Delhi District Court
State vs Shankar Kumar on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. GARIMA JINDAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-06, NORTH, ROHINI
GARIMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs Shankar Kumar
FIR No. 16/2014
Digitally PS Adarsh Nagar
signed by U/s 380/411/34 of IPC
GARIMA CIS No. 298/2017
Date:
2026.03.30
16:34:06 JUDGEMENT
+0530
1) CNR Number of the case : DLNT020006732017
2)The date of commission of offence: 06.01.2014
3) The name of the complainant : Sanjay Jain
4) The name & parentage of accused: 1. Shankar Kumar
S/o Sh. Dood Nath Singh
2. Narender S/o Sh. Bachan Ram
3. Miraj S/o Md. Bafati
5) Offence complained of : u/s 380/411/34 of IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded guilty
7) Final order : Acquittal
Date of Institution : 23.01.2017
Judgment reserved on : 16.02.2026
Judgment announced on : 30.03.2026
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1.The brief facts of the case are that on 06.01.2014, at around 7pm to 10.30am, at Nitika Tower-II, Azadpur, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention entered into the shop of the complainant namely Sanjay FIR No. 16/2014 State Vs Shankar Kumar (Page no. 1 of 7) Jain and stole the recharge coupons lying there in the shop and thereafter on GARIMA 23.01.2014, were found in possession of the same and thus committed an offence punishable u/s 380/411/34 of IPC.
Digitally signedby GARIMA 2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court Date: on 23.01.2017 only against the accused persons- Narender, Shankar and Miraj 2026.03.30 16:34:11 +0530 (who all were major and rest were juvenile and hence they were prosecuted separately) and cognizance of the offence u/s 380/411 of IPC was taken by the Ld. Predecessor of this court on the said date itself and after complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C., arguments on charge were heard. It is pertinent to mention here that accused Miraj was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 30.07.2018 and accused Narender was also initially declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 07.09.2019, however, later on he was found. Charge was therefore framed separately against the accused Shankar and Narender. Charge against the accused Shankar was framed on 08.12.2021 u/s 380/411 of IPC, however, against the accused Narender on 06.06.2023 u/s 356/379/120B/411 of IPC by the Ld. Predecessor of this court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses.
PW-1/HC Parvinder is a formal witness who accompanied PW-7 i.e. the IO/SI Naresh Pal after receipt of DD entry to the spot and deposed on exactly similar lines as PW-7. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel and the material facts that emerged therein shall be dealt with hereinunder at the relevant stage.
PW-2/Sanjay Jain is a material witness being the complainant of the present case. He deposed that on 06.01.2014, he went to his home after closing his office and on the next day, at around 10.30am, when he reached his shop/ FIR No. 16/2014 State Vs Shankar Kumar (Page no. 2 of 7) office, he saw that all the articles were scattered and thereafter, he made call GARIMA to PCR and upon checking, he came to know that three bags of sales executive having accounts books, recharge coupons, cash of Rs. 3980/- were stolen. He further deposed that the bag contained 10300 recharge coupons worth Rs. Digitally 2,31,800/- and thereafter, his statement was recorded by the IO. Some of the signed by GARIMA stolen articles were recovered and released on superdari. Site plan was Date:
2026.03.30 prepared at his instance. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. 16:34:16 +0530 defence counsel and the material facts that emerged therein shall be dealt with hereinunder at the relevant stage.
PW-3/retired SI Nand Kishore is a formal witness being the in- charge of the crime team and he inspected the spot of the incident and got the same photographed through PW-4/Ct. Sandeep and finger prints were also lifted from the spot by the finger print expert PW-5/Ct. Parvinder. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel and the material facts that emerged therein shall be dealt with hereinunder at the relevant stage.
PW-4/Ct. Sandeep is also a formal witness being the photographer. He took the photographs of the spot upon asking of crime team in-charge /PW-3 SI Nand Kishore. IO recorded hi statement and he deposited the photographs in the PS. On being recalled, he also produced the said photographs and CD containing the said photographs. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel and the material facts that emerged therein shall be dealt with hereinunder at the relevant stage.
PW-5/Ct. Parvinder is also a formal witness being the finger print expert. He lifted the finger prints from the spot; however, he deposed that the same were not clear. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel and the material facts that emerged therein shall be dealt with FIR No. 16/2014 State Vs Shankar Kumar (Page no. 3 of 7) hereinunder at the relevant stage.
GARIMA PW-6/ASI Anil Kumar deposed that on 23.01.2014, he was posted at PS Adarsh Nagar and on that day, he along with IO/HC Suresh and constable Digitally signed by GARIMA Ompal went to Nitika Tower where one secret informer met them and Date: informed them that the boys who committed theft are playing at Ram Lila 2026.03.30 16:34:20 Ground and therefore, he along with IO/HC Suresh, constable Om Pal and +0530 secret informer went to the Ram Lila Ground where secret informer pointed towards one boy who later revealed his name as Ritesh. Thereafter, IO sent constable Ompal to the house of Ritesh and also called JWO Rakesh Rana. Thereafter, JWO and father of the accused came to the place where Juvenile Ritesh disclosed that he had committed theft along with co accused Shankar, Sandeep, Pradeep and also informed that articles were kept at his house. Thereafter, they all went to the house of the accused where accused had recovered the theft articles and handed over the same to IO/HC Suresh. Thereafter, they went to the house of another JCL namely Pardeep who also admitted commission of offence and gave recharge coupons and thereafter, they all went to the house of JCL Sandeep where he also admitted commission of offence thereafter, they all went to the house of accused Shankar. Thereafter, he was arrested and personally searched and his disclosure statement was recorded. Some recharge coupons were also recovered from him. Thereafter, on 18.02.2014, they were informed by secret informer about the accused Miraj and thereafter, they went to his house where he was arrested, personally searched and his disclosure statement was recorded. Thereafter, they went to the house of accused Narender and he was also arrested and personally searched and his disclosure statement was recorded. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel and the material facts that emerged therein shall be dealt with hereinunder at the relevant stage.FIR No. 16/2014
State Vs Shankar Kumar (Page no. 4 of 7) PW-7/SI Naresh Pal deposed that on 17.01.2014, he received a call GARIMAfrom duty officer regarding theft and thereafter, he received DD Entry and then he along with PW-1 reached at the spot where they met with the complainant who shown his shop to him and stated that theft has been Digitally signedcommitted therein. Thereafter, he called the crime team at the spot and by GARIMA Date: recorded their statement. No CCTV camera was found covering the spot and 2026.03.30 no information could be obtained from public persons during investigation. 16:34:25 +0530 Thereafter, complainant gave his statement on the basis of which he prepared the tehrir and got the FIR registered. He took the accused persons to the spot, prepared the site plan. After 2-3 days, the investigation was transferred to some other IO and he was relieved. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel and the material facts that emerged therein shall be dealt with hereinunder at the relevant stage.
PW-8/Retired ASI Kanti Prasad is the latest IO of the present case who deposed that when the investigation of the present case was marked to him, the same was already complete and hence, he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the court. The witness was cross examined as nil, despite opportunity granted.
4. Thereafter, the matter was listed for recording of statement of the accused. Statement of the accused persons was recorded vide order dated 16.04.2025 wherein they both (accused Shankar and accused Narender) stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case, they are innocent and has not committed the crime. They further stated that no recovery was even effected from them. They chose to lead DE and in order to prove their defence, they examined two witnesses.
DW-1/Ram deposed that on 07.01.2014, accused Narender was with him. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state and FIR No. 16/2014 State Vs Shankar Kumar (Page no. 5 of 7) the material facts that emerged therein shall be dealt with hereinunder at the GARIMA relevant stage.
DW-2/Surender deposed that on 07.01.2014, he accompanied the Digitally signed by GARIMA accused Shankar to Safdarjumg hospital as his father was not well. The Date: witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state and the material 2026.03.30 16:34:29 facts that emerged therein shall be dealt with hereinunder at the relevant +0530 stage.
5. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused and have also perused the record carefully. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and accused persons should be convicted of the offences they have been charged with. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that prosecution has failed to discharge its evidentiary burden and that there are several deficiencies in the case of prosecution. It is lastly argued that benefit of doubt must be given in the favour of accused persons and they should be acquitted of offences they have been charged with.
6. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that no evidence has been led by prosecution to prove offences u/s 380/356/379/120B of IPC. Complainant has not deposed qua the commission of any of the said offences and remaining witnesses are merely formal. Evidence has been led only to prove offence u/s 411 Cr.P.C.. The same has been considered and appreciated. Admittedly, no independent evidence has been led to prove the same as well. As the testimony of PW6, he interrogated the public persons present at the spot, however, no information could be obtained. The entire case is based on the testimonies of police witnesses and admittedly, no effort was made to join public persons during investigation. The lack of independent eye witnesses, in itself, raises a cloud of doubt in the case of prosecution. Be it as it may, no FIR No. 16/2014 State Vs Shankar Kumar (Page no. 6 of 7) reliable evidence qua recovery of stolen goods from the accused has been produced by the prosecution.
7. Thus, in view of the afore-mentioned discussion, the accused persons are acquitted in the present case for offences which they have been charged with as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Announced in open court On 30th March, 2026 (Garima Jindal) Judicial Magistrate First Class-06 North District Rohini Courts,Delhi/ 30.03.2026 Digitally signed by GARIMA GARIMA Date:
2026.03.30 16:34:34 +0530 FIR No. 16/2014 State Vs Shankar Kumar (Page no. 7 of 7)