Delhi District Court
State vs Ankit @ Anuj on 12 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02,
DWARKA COURTS, S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of: -
State Vs. 1. Ankit @ Anuj
S/o Sh. Chiddu Lal
R/o D-1/53, Aman Vihar,
Kirari Suleman Nag, Kirti Nagar,
Delhi.
2. Amit Kumar
S/o Sh. Rajender
SHIVALI R/o C-4/103, Sultanpuri,
BANSAL
Digitally signed
Outer District,
by SHIVALI
BANSAL Delhi. ......Accused Persons
Date: 2026.03.12
15:53:09 +0530
Sessions Case No. 54/23
e-FIR No. 32923/2022
PS Palam Village
CNR No. DLSW01-000863-2023
Charge-sheet filed U/s 379/411/413/34 IPC
Charge(s) framed against accused U/s 411/34 IPC
Ankit @ Anuj and Amit Kumar
Charge(s) framed against accused U/s 413 IPC
Amit Kumar
Date of institution of case 06.01.2023
Date of case received to Sessions 24.01.2023.
Court
Date of arguments 12.3.2026
Date of judgment 12.3.2026
Decision ACQUITTAL
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons are facing trial for commission of offences punishable U/ss. 411/413/34 IPC.
e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 1PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 14.11.2022, the complainant Naushad registered an online FIR bearing No. 032923/2022 under Section 379 IPC at PS Palam Village regarding the theft of his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL5SBY-1157. Upon registration of the FIR, the investigation was assigned to HC Satish Kumar, who visited the spot and recorded the statement of the complainant. The complainant stated that on 13.11.2022 at about 10:00 PM, he had parked his motorcycle in the gali in front of his house and when he woke up at about 4:30 AM the next morning, the motorcycle was found missing. At the SHIVALI BANSAL Digitally signed by instance of the complainant, the Investigating Officer also SHIVALI BANSAL prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. On Date: 2026.03.12 15:53:57 +0530 01.12.2022, vide GD No. 72A, information was received that accused Ankit @ Anuj and Amit Kumar had been apprehended by ASI Vinod in DD No. 128A dated 30.11.2022 under Sections 41.1(d) and 102 Cr.P.C. at PS Kapashera, and that a stolen motorcycle pertaining to the present case had been recovered from their possession. It was further informed that both the accused persons would be produced before the Court of the Ld. MM at Dwarka Courts. Upon receipt of this information, IO HC Satish Kumar reached Dwarka Courts, obtained copies of the relevant documents, and joined ASI Vinod and HC Mohit in the investigation of the present case. Their statements were also recorded. Thereafter, both the accused persons were interrogated and formally arrested in the present case after obtaining permission from the concerned Court. During interrogation, both the accused e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 2 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another persons made disclosure statements stating that they were addicted to narcotic substances and had been committing thefts to fulfill their requirements. They further stated that about fifteen days prior to their apprehension, they had stolen a Splendor motorcycle, which forms the stolen property in the present case. During the course of investigation, it also came to light that accused Amit Kumar had previously been involved in several cases of theft and had been found in possession of stolen property on earlier occasions. Statements of the relevant witnesses were recorded during investigation. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed SHIVALI against the accused persons for offences punishable under BANSAL Digitally signed by SHIVALI Sections 411/413/34 IPC.
BANSAL Date: 2026.03.12 15:54:08 +05303. Vide order dated 27.07.2023, charges for offences punishable u/s 411/34 IPC were framed against accused Ankit @ Anuj and Amit Kumar and separate charge involving previous conviction in case FIR No.739/2015 PS Sultan Puri and in case FIR No.018485/20 of PS Model Town, for commission of offence punishable u/s 413 IPC was framed against accused Amit to which both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined 5 witnesses.
5. PW1 Naushad is the complainant who deposed that he had given his Splendor Pro motorcycle to his brother-in-law namely Parvesh and the same was stolen from front of his house and, accordingly, he lodged FIR for the same. PW1 proved the superdarinama qua release of the said motorcycle as Ex.PW1/A; Order of the Court qua superdari as e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 3 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another Ex.PW1/B; Registration Certificate of the motorcycle as Ex.PW1/C; two photographs of the motorcycle as Ex.PW1/D (colly.); his complaint to police as Ex.PW1/E; and online e- FIR as Ex.PW1/F. When leading question was asked from PW1 by Ld. Addl.PP, he admitted that on 13.11.2022 at about 10.00 p.m, motorcycle bearing registration No.DLSBY 1157 was parked in front of the house and was found stolen at about 4.30 A.M.
6. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 admitted that at the time of theft, he was at his house at Kardam Puri Extension. He admitted that motorcycle was gifted to his Jeejaji in the marriage and was stolen from his Digitally house. PW1 further stated that theft complaint was made by signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.12 him as registration of the said motorcycle was in his name. 15:54:14 +0530 He clarified that neither his Jeejaji nor he had seen the incident of theft taking place.
7. PW2 ASI Kamlesh deposed that on 1.12.2022 a telephonic information was received and the same was reduced on CCTNS system by him vide GD No.72A dated 1.12.2022. He proved the same as Ex.PW2/A. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity granted.
8. PW-3 HC Mohit Kumar deposed that on 30.11.2022, while he was posted in the Anti Auto Theft Squad (AATS), ASI Vinod received a secret information regarding the movement of certain persons involved in vehicle theft. Acting upon the said information, a raiding team was constituted. He further deposed that at about 5:00 PM, the raiding team, along with e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 4 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another the secret informer, reached under Rajokari Flyover, Rao Matadin Marg. PW-3 stated that 4-5 public persons present at the spot were requested to join the raiding party; however, none agreed to join the proceedings. He further deposed that at about 5:45 PM, two boys arrived at the spot riding a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing registration No. DL5SDY-1157. At the instance of the secret informer, both of them were apprehended and the motorcycle in their possession was found to be a stolen vehicle. Upon inquiry, the names of the said boys were revealed as Ankit and Amit. PW-3 correctly identified both the accused persons. PW-3 further proved the seizure memo of the aforesaid motorcycle SHIVALI as Ex. PW3/A. He also proved the arrest memos, personal BANSAL Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL search memos and disclosure statements of the accused Date: 2026.03.12 persons as Ex. PW3/B to Ex. PW3/G respectively. He further 15:54:20 +0530 proved the seizure memo of the key of the said motorcycle as Ex.PW3/H and the seizure memo of another vehicle, i.e., Honda Activa bearing registration No. DL9SAN-0986, as Ex. PW3/I. PW-3 further deposed that during investigation, the accused persons pointed out one Sunny Chauhan @ Akash to whom they used to hand over stolen vehicles. He further stated that accused Ankit got recovered another scooty from Sagarpur and three scooties from under Naraina Flyover, which were seized vide seizure memos Ex. PW3/J and Ex. PW3/K respectively. PW-3 further deposed that accused Amit also got recovered two scooties from near a wall at Kesho Pur Mandi and two scooties and one motorcycle from near a nala at Chander Vihar, which were seized vide seizure memos Ex.
e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 5PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another PW3/L and Ex. PW3/M respectively. He further proved the arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of Sunny as Ex. PW3/N, Ex. PW3/O and Ex. PW3/P respectively.
9. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW3 stated that they left for going to spot in a private vehicle. The spot was a residential area but no local resident was asked to join the raiding party. He further stated that all the recoveries were effected on the same day. PW3 further admitted that at the time of recovery of case property, no public person was joined. Neither any videography was done nor any photographs were taken at the time of such recoveries. PW3 admitted that all the stolen motorcycles and scooties were parked at open space which was accessible to Digitally public and the recoveries were effected from the jurisdiction signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.12 15:54:25 +0530 of different Police Stations. He further admitted that cases related to stolen vehicles were pending unsolved. PW3 denied the suggestion that only to show the pending cases as solved, recovery of aforesaid stolen vehicles have been falsely shown to be recovered at the instance of accused persons and, therefore, no public person as well as no police official from local Police Station were joined during such recoveries.
10. PW4 ASI Vinod Kumar deposed that on 30.11.2022, while being posted in AATS, he received a secret information and accordingly, a raiding team consisting him, HC Mohit, ASI Jaipal and ASI Ajay Gulia was constituted. He made a departure entry vide DD No.7 (Ex.PW4/A) and at around e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 6 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another 5.00 P.M, they reached under Rajokari Flyover along with secret informer. PW4 deposed that 4-5 public persons were asked to join the raiding party but none agreed and due to shortage of time, no notice was given to them. PW4 corroborated the testimony of PW3 HC Mohit Kumar that both accused persons came on the stolen motorcycle bearing registration No.DL5DY-1157 and they were apprehended. PW4 further corroborated the testimony of PW3 qua seizure of stolen motorcycle in the present case as well as other stolen vehicles from different places as well as arrest memos, personal search memos and disclosure statements made by both the accused persons and also of one Sunny. According to PW4, when Police Team returned to PS, he made arrival entry vide DD No.128A (Ex.PW4/B). Sunny also got recovered 3 motorcycles which were seized vide seizure Digitally signed by memo Ex.PW4/C. This witness correctly identified accused SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.12 15:54:31 +0530 persons in the court.
11. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW4 stated that he remembered the faces of accused persons in cases which were being investigated by him. As per PW4, he requested 2-3 public persons but none of them agreed to join the proceedings. PW4 admitted that he did not get conducted videography or photography of the recovery proceedings. He further admitted that public witnesses were not joined during recovery of case properties. According to PW4, total 15 bikes/scooties were got recovered by the accused persons and Sunny. PW4 denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case to e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 7 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another solve the pending cases.
12. PW5 HC Satish Kumar deposed that while being posted at PS Palam Village, investigation of the present case was marked to him. He proved site plan prepared at the instance of the complainant as Ex.PW5/A; arrest memos of accused Amit and Ankit as Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C; their personal search memos as Ex.PW5/D and Ex.PW5/E; and their disclosure statements as Ex.PW5/F & Ex.PW5/G. As per PW5, after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in the court. PW5 further deposed that on 7.7.2023, he also filed certified copies of ordersheet dated 2.4.2016 (Mark A) passed in case FIR No.739/2015 of PS Sultan Puri and order sheet dated 26.10.21 (Mark B) passed in case FIR Digitally signed by No.018485/20 PS Model Town vide which accused Amit was SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.12 15:54:36 +0530 convicted by the court of Ld. MM, Rohini Court, Delhi. PW5 correctly identified the stolen motorcycle in photograph and also accused namely Ankit and Amit.
13. In his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW5 admitted that complainant had not seen anyone stealing his motorcycle and he also did not visit the place of recovery.
He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused persons.
14. Vide order dated 15.9.2025, Ld. Addl. PP stated that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and, accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed.
15. Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. (351 BNSS) of accused persons Ankit @ Anuj and accused Amit Kumar were recorded, wherein accused persons were briefed on all the e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 8 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another incriminating ocular and documentary evidence to which they denied and further deposed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
16. Initially, accused persons chose to lead defence evidence in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. but on 18.11.2025, Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons made statement that accused persons do not want to lead defence evidence.
17. Final arguments were advanced by Ms. Rajesh Kumari, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ms. Shweta Mehta, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for both the accused persons.
18. Ld. Addl. PP for State has contended that accused persons had made disclosure statements regarding their involvement in the commission of offence. They were found riding on the the stolen Splendor motorcycle of the complainant at the time of their apprehension. Recovery of other stolen vehicles have also been affected at their instance. It is further SHIVALI BANSAL Digitally signed by contended that accused Amit has also been previously SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2026.03.12 15:54:43 +0530 convicted in similar kind of offences by Ld. MM, Rohini Court wherein he had pleaded guilty. It is prayed that accused persons are liable to be convicted in the present case.
19. Per Contra, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused persons has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate her point, she argued that no public persons were joined during alleged recoveries and so called recoveries have been made from public place accessible to all. It is contended that Police have planted the stolen case property of other cases to show the said cases as e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 9 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another solved. It is prayed that both the accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
20. In the present case, charges under Sec. 411/413/34 IPC have been framed against the accused persons. These Sections have been elaborated as under: -
"411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.
Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
S.413: Habitual Dealing in Stolen Property:
Whoever habitually receives or deals in property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
SHIVALI BANSAL Digitally signed by When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2026.03.12 15:54:49 +0530 persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
21. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law.
22. PW1 Naushad merely lodged on-line FIR for the theft of the bike which was stolen from the outside of the house of his Jeeja. Neither he has seen the bike being stolen nor is he witness to the alleged recovery of his bike from the possession of either of the accused persons. PW2 ASI Kamlesh is just a formal witness who proved GD No.72A dated 1.12.2022.
e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 10PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another
23. PW3 HC Mohit Kumar can be said to be a material witness who was member of the raiding party. He deposed that on 30.11.2022 accused persons were riding on the stolen motorcycle bearing No. DL5SDY 1157 at the time when they were apprehended. PW3 proved seizure memos of recovery of other vehicles at the instance of accused persons. However, during his cross-examination, he admitted that the area from where the recovery of stolen vehicles in other cases was made at the instance of accused persons, was a residential area but still no local resident was requested to join the raiding party. Even no photography or videography of the alleged recoveries was conducted. PW3 also admitted that all the stolen motorcycles and scooties were found parked at open Digitally signed by SHIVALI space which was accessible to all public persons. PW3 also SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
admitted that all spots of recovery of stolen vehicles were 2026.03.12 15:54:54 +0530 within the jurisdiction of different police stations but still no police official from the said local police station was called at the time of said recoveries. PW3 further admitted that cases in which stolen vehicles were recovered, were pending unsolved.
24. PW4 ASI Vinod Kumar was also member of the raiding party who corroborated PW3 HC Mohit Kumar qua arrest, personal search, riding of accused persons on the stolen motorcycle and other recoveries of the stolen vehicles at the instance of accused persons. PW4 made departure as well as arrival entries on the day of alleged recoveries. However, he also could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why he did not give any notice to the public persons who refused to join e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 11 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another the investigation or as to why no videography or photography was conducted of the alleged recoveries at the instance of accused persons.
25. PW5 HC Satish Kumar had received information regarding apprehension of accused persons with stolen motorcycle. He proved arrest, personal search and disclosure statements of accused persons in the present case. He also clarified that accused Amit was a previously convict in FIR No.739/2015 of PS Sultan Puri and FIR No.018485/20 of PS Model Town and relied upon relevant ordersheets i.e. Mark A and Mark B.
26. The appreciation of above evidence shows that the present case revolves around the testimonies of PW3 and PW4 only by which prosecution intends to prove its case against the accused persons.
27. It is a well-settled proposition that non-joining of public SHIVALI BANSAL Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation Date: 2026.03.12 15:55:00 +0530 by police. Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation. Reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of the judgment in Pawan Kumar Vs. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under: -
"... According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 12 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
28. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non- joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been held in Appabhai & Another Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR SHIVALI 1988 SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the BANSAL Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the Date: 2026.03.12 15:55:07 +0530 prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
29. The explanation that public persons were requested to join the investigation but refused appears to be a routine explanation and does not inspire confidence. The alleged recovery having been effected from an open and accessible place cannot be said to be exclusively within the knowledge or possession of the accused. The testimony of the police witnesses does not find corroboration from any independent source. In the absence of independent corroboration, the e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 13 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another recovery proceedings become doubtful. The prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the property was stolen. In the absence of independent corroboration, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Further, no videography or photography of the recovery proceedings was conducted, which could have lent additional assurance to the prosecution version. It is also noteworthy that no police official from the concerned police station, within whose territorial jurisdiction the place of recovery was situated, was joined in the investigation. The recovery proceedings, therefore, remain supported only by the testimonies of the police officials. While it is true that the testimony of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground of their official status, the Digitally same nevertheless requires careful scrutiny, particularly signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2026.03.12 15:55:13 +0530 when independent corroboration is absent. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the manner in which the recovery is stated to have been effected does not inspire full confidence.
30. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence produced before the Court. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of accused, charged with the commission of a crime, a criminal Court has to ensure that facts constituting such crime are proved beyond the scope of any reasonable doubt. Every case in the final e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 14 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another analysis would have to depend upon its own facts and merits. Definite doubts or lacunae in the case of the prosecution may result in benefit of doubt being given to the accused persons and consequential acquittal.
31. All above circumstances casts doubt as to the manner of investigation and these contradictions and lacuna in the investigation gives indication of certain manipulation by the police officials for the reasons best known to them. There is no independent recovery witness examined by the prosecution and the testimony of police officials regarding riding on the motorcycle No. DL5SDY1157 and the alleged recoveries of stolen vehicles from different places is doubtful in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. The story put forth SHIVALI BANSAL in the chargesheet appears to be highly improbable.
Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2026.03.12 15:55:19 +053032. All the cases in which stolen vehicles were allegedly recovered were pending unsolved. It cannot be ruled out that recovery was planted upon them. Although, a discovery made consequent upon the disclosure statement of accused persons is admissible in evidence but the same is not reliable in the instant case as the involvement of accused persons in commission of offence of theft is not made out. In such circumstances, the disclosure statement of the accused persons and consequent recovery is discarded as being unreliable.
33. Section 413 of the IPC is attracted only when a person habitually receives or deals in property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property. However, in the present case, even the essential ingredients of Section 411 e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 15 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another IPC have not been proved against the accused, Amit Kumar, beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, no offence under Section 413 IPC can be said to have been committed by him.
34. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 411/413/34 IPC against accused Ankit @ Anuj and Amit Kumar beyond reasonable doubt.
35. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused Ankit @ Anuj and Amit Kumar are hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Section 411/34 IPC and accused Amit Kumar is also acquitted for commission of offence punishable u/S 413 IPC also.
36. Bail bonds of the accused persons except bail bonds filed SHIVALI under section 437A Cr.PC stands cancelled. Their sureties BANSAL Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2026.03.12 stand discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to the 15:55:24 +0530 sureties. Case property, if any, be released to the rightful owners.
37. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(SHIVALI BANSAL) Announced in the open ASJ-02, DWARKA COURTS, Court on 12.03.2026. S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI (SA) Encl: Charts of Exhibited Documents Chart of witnesses examined.
Chart of admitted documents.
e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 16PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another APPENDIX CHART OF EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS Exhibit No. Description of the Document Proved by/Attested By Ex.PW1/A Superdarinama of motorcycle PW1 Ex.PW1/B Order of the Court qua superdari PW1 Ex.PW1/C Registration Certificate of the motorcycle PW1 Ex.PW1/D Two photographs of the motorcycle PW1 SHIVALI Ex.PW1/E Complaint to police PW1 BANSAL Ex.PW1/F Online e-FIR PW1 Digitally signed by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2026.03.12 15:55:32 +0530 PW2/A GD No.72A dated 1.12.2022. PW2 Ex. PW3/A Seizure memo of the aforesaid motorcycle PW3 Ex. PW3/B to Arrest memos, personal search memos and PW3 Ex. PW3/G disclosure statements of the accused persons Ex.PW3/H Seizure memo of the key of the said PW3 motorcycle Ex. PW3/I Seizure memo of another vehicle, i.e., Honda PW3 Activa bearing registration No. DL9SAN-0986 Ex. PW3/J and Seizure memos of scooties PW3 Ex. PW3/K e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 17 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another Ex. PW3/L and Seizure memo of stolen vehicles PW3 Ex. PW3/M Ex. PW3/N, Ex. Arrest memo, personal search memo and PW3 PW3/O and disclosure statement of Sunny Ex. PW3/P Ex.PW4/A DD No.7 PW4 Ex.PW4/B DD No.128A PW4 Ex.PW5/A Site plan PW5 Ex.PW5/B and Arrest memos of accused Amit and Ankit PW5 Ex.PW5/C Ex.PW5/D and Personal search memos of accused Amit and PW5 Ex.PW5/E Ankit Ex.PW5/F & Disclosure statements PW5 Ex.PW5/G CHART OF WITNESSES EXAMINED SHIVALI BANSAL Digitally signed Prosecution Name of witness Description by SHIVALI BANSAL Date: 2026.03.12 15:55:39 +0530 Witness No. PW-1 Naushad Complainant PW-2 ASI Kamlesh Formal witness-Police Official PW-3 HC Mohit Kumar Participated in Investigation PW-4 ASI Vinod Kumar Participated in Investigation PW5 HC Satish Kumar IO of case CHART OF ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Document Description of Document Nil Nil e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 18 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another e-FIR No. 32923/2022 Page No. 19 PS Palam Village State Vs. Ankit @ Anuj and another