersigned. ANEEZA signed by
BISHNOI ANEEZA
(Dr. Aneeza Bishnoi) BISHNOI
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05
South East District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi/10.02.2026
Cr. Case No.2841/2022 State Vs. Surender & Anr. Page 8 of 8