Delhi District Court
State vs Kavita@Saroj on 9 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: MS. SAYESHA CHADHA, DJS
FIR No. 328/19
PS : Kotwali
U/s 380/411 IPC
State vs. Kavita @ Saroj
Date of Institution of case: 11.01.2021
Date when Judgment reserved: 20.12.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 09.02.2026
JUDGMENT
A. Case No. : 382/2021
B. Date of Institution of Case : 11.01.2021
C. Date of Commission of Offence : 16.10.2019
D. Name of the complainant : Sh. Ghanisht Dhall
E. Name of the Accused : Kavita @ Saroj W/o Sh.
& his parentage and residence W/o Sh. Anil Yogendra,
R/o H.No.146, Village
Sikheda, PS Incholi, District
Meerut, UP.
F. Offences complained of : U/s 380, 411 Indian
Penal Code
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final order : Acquittal
I. Date of such order : 09.02.2026
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:
State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 1/15
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 16.10.2019 at about 11:00 AM at Shop No. 4150 Nai Sarak, Chandani Chowk, Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali, accused committed theft in the said shop and stolen a bag containing 8 Sarees belonging to complainant Ghanisht Dhall and accused was apprehended on the spot and the aforesaid stolen property was recovered from his possession and and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 380/411 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC).
2. Upon conclusion of investigation, a final report was filed before the court on 11.01.2021 against the accused. Cognizance of offence punishable u/s 380/411 IPC was taken. Upon summoning, the accused appeared and copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C). Thereafter, charge for offence punishable u/s 380/411 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution was given the opportunity to substantiate the allegations against the accused. The prosecution examined 6 (six) witnesses in support of its case:
4. PW-1 Ghanisht Dhall has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 16.10.2019, at about 11.00 am, one unknown lady whose name was later revealed Kavita @ Saroj, entered his shop and took one bag containing 8 sarees labeled with Shri Om Creations and tried to fled away from the shop with the aforesaid bag. He saw State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 2/15 accused stealing the aforesaid bag and ran towards accused and apprehended accused with the said bag. He alongwith accused and the saree bag went to the Chowki Ballimaran and handed-over the accused alongwith bag to the police official. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement Ex.PW-1/A bearing his signature at point A. IO seized the bag containing sarees vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B bearing his signature at point A. IO also seized the bill of the said bag containing sarees vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C bearing his signature at point A. The said bill in the name of Sh. Gaur Hari Sarees Mark X1 bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he alongwith the IO and accused came back at the spot. IO prepared the site plan at his instance Ex.PW-1/D bearing his signature at point A. IO checked for CCTV cameras for the footage but no footage of the accused was recovered. Security guard of Arun Vastra Bhandar namely Wazir was also present at the spot and also helped him in the apprehension of the accused namely Kavita alongwith the case property i.e. saree bag. IO also recorded the statement of the security guard Wazir. IO arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/E bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex. PW-1/F bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, IO recorded his supplementary statement and he was discharged. He has correctly identified accused. He has correctly identified 8 photographs of the case property i.e., the bag containing the sarees Ex. PW-1/G bearing his signature at point A. State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 3/15
5. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-1 stated that he was a graduate in journalism and mass communication. His grandfather was a proprietor of the firm Aanchal Sarees at shop no. 4150 and he alongwith his father look after the above-said business. Om Creations was the name labeled on the saree bag which the accused had stolen on the day of incident from his shop. At the time of incident there were 2-3 customers at the shop alongwith his staff. His staff and also the security guard of Arun Vastra Bhandar had seen the accused stealing from his shop the aforesaid case property. Arun Vastra Bhandar shop was two shops next to his shop in the same line and not in the opposite lane. He himself had seen the accused stealing from his shop and apprehended her at the spot itself with the help of other persons and no customer present at his shop intimated him about the alleged incident. He admitted that he alongwith the accused and the case property went to the police chowki Ballimaran and nobody accompanied him. He voluntarily stated that one of the staff member accompanied him to the chowki. No ID proof was provided to him by the accused. He saw the accused going out from his shop with the aforesaid bag. He denied that the accused was caught red handed at the spot with the aforesaid bag. He denied that the accused had co-operated with him and that is why she went to the police chowki alongwith him. He admitted that no CCTV camera was installed at his shop.
6. PW-2 Wazir has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 4/15 16.10.2019, his duty hours are from 9:00 am to 9/10:00 pm. He stand outside the shop as a security guard. On that day, at about 10:30 to 10:45 am, accused picked up one bag of Sarees belonging to the complainant namely Ghanisht Dhall from outside the shop of the complainant which was kept by the shop owner outside their shops for sale. Thereafter, the shop owner of the alleged shop shouted " Saman utha liya" and in the meanwhile he ran towards the alleged shop and he alongwith the shop owner caught hold of the accused with the above said bag of Sarees. On inquiring the accused lady about the said bag which she picked up from the alleged shop, she could not gave any satisfactory answers. On inquiry the name of the accused was revealed as Kavita. The name of the shop where the alleged theft took place was Anchal Sarees. There were eight sarees in the said bag. Thereafter, shop owner namely Ghanisht called the police on the spot. After sometime police officials came at the spot and inquired him about the incident and recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC and he was discharged. He has correctly identified accused. He has also correctly identified the photographs of the case property Ex.P-1. The witness has submitted that he cannot identify the Sarees as the same were in bag.
7. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-2 stated that he completed his 10th class. There are four shops whose number is 4158. he admitted that daily attendance register maintained at the said shop. The distance between his shop State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 5/15 bearing no.4158 and the alleged shop was approx 10 metres. The incident took place in the morning and the place was not crowded only few people were there. There was no queue of the customers outside his shop no. 4158. There were CCTV cameras installed outside our shop. He admitted that he had not seen the complainant running behind the accused. He voluntarily stated that the complainant stop the accused at some distance when she picked/stoled the Sarees bag belonging to the complainant alongwith her and he also immediately came to the spot. As the accused was lady we do not hold her but they stopped her from fleeing away. He did not know the complainant personally and neither he interact with nearby shop owners while performing his duty as security guard. He did not know whether any CCTV camera was installed outside the shop of the complainant. He did not know the name/label by which the owner sells the Sarees. There were eight Sarees in the plastic bag and something with OM was written on them. His statement was recorded at the spot. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
8. PW-3 W/Ct. Mahima has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 16.10.2019, at the instance of IO duty officer directed him to go to PP Ballimaran. Accordingly, at about 12:50 PM, he reached PP Ballimaran. On reaching there he met IO/ASI Veerpal and accused and IO narrated him the whole incident and shown him the bag containing sarees in the PP. Thereafter, he checked the case properties/sarees and IO seized the case properties/sarees vide State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 6/15 seizure memo Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point B. He alongwith the IO and accused at the instance of the accused went to the shop from where accused had stolen the case property. IO prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW3/A at the instance of accused Kavita bearing his signature at point A. IO also searched for the CCTV cameras but no camera was found installed capturing the incident. The IO met one person namely Wazir and recorded his statement. IO seized the bill/invoice of the sarees/case properties from the owner of the shop namely Ghanisht Dhall vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C bearing his signature at point B. The bill marked as Mark X1. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant Ex.PW1/D bearing his signature at point B and also recorded the statement of the complainant. IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex.PW1/F bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused at about 02:05 PM vide memo Ex. PW1/E bearing his signature at point B. They came back to the PP Ballimaran at about 02:20 PM. He carried out personal search of the accused vide memo Ex. PW3/B bearing his signature at point A. Accused was taken to the hospital for medical examination and was later on produced before the concerned Court by the IO. IO deposited the case property in the malkhana and recorded his statement and he was discharged. He has correctly identified accused. Photographs of the case property shown to the witness and the witness has correctly identify the same Ex. P1.
State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 7/15
9. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-3 stated that he did not remember whether any departure DD entry was done by him when he went from PS Kotwali to PP Ballimaran. He admitted that the alleged incident had not taken place in his presence. IO opened the sarees bag in his presence at PP Ballimaran and there were eight sarees in the bag. He denied that there were eight sarees in the bag was not mentioned in his statement u/s 161 CrPC. recorded by the IO. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
10. PW-4 HC Jitender Singh has deposed in his examination-in- chief that in year 2019, he was posted as MHCM at PS Kotwali. He brought the Register No. 19. Copy of the same exhibited as Ex. PW4/A. The case property was released on superdari vide order dated 05.12.2019. The photographs of case property Case property Ex.P1 in deposition of PW3. Till the time case property was in his custody and under his supervision no kind of tempering has been done with the same.
11. PW-5 Ct. Amit has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 16.10.2019, he was no emergency duty and present at the PP Balimaran. Complainant came at the PP Balimaran along with co- accused and the case property. Complainant narrated the incident to the IO. At around 1:00 pm, IO sent him to the PS Kotwali along with the Tehrir for registration of the FIR. At around 2:00 pm after registration of the FIR, he returned back to the spot i.e. Shop No. State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 8/15 4150 and handed over the Tehrir to the IO along with copy of FIR. After that, he along with the IO returned to the PP Balimaran. IO recorded his statement and he was discharged. He has correctly identified accused.
12. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-5 stated that he did not remember the DD entry of his departure to the spot. He denied that he did not persent at PP Balimaran and that is why he did not remember the DD entry of his departure. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
13. PW-6 SI Veerpal has deposed in his examination-in-chief that 16.10.2019, he was on emergency duty. At around 12:30 pm complainant came at the PP along with accused and case property, and narrated him about the incident. He recorded the statement of the complainant Ex.PW-1/A bearing his signature at point B. After that, he prepared the tehrir Ex. PW-1/A from point X to X1 bearing his signature at point A. He sent tehrir to the PS through constable Amit. He seized the case property and the bill vide memo Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C both bearing his signature at point C respectively. After that, he along with the complainant, accused and WCT. Mahima to the spot i.e. Shop No. 4150 Nayi Sadak, Chandani Chowk. He prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of the accused vide Memo Ex. PW-3/A. After that, he made an enquiry about the CCTV Cameras but no clue was found. He asked some public persons to join the investigation but all State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 9/15 refused to do so by revealing their personal reasons. One eye witness namely Vazir was found at the spot and he recorded his statement. He prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant Ex. PW-1/D bearing his signature at point C. After that, Constable Amit came at the spot and he handed over him the copy of the FIR and original tehrir. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex. PW-1/F bearing his signature at point C. He arrested and Constable Mahima conducted the personal search of the accused vide memo Ex. PW-1/E and Ex. PW-3/B both bearing his signature at Point C and B respectively. After medical examination accused was put in the lockup. He recorded the statement of the witness U/s 161 CrPC and deposited the case property in the maal khana. He has correctly identified accused. He has correctly the photographs of the case property Ex. P1.
14. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-6 admitted that the incident was not happened in his presence. He admitted that the recovery was not effected from the accused in his presence. No notice was given to any public person during the investigation. No chance prints of the accused was taken. No CCTV Footage was taken on record. He prepared the site plan at around 2:00 pm. He denied that the accused falsely implicated in the present case. He denied that no case property was recovered from the accused. He denied that the case property was falsely planted upon the accused. He denied that he was deposing State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 10/15 falsely. He denied that he conducted a false story to convict the accused.
15. Vide separate statements of the accused recorded u/s 294 CrPC, the accused admitted the factum of registration of FIR Ex.A-1 and certificate under Section 65 B, Indian Evidence Act Ex. A-2 without admitting the contents of the same.
16. The prosecution evidence was closed on 02.07.2025 and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 read with section 281 of CrPC on 29.07.2025, wherein he pleaded his innocence and stated to have been falsely implicated. The accused has not opted to lead defence evidence. Final arguments were heard. I have cogitated over the submissions made by ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused person.
DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREON:
17. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. LAC for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
18. In order to ensure seamless appraisal of evidence, the following point of determination has been framed Whether the accused Kavita, on 16.10.2019 at about 11:00 a.m., at shop no. 4150, Sadak, Chandni Chowk, committed theft of a bag containing eight sarees belonging to the complainant, and was subsequently found in possession of the same, thereby committing State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 11/15 offences punishable under Sections 380 and 411 IPC.
19. To prove the above point of determination, the onus was upon the prosecution. The prosecution examined the complainant, PW1 Sh. Ganishth Dhall, who categorically stated in his examination-in- chief that on the alleged date and time, one unknown lady had entered his shop and taken a bag containing eight sarees labelled as "Shri Om Creations," and tried to flee from the spot. He deposed that he ran towards her and apprehended her with the bag, and thereafter took her to Chowki, Ballimaran, where she was handed over to the police officials. He identified his signatures on his statement Ex.PW1/A and on the seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He further admitted that no CCTV footage capturing the alleged incident could be recovered. He also stated that one security guard of Arun Vastra Bhandar, namely Wazir, was present at the spot and had assisted him in apprehending the accused along with the case property. The said witness correctly identified both the accused and the case property in court. In his cross-examination, he stated that his staff was present in the shop and had also witnessed the accused stealing the bag, and that one of his staff members had accompanied him to the Chowki.
20. The prosecution then examined PW-2 Wazir, who stated that on the alleged day of the incident, while he was working as a security guard at Arun Vastra Bhandar, at about 10:30-10:45 a.m., he saw the accused lady picking up a bag of sarees belonging to the State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 12/15 complainant from outside the shop. He clarified that those sarees were kept outside the shop for sale. He further stated that upon hearing the shop owner's shouts, he, along with the complainant, ran after the lady and apprehended her with the said sarees, and that the shop owner called the police on the spot. PW2 also correctly identified the accused and the case property in the court.
21. However, on careful perusal of the testimonies of both the eyewitnesses, it becomes evident that there are material inconsistencies in their statements. While PW1 has clearly deposed that the accused had entered the shop and committed theft from within, PW2 categorically states that the theft occurred from outside the shop premises. Similarly, while PW1 deposed that the accused was taken to the Police Chowki by him, PW2 stated that the police arrived at the spot after being called by the complainant. Furthermore, although PW1 has admitted that his staff was present and had seen the accused committing the theft, none of the staff members have been cited as prosecution witnesses or examined before the court. This omission is significant, especially when the prosecution relies primarily on eyewitness testimony.
22. The complainant also admitted that no CCTV footage capturing the alleged incident was recovered, which could have served as crucial corroboration. The bill placed on record is merely a photocopy and has not been proved through its author, Mr. Vaibhav Gupta. Moreover, it pertains to a total of forty sarees, State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 13/15 whereas only eight sarees are alleged to have been stolen and recovered from the accused. This discrepancy casts a serious doubt on the ownership of the case property and its possession with the complainant.
23. The prosecution also examined PW3, W/Ct Mahima, who admittedly is not an eyewitness to the incident. PW4 and PW5 are merely formal witnesses. The Investigating Officer, examined as PW6, stated in his examination-in-chief that he had asked public persons to join the investigation, but all refused. In his cross- examination, he admitted that the recovery was not effected in his presence. As per the seizure memo, the recovery was allegedly made in the presence of the complainant himself, who, as already discussed, has failed to conclusively prove the ownership of the property in question. Moreover, the name of the staff member who allegedly accompanied the complainant to the Chowki has neither been mentioned in the charge sheet nor stated by the IO in his testimony.
24. Considering the cumulative effect of the above discrepancies, it is evident that there are glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence. The testimonies of PW1 and PW2 contradict each other on material particulars, the ownership of the alleged stolen property remains doubtful, and there is a lack of corroboration by any independent or public witness. It is a settled position of law, as held in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, that State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 14/15 when two views are possible on the evidence adduced, the one favouring the accused should be adopted. Likewise, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the chain of circumstances must be complete and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish such a chain or prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Therefore, due to the material contradictions and absence of independent corroboration, the prosecution has failed to establish its case under Sections 380 and 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must accordingly go to the accused Kavita @ Saroj. Hence, the accused Kavita @ Saroj stands acquitted u/s 380 and 411 IPC.
Announced in the open court Digitally
signed by
SAYESHA
SAYESHA CHADHA
today.
CHADHA Date:
2026.02.12
16:53:33
+0530
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-08
Central District, Tis Hazari
Courts/Delhi
[This judgment contains 15 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Kavita @ Saroj FIR No. 328/2019 PS Kotwali 15/15