Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjay @ Load on 10 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-05, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Dr. Aneeza Bishnoi, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 97281/2016
Unique Case ID No. -: DLSE020109452016
FIR No. -: 69/2014
Police Station -: Sarita Vihar
Section(s) -: 392/34 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
SANJAY @ LOAD
.... Accused
1.Name of Complainant : Mr. Subhash Chand Handa
2. Name of Accused : Sanjay @ Load Offence complained of or
3. : 392/34 IPC proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of registration of FIR : 04.02.2014 Date of filing of
6. : 28.09.2016 chargesheet
7. Date of Reserving Order : 30.03.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement : 11.05.2025
9. Final Order : Acquitted Argued by -: Sh. Shubham, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Ajay Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused.
Digitally
ANEEZA signed by
BISHNOI ANEEZA
BISHNOI
Cr. Case No.97281/2016 State Vs. Sanjay @ Load Page 1 of 6
-:J U D G M E N T:-
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.02.2014, at about 07:30 PM, at Fly Over, Sarita Vihar Bus Stand, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar, accused Sanjay @ Load along- with two other co-accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed robbery of Rs.30,000/- by forcefully taking out of Rs.30,000/- from the pant pocket of the complainant Subhash Chander Handa by using criminal force against the complainant and causing wrongful restraint to the complainant, and thus, it is alleged that accused has committed 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 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 392/34 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE -
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond Cr. Case No.97281/2016 State Vs. Sanjay @ Load Page 2 of 6 Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI reasonable doubt-:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : Mr. Shubhash Chander Handa PW-2 : Insp. Devender Kumar PW-3 : Mr. More Dinkar PW-4 : Insp. Rakesh PW-5 : Insp. Moolchand PW-6 : Insp. Ram Naresh PW-7 : Insp. Ajay Kumar DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW-1/A : Complaint Ex. PW-3/A : Personal search memo Ex. PW-3/B : Disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW-6/A : Arrest memo Ex. PW-7/A : Site plan STATEMENT OF ACCUSED-
5. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC. The accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
ARGUMENTS -
6. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI Cr. Case No.97281/2016 State Vs. Sanjay @ Load Page 3 of 6
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 be punished for the said offences.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the incident took place in a bus, however no independent witness has been cited by the prosecution. Neither any recovery has been effected from the accused, nor the denomination of the currency stolen has been stated. Neither the driver nor the conductor of the bus have been made witnesses, even-though it has been claimed that they caught the accused red handed. No call at 100 number was made by the complainant. No eyewitness of the alleged incident has been mentioned by the prosecution and no CCTV footage has been placed on record.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE -
9. The accused has been charged for the offence under Section 392/34 of the IPC. For the offence under Section 392 IPC, it 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 Cr. Case No.97281/2016 State Vs. Sanjay @ Load Page 4 of 6 Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI 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 Mr. Subhash who is the complainant. During his cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that accused Sanjay did not put his hand in pocket of complainant. Further, he has stated that the accused was caught by bus driver, conductor and other public persons, however, not even a single independent eye- witness of the alleged offence has been cited by the prosecution. He also admitted in his cross-examination that no site plan was prepared in his presence.
12. Also, IO has stated that no recovery was effected from the accused and that he did not conductor any enquiry from the driver and conductor of the bus.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that the sole eye-witness in the present case i.e. the complainant himself has admitted during Cr. Case No.97281/2016 State Vs. Sanjay @ Load Page 5 of 6 Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA BISHNOI his cross-examination that accused has not put hands in his pocket. Also, no independent witness has been brought on record to substantiate the prosecution story, even-though it has been alleged that many persons alongwith driver and conductor of the bus were present at the spot.
-:CONCLUSION:-
14. It is a settled position of law that the onus and duty to prove the case against the accused 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 accused was stated to not have done any wrong against the complainant, no recovery has been made from the accused and neither any public witness have been brought on record, he is entitled to be acquitted.
15. Resultantly, the accused namely Sanjay @ Load S/o Ramu is hereby ACQUITTED for the offence under Section 392/34 IPC.
Pronounced in open court on 11.05.2026 in presence of the accused. This judgment contains 06 pages, and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally ANEEZA signed by BISHNOI ANEEZA (Dr. Aneeza Bishnoi BISHNOI Judicial Magistrate First Class-05 West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi/11.05.2025 Cr. Case No.97281/2016 State Vs. Sanjay @ Load Page 6 of 6