Delhi District Court
State vs Tara Singh on 8 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVI
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI DISTRICT: NEW DELHI
DLND020145302023
FIR No. 45/2023
State Vs. Tara Singh & Anr.
Cr C No. 5143/2023
PS: Mandir Marg
U/s: 392/411/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
Cr. Case No. 5143/2023
Name of the Complainant Sh. Parmarth Singh Chauhan
S/o Sh. Ghanshyam Chouhan
No. 2086/NDR/o Flat No. 788,
Sector-D, Type-III, Peshwa Road,
New Delhi
Name of the accused & his 1. Tara Singh S/o Sh. Devi Singh parentage and address R/o Jhuggi No. C/32-8097, Peshwa Road, Gole Market, New Delhi
2. Arjun S/o Sh. Gajanand Narothe R/o Rain Baser No. 234, Bangla Sahib Gurudwara, New Delhi Offence complained of 392/411/34 IPC Date of Judgment 08.04.2026 Plea of accused Accused pleaded not guilty Final Order Acquitted for the offences 392/411/34 IPC FIR No. 45/2023 State Vs. Tara Singh Page No. 1 of 10 Digitally signed ravi by ravi Date:
2026.04.08 18:11:37 +0530 JUDGEMENT
1. The case of the prosecution revolves around an incident that occurred on 12.03.2023 at about 11:30 PM at Peshwa Road near Kendriya Bhandar, Gole Market, within the jurisdiction of PS Mandir Marg, wherein both accused along with an associate (since tried as CCL) in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained and assaulted the complainant Parmarth Singh Chauhan and snatched his mobile phone (Realme X7 Max) forcefully, thereby committing an offence punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC. Further, the accused Tara Singh was found in possession of the aforesaid stolen mobile phone, knowing or having reason to believe that the same was stolen property, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. Both accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Sh. Parmarth Singh Chauhan, the complainant, whose examination-in-chief was partly recorded on 20.08.2024. In his examination-in-chief, PW-1 deposed that in the second week of February 2023, while he was returning home from the market, at about 11:30 PM when he reached Peshwa Road near Kendriya Bhandar, three boys suddenly grabbed him by the neck. He described the assailants broadly, one tall person wearing a black shirt and a dark-coloured cap, one of medium height wearing a green round-neck T-shirt, and one who was less tall and fair in complexion. He deposed that when grabbed, one of the three persons caught hold of both his hands while the others threatened him saying "whatever you have, give it to us, otherwise we will kill you." He stated that he tried to free himself but they held him tightly from his neck, causing him to gasp for breath and fall down, following which his FIR No. 45/2023 State Vs. Tara Singh Page No. 2 of 10 Digitally signed ravi by ravi Date:
2026.04.08 18:11:45 +0530 mobile phone (Realme X7 Max) was snatched from his left pocket. After the snatching, all three persons fled from the spot. He thereafter encountered a PCR van, narrated the occurrence to the policemen, and subsequently went to the police station and lodged an online e-FIR. He further deposed that during investigation he viewed CCTV footage from cameras monitored at PS Mandir Marg, wherein the accused persons were seen running from the spot. He handed over the invoice and photocopy of the box of his mobile phone to the IO, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A, and marked as Ex. P2 and P3 respectively. The IO prepared a site plan at his instance, which was marked as Ex. P4. The examination-in-chief of PW-1 was, however, not completed on 20.08.2024, as it was deferred midway at the request of the learned counsel for the accused on the ground that he had to rush to some other court.
3. Thereafter, despite the passage of considerable time and despite summons being issued to PW-1 through the DCP concerned on several oaccsions, PW-1/complainant Parmarth Singh Chauhan did not appear before this court. The summons were received back as duly served, yet no appearance was entered by PW-1. In the order dated 08.04.2026, this Court recorded that issuing further process against the complainant would not be of any utility as he did not seem keen to depose as a witness. Accordingly, PW-1/complainant Parmarth Singh Chauhan was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses. Consequent upon the dropping of the complainant from the witness list, this Court further held on 08.04.2026 that in the absence of the testimony of the complainant, bringing on record the testimony of other formal witnesses would not be of any utility, and the testimony of remaining prosecution witnesses was accordingly dispensed with. Since nothing FIR No. 45/2023 State Vs. Tara Singh Page No. 3 of 10 Digitally signed by ravi ravi Date:
2026.04.08 18:11:52 +0530 incriminating had come on record against the accused persons, the recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was also dispensed with.
4. Before proceeding to appreciate the evidence on record, it is necessary to advert briefly to the fundamental principles governing the burden of proof in criminal trials. It is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, deeply embedded in our constitutional and statutory framework, that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies squarely and entirely upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. This principle, foundational to the rule of law, was eloquently reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, where it was held that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and another to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The Court further held that even if the accused fails to explain the circumstances against him, that by itself cannot be a ground for conviction if the prosecution has not discharged its initial burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.
5. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Supreme Court laid down with great precision that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, and that a criminal court cannot convict an accused merely because a prima facie case has been made out or because the accused has not offered a satisfactory explanation. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not a mere formality, it FIR No. 45/2023 State Vs. Tara Singh Page No. 4 of 10 Digitally signed by ravi ravi Date:
2026.04.08 18:11:57 +0530 is the substantive standard that separates a just conviction from an unjust one.
6. In Krishnan v. State of Kerala, (1996) 10 SCC 508 , the Supreme Court reiterated that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and cannot draw sustenance from the weakness of the defence. The failure of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances does not and cannot substitute for the prosecution's failure to prove its case. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 , the Supreme Court cautioned that "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," and that this principle is not a mere platitude but a living standard that must guide every criminal court in every case.
7. The standard of proof in criminal cases must be distinguished from the standard applicable in civil matters. In C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, the Supreme Court held that in a criminal trial, the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, a doubt that a reasonable person would entertain, and that the standard is not one of absolute certainty but one of moral certainty based on solid and reliable evidence.
8. The present case must now be examined against these foundational principles. At the outset, this Court notes the deeply unfortunate procedural trajectory of this case. The complainant Parmarth Singh Chauhan, who is both the sole eyewitness to the alleged offence and the sole victim, was examined in chief only partially on 20.08.2024. He did not complete his examination on that date because the defence sought a deferment, which was granted. Thereafter, for reasons best known to FIR No. 45/2023 State Vs. Tara Singh Page No. 5 of 10 Digitally signed by ravi ravi Date:
2026.04.08 18:12:04 +0530 himself, the complainant chose not to appear before this Court despite repeated summons. Summons were issued through the DCP concerned as a last resort, and the same were served, yet the complainant remained absent. This Court was thus left with no option but to drop the complainant from the list of prosecution witnesses, as recorded in the order dated 08.04.2026.
9. The consequence of this development for the prosecution's case is catastrophic and final. The entire edifice of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of PW-1, the complainant. He is the only person who can identify the accused as the perpetrators of the alleged robbery. He is the person whose property was allegedly snatched. He is the person in whose presence the alleged offence was committed. Without his complete and cross-examined testimony, the prosecution has no case at all. What remains on record is only a truncated examination-in-chief of PW-1, which was never completed and was never subjected to cross- examination by the defence. This incomplete deposition cannot be used as substantive evidence against the accused persons.
10. This principle is well-settled. In Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 214, the Supreme Court held that a statement recorded in examination-in-chief but not subjected to cross-examination cannot be used as evidence against the accused, because the right of cross- examination is an essential component of a fair trial and of the right to test the veracity of the witness. The denial of an opportunity to cross- examine a witness renders the examination-in-chief of that witness wholly unreliable and inadmissible for the purpose of conviction. In Rattan Singh v. State of H.P., (1997) 4 SCC 161, the Supreme Court reiterated that where a witness is not available for cross-examination, FIR No. 45/2023 State Vs. Tara Singh Page No. 6 of 10 Digitally signed by ravi ravi Date:
2026.04.08 18:12:09 +0530 his examination-in-chief must be excluded from consideration. The position is even clearer in the present case where not only was the complainant not cross-examined, but his examination-in-chief was itself incomplete and broken off midway.
11.This Court therefore holds that the incomplete and uncross-examined deposition of PW-1 cannot be read as substantive evidence against the accused persons. Since PW-1's deposition is the only evidence adduced by the prosecution, and since the formal witnesses have been dispensed with by this Court's order dated 08.04.2026, there is literally nothing on record against the accused that can be considered for the purpose of adjudicating their guilt. The documentary exhibits, Ex. P1 (FIR), Ex. P2 (invoice), Ex. P3 (photocopy of mobile box) and Ex. P4 (site plan), have been partially proved through the deposition of PW-1 in examination-in-chief. However, these documents, even if considered, do not by themselves establish any link between the accused persons and the commission of the alleged offence. The invoice and the box photocopy prove only that the complainant owned the phone, they do not prove that the accused persons snatched it. The site plan merely marks the location of the incident, it does not prove that the accused were present there. The FIR is not substantive evidence of the facts stated therein, it is at best a prior statement of the complainant, admissible only to corroborate or contradict his testimony, and in the absence of that testimony, it carries no independent evidentiary weight.
12. Even if this Court were to, for the sake of argument, consider the partial examination-in-chief of PW-1, it would still not be sufficient to sustain a conviction. PW-1 in his partial deposition gave a general description of the three boys who allegedly attacked him, one tall with a black shirt FIR No. 45/2023 State Vs. Tara Singh Page No. 7 of 10 Digitally signed by ravi ravi Date:
2026.04.08 18:12:14 +0530 and dark cap, one of medium height in a green T-shirt, and one less tall and fair. He did not identify the accused persons by name or in any dock identification. There is no Test Identification Parade (TIP) on record. There is no evidence that PW-1 was ever asked to identify the accused persons in any formal process. In the absence of TIP or dock identification, the mere recovery of the phone from one of the accused, even if established, would not conclusively prove the charge of robbery unless the complainant's testimony establishes the entire chain from the snatching to the recovery. In Malkhansingh v. State of M.P., (2003) 5 SCC 746, the Supreme Court held that where TIP is not conducted and the accused is identified for the first time in court, such identification is of little evidentiary value, particularly in cases where the accused was not previously known to the complainant.
13.The charge of dishonest retention of stolen property under Section 411 IPC against accused Tara Singh requires proof, at the minimum, of three elements, that the property in question was stolen, that the accused was in possession of it, and that the accused knew or had reason to believe it was stolen. Even the first element, that the phone was stolen in the manner alleged, cannot be established without the complainant's completed and cross-examined testimony. The recovery of the phone from Tara Singh, even if accepted, cannot be pressed into service to prove the charge under Section 411 IPC without first establishing that the phone was indeed stolen from the complainant in the manner alleged. The chain of evidence is fatally broken.
14. It is also pertinent to note that this Court is conscious of the plight of the accused persons, who have been produced from judicial custody on the last date of hearing. The record does not clearly indicate how long FIR No. 45/2023 State Vs. Tara Singh Page No. 8 of 10 Digitally signed by ravi ravi Date:
2026.04.08 18:12:20 +0530 the accused have been in custody, but given the FIR dates back to 2023 and the case has been pending for approximately three years without the prosecution being able to lead its evidence, the continued detention of the accused persons would itself raise serious constitutional concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, the Supreme Court held that prolonged pre- trial detention is itself a violation of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and that an accused person cannot be made to languish in jail for years when the prosecution is unable or unwilling to pursue its case with diligence. The conduct of the complainant in not appearing before the Court, despite duly served summons, resulting in the accused persons being kept in custody without the prosecution being able to prove its case, is a circumstance that further reinforces the necessity of a prompt and definitive judgment in the present case.
15. Having regard to the foregoing analysis, this Court arrives at the following inescapable conclusion. The prosecution has failed entirely to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons. The sole witness and complainant has been dropped from the witness list after failing to appear despite served summons. His partial and uncross- examined deposition cannot constitute substantive evidence. The documentary exhibits placed on record do not, in the absence of testimonial proof, establish any link between the accused and the alleged offence. There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that has been duly proved and placed on record which connects the accused persons to the commission of the offences charged. The prosecution has comprehensively failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the words of the Supreme FIR No. 45/2023 State Vs. Tara Singh Page No. 9 of 10 Digitally signed by ravi ravi Date:
2026.04.08 18:12:27 +0530 Court in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, when the prosecution fails to prove its case, benefit must go to the accused, not as a matter of leniency or sympathy, but as a matter of right.
16. In view of the foregoing, both the accused persons, namely (1) Tara Singh S/o Sh. Devi Singh and (2) Arjun S/o Gajanand Narothe, are hereby acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in the present case, including the charges under Sections 392/34 IPC and 411 IPC, giving them the benefit of doubt. Both accused persons are directed to be released forthwith from judicial custody, if not required in any other case. Their personal bonds and sureties, if any, shall stand discharged.
17.A copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost as per Section 363 CrPC.
Digitally signedravi by ravi Date:
2026.04.08 18:12:52 +0530 Announced in the court (Ravi) on 08th April, 2026 Judicial Magistrate First Class - 07 New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 45/2023 State Vs. Tara Singh Page No. 10 of 10