Delhi District Court
State vs Md. Marjan@Salman Etc on 1 April, 2026
Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016
STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013
(Nabi Karim)
Sections: 379/411/34 IPC
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016
STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013
(Nabi Karim)
Sections: 379/411/34 IPC
DLCT020031672016
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 291653/2016
(b) Date of offence 20.06.2013
c) Complainant Savita Sharma w/o. Omji
Sharma
(d) Accused 1. Mohd. Marjan @ Salman s/o. Mohd. Habib r/o. A-401, Amarpuri, Nabi Karim, Delhi
2. Mohd. Asif s/o. Bashir Ahmed r/o. A-438, Amarpuri, Nabi Karim, Delhi
3. Mohd. Shadab s/o. Mohd.
Mustafa r/o. BB-76, Gali NO.3, Ashoka Basti, Nabi Karim, Delhi.
(e) Offence 379/411/34 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Not pleaded guilty
Digitally
RAJ signed
KUMAR by RAJ
SINGH KUMAR
SINGH
Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016
STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013
(Nabi Karim)
Sections: 379/411/34 IPC
2
(g) Final Order Mohd. Marjan @ Salman
-Acquitted
Mohd. Asif and Mohd.
Shadab - Convicted
u/s.356/379/34 IPC
(h) Date of Institution 06.05.2016
(i) Date of judgment 01.04.2026
1. The present case arises out of FIR No. 135/2013, PS Nabi Karim, registered on the complaint of Smt. Savita Sharma regarding snatching of her purse containing jewellery articles, mobile phones, watch and other belongings near Welcome Hotel, DBG Road, Nabi Karim, Delhi, on the night of 19/20.06.2013.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.06.2013, on receipt of DD No. 38A, SI Giriraj along with Ct. Harish reached the spot near Welcome Hotel where complainant Savita Sharma met them and made a statement that she had come to Delhi with her family and was staying in Welcome Hotel. At about 10:00 PM, when she, her husband and her children were standing near their Wagon-R car parked outside the hotel, two boys came on a red Pulsar motorcycle and snatched from her hand a purse containing gold jewellery, Titan wrist watch, ATM card and three Samsung mobile phones. On the basis of her statement, rukka was prepared and FIR under Sections 356/379/34 IPC was registered.
3. During investigation, one of the stolen mobile phones was RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 3 allegedly traced through IMEI details to a SIM used by one Mohd. Danish. On inquiry, Mohd. Danish allegedly stated that he had borrowed that mobile phone from accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman. On that basis, accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman was apprehended and one mobile phone was allegedly recovered from his person and another from the drawer of a table at his shop. Thereafter, accused Mohammed Asif was apprehended and jewellery articles as well as a red Pulsar motorcycle were allegedly recovered from him. Thereafter, accused Mohammed Shadab was apprehended and a Titan ladies wrist watch was allegedly recovered from his house.
4. The record further shows that judicial TIP of accused persons was sought. Accused Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Shadab refused to participate in TIP. Judicial TIP of case property was also conducted. In those proceedings, the complainant correctly identified the Titan wrist watch. However, TIP of the jewellery articles could not be conducted, as sufficient similar articles were not produced for mixing.
5. After filing of charge sheet, cognizance was taken. A fresh charge sheet was filed and taken on record. Copies were supplied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Upon hearing the parties, charge was framed on 26.10.2016.
6. A common charge under Sections 356/379/34 IPC was Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 4 framed against all the three accused persons on the allegation that on 20.06.2013 at about 10:00 PM in front of Welcome Hotel, Corner DBG Road, Nabi Karim, all of them, in furtherance of their common intention, used criminal force against complainant Savita Sharma and snatched her purse containing jewellery articles, Titan watch, ATM card and three Samsung mobile phones.
7. Separate charges under Section 411 IPC were also framed. A separate charge under Section 411 IPC was framed against accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman in respect of two Samsung mobile phones. A separate charge under Section 411 IPC was framed against accused Mohammed Asif in respect of jewellery articles, namely one pair of earrings, two rings and one coin. A separate charge under Section 411 IPC was framed against accused Mohammed Shadab in respect of one Titan wrist watch. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. During trial, the accused persons admitted under Section 294 CrPC the proceedings of TIP of case property dated 14.08.2013. Accordingly, the witness cited for formally proving those proceedings was dropped.
9. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses.
10. PW1 Savita Sharma is the complainant. She deposed that on 19.06.2013 she had come to Delhi with her husband and sons and was staying at Welcome Hotel. At about 10:00 PM, when Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 5 they came out of the hotel and were standing near their Wagon-R car, two boys came on a Pulsar motorcycle and snatched her purse containing three Samsung mobile phones, gold rings, gold coin, gold tops, Titan wrist watch and gold jhumkis. She identified accused Mohammed Asif and accused Mohammed Shadab in Court as the two persons who committed the snatching. She proved her complaint as Ex. PW1/A. She also stated that she later came to Delhi for identification of stolen articles and correctly identified her wrist watch during judicial TIP proceedings Ex. PW1/B.
11. During her testimony in Court, PW1 identified two Samsung mobile phones produced before the Court as her stolen mobile phones. She also identified the ladies Titan wrist watch as her article. However, when the jewellery articles, namely one coin, two rings and one pair of earrings, were shown to her, she clearly stated that those articles did not belong to her and were not the articles which were in her snatched purse.
12. In cross-examination, PW1 stated that the accused persons were wearing helmets, but volunteered that their faces were clearly visible because the front glass of their helmets was open. She denied the suggestion that accused Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Shadab had not snatched her purse.
13. PW2 Harsh Sharma, son of the complainant, deposed that on the relevant night he was present with his mother, father and brother near the car parked outside Welcome Hotel. He stated Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 6 that two boys came on a Pulsar motorcycle and snatched the hand purse of his mother. He identified accused Mohammed Asif and accused Mohammed Shadab in Court. He specifically stated that accused Mohammed Shadab was driving the motorcycle and accused Mohammed Asif was sitting as pillion rider and snatched the purse from the right hand of his mother. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the IO had shown photographs of the accused earlier or that he was deposing falsely.
14. PW3 Ct. Harish Kumar deposed that on receipt of DD entry he accompanied SI Giriraj to the spot near Welcome Hotel where the complainant gave her statement. He took the rukka for registration of FIR and later returned to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka. He also stated that hotel CCTV footage was checked, but no clue was found.
15. PW4 SI Hari Kishan was the Duty Officer. He proved endorsement on rukka Ex. PW4/A, copy of FIR Ex. PW4/B and certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW4/C. His evidence is formal in nature.
16. PW5 Mohd. Danish deposed that in the year 2013 he had taken one Samsung mobile phone from accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman, whom he identified in Court. He stated that he inserted a SIM issued in his own name in that phone and used it for about two days. Thereafter, he returned the phone to accused Marjan. He further stated that when police came to him and inquired, he disclosed these facts, and Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 7 thereafter accused Marjan was arrested and the said mobile phone was recovered from him. He proved seizure memo Ex. PW5/A, arrest memo Ex. PW5/B, personal search memo Ex. PW5/C and disclosure statement Ex. PW5/D. He also identified the relevant mobile phone in Court.
17. In cross-examination, PW5 stated that no document was prepared when he received the phone from accused Marjan or when he returned it to him. He stated that no other person was present at that time. He also stated that police had detained him in the police station for one night when it came to know that he had used the phone.
18. PW6 Ct. Rambir deposed that on 03.08.2013 he joined investigation with IO SI Giriraj and HC Suresh. He stated that Mohd. Danish was present, that accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman was arrested at the instance of Danish and one Samsung mobile phone was recovered from his possession. He further stated that another Samsung mobile phone was got recovered by accused Marjan from the drawer of his table. He further deposed that accused Mohammed Asif was thereafter apprehended and jewellery articles and motorcycle No. DL-6S-AJ-6625 were recovered from him. He also deposed that accused Mohammed Shadab was thereafter apprehended and a Titan wrist watch was recovered from his house. He proved the relevant memos Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/L.
19. In his cross-examination, PW6 admitted that the IO did not Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 8 ask any public person or neighbour of the accused persons to join the investigation and proceedings at the time of alleged recoveries. This admission assumes importance while appreciating the recovery evidence.
20. PW7 ASI Suresh Kumar also supported the prosecution case regarding the recoveries. He deposed about apprehension of accused Marjan at the instance of Danish, recovery of mobile phones, recovery of motorcycle and jewellery from accused Mohammed Asif, and recovery of Titan wrist watch from accused Mohammed Shadab. He identified the case property in Court.
21. However, PW7's testimony is not entirely free from infirmity. During his examination, he made a mistaken identification while referring to accused Marjan and in his later cross- examination he gave a confused version at one stage by stating that the complainant was a male person. He also stated that he could depose about recovery but could not say whether the jewellery recovered from accused Mohammed Asif actually belonged to the complainant. Thus, his evidence requires cautious appraisal.
22. PW8 HC Ashotosh, the then MHC(M), proved the relevant malkhana entries regarding deposit of mobile phones, sealed pullandas and the motorcycle. He proved the relevant pages of Register No. 19 as Ex. PW8/A. His testimony shows that certain articles were deposited in malkhana, though by itself it does not prove the legality or genuineness of the RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 9 recoveries.
23. PW9 SI Giriraj is the Investigating Officer. He deposed about receipt of DD No. 38A, reaching the spot, recording statement of complainant, preparing rukka, getting FIR registered, preparing site plan Ex. PW9/A, recording statements of complainant and her son, and later tracing one stolen mobile phone through IMEI details. He stated that Mohd. Danish disclosed that he had taken the phone from accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman, whereafter accused Marjan was apprehended. He deposed about recovery of one mobile phone from the possession of accused Marjan and another at his instance. He further deposed that accused Mohammed Asif was apprehended, and that jewellery and motorcycle were recovered from him. He also deposed that accused Mohammed Shadab was apprehended and that Titan wrist watch was recovered from his house.
24. In cross-examination, PW9 admitted that no public witness was joined on the seizure memos relating to the recoveries from accused Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Shadab, though public persons were present. He also admitted that no written notice was served to the persons who allegedly refused to join. He further admitted that the complainant did not have any proof of ownership or possession of the case property recovered from the accused persons. He admitted that no bills of the stolen mobile phones were collected. He RAJ also admitted that though the seal after use was handed over KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 10 to Ct. Rambir, no seal handing over memo was prepared.
25. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC read with Section 281 CrPC. All incriminating circumstances were put to them. All the accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication. None of them opted to lead defence evidence.
26. Learned APP for the State argued that PW1 and PW2 have clearly identified accused Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Shadab as the perpetrators of the snatching, and that their testimony is natural and trustworthy. It was further argued that the recovery of mobile phones, watch and other articles lends assurance to the prosecution case.
27. Learned defence counsels argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated, that no public witness was joined at the time of alleged recoveries, that no ownership documents of the alleged stolen property were produced, that the jewellery was not identified by the complainant, and that accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman has not been identified by any eyewitness as one of the snatchers.
28. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record.
29. The first question is whether the prosecution has proved the occurrence of snatching and the identity of the persons who committed it.
30. On this aspect, the testimony of PW1 Savita Sharma and RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 11 PW2 Harsh Sharma is direct and material. Both are natural witnesses. PW1 is the victim. PW2 is her son, who was present with her at the spot. Their presence at the place of incident is wholly natural and has not been rendered doubtful.
31. PW1 gave a clear account of the occurrence and identified accused Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Shadab in Court as the two persons who committed the snatching. PW2 also identified these two accused and further assigned specific roles to them by stating that accused Mohammed Shadab was driving the motorcycle and accused Mohammed Asif was the pillion rider who snatched the purse. Their evidence is consistent on material particulars.
32. It is true that PW1 stated that the assailants were wearing helmets. However, she immediately clarified that their faces were visible because the front glass of the helmets was open. The incident occurred at close quarters when the purse was snatched from her hand. In the facts of the case, this explanation cannot be said to be unnatural or inherently improbable.
33. It is also relevant that accused Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Shadab refused to participate in judicial TIP despite being cautioned that adverse inference could be drawn. Their stated reason was that their photographs had already been shown to the witnesses. However, no convincing material has come on record to establish that the Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 12 eyewitnesses had indeed seen their photographs earlier. Their refusal to join TIP, therefore, becomes an additional circumstance which lends support to the in-court identification made by PW1 and PW2.
34. Thus, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Mohammed Asif and accused Mohammed Shadab were the two persons who came on the motorcycle and snatched the purse of the complainant.
35. The manner of the incident also clearly reflects common intention. Both arrived together on the same motorcycle, one drove it and the other snatched the purse, and both fled together. The acts were coordinated and simultaneous. The ingredients of Sections 356/379 read with Section 34 IPC are, therefore, proved against accused Mohammed Asif and accused Mohammed Shadab.
36. The position of accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman is entirely different. Neither PW1 nor PW2 identified him as one of the assailants. The ocular account of the occurrence is only against two persons, namely accused Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Shadab. Accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman comes into the prosecution story only later, on the strength of alleged recovery of mobile phones.
37. There is thus no direct evidence connecting accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman with the actual act of snatching or theft. No eyewitness has named or identified him as one of the perpetrators. No circumstance has been RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 13 proved from which common intention between him and the other two accused at the time of occurrence can safely be inferred. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Sections 356/379/34 IPC against accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman.
38. This takes the Court to the separate charge under Section 411 IPC against accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman. The settled position of law is that to bring home an offence under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen. The Supreme Court in Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 39. explained these essentials and also cautioned that a doubtful or unreliable recovery cannot sustain conviction under Section 411 IPC. That principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court again in later decisions referring back to Trimbak.
39. In the present case, the prosecution alleges that one mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 358039038953242 was recovered from accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman on 03.08.2013, that is, after about one and a half months of the incident. Though PW5 Mohd. Danish is shown as a witness to seizure memo Ex. PW5/A, the circumstances surrounding this recovery are not wholly free from doubt. PW5 admitted that Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 14 no document was prepared when he took the phone from accused Marjan or when he returned it to him. He also stated that no other person was present and that police had detained him for one night.
40. The second alleged recovery from accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman is still weaker. That mobile phone is stated to have been recovered from the drawer of a table at his shop. PW5 Mohd. Danish is not a witness to that recovery. Thus, as regards the second phone, the prosecution is left substantially with police witnesses alone. No independent public witness was joined, despite the place being a populated locality and a commercial setting.
41. The Court is conscious that non-joining of public witnesses by itself is not always fatal. Yet, where the prosecution seeks to connect an accused only through subsequent recovery, and not through direct evidence of the occurrence, such omission assumes greater importance. Here, the recoveries are also accompanied by absence of any seal handing over memo. In these circumstances, the recovery evidence against accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman does not inspire the degree of confidence required for a criminal conviction.
42. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the separate charge under Section 411 IPC against accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman. He is entitled to benefit of doubt on that charge as well.
Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 15
43. This brings the Court to the separate charge under Section 411 IPC against accused Mohammed Asif in respect of jewellery articles.
44. Here, the prosecution case suffers from a serious defect.
Though police witnesses deposed about alleged recovery of jewellery from accused Mohammed Asif, the complainant herself, when those articles were shown to her in Court, expressly stated that they did not belong to her and were not the articles which were in her purse. Further, the TIP proceedings themselves show that TIP of those jewellery articles could not be conducted because sufficient similar articles had not been brought for mixing.
45. Once the complainant herself does not identify the jewellery and in fact disowns it, the Court cannot safely hold that the jewellery allegedly recovered from accused Mohammed Asif was the stolen property of the complainant. The prosecution has therefore failed to establish the ingredients of Section 411 IPC against accused Mohammed Asif.
46. The case of accused Mohammed Shadab in relation to the Titan wrist watch stands on a somewhat different footing factually. The prosecution has led evidence that the watch was recovered from his house. Judicial TIP of that wrist watch was conducted and the complainant correctly identified it. PW1 also identified the watch in Court. This circumstance certainly lends corroboration to the prosecution case against him.
Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 16
47. However, the legal position pointed out by learned defence is well settled. Where an accused is held to be the actual thief or one of the principal perpetrators of theft, he cannot simultaneously be convicted under Section 411 IPC in respect of the same stolen property, because the thief cannot be treated as the receiver or retainer of his own stolen property. The Delhi High Court in Sunil Mashi @ Silly v. State (NCT of Delhi) MANU/DE/3768/2014 has reiterated this principle in clear terms.
48. The same principle squarely applies in the present matter.
Accused Mohammed Asif and accused Mohammed Shadab have been found, on the strength of the direct testimony of PW1 and PW2, to be the very persons who committed the snatching and theft. Therefore, even though separate charges under Section 411 IPC were framed against them, they cannot be simultaneously convicted under Section 411 IPC for the same property.
49. Thus, the separate charge under Section 411 IPC against accused Mohammed Asif fails on facts, because the jewellery was not identified by the complainant. The separate charge under Section 411 IPC against accused Mohammed Shadab also cannot result in conviction, not because the watch recovery lacks all evidentiary value, but because once he is held to be one of the principal offenders in the theft itself, a simultaneous conviction under Section 411 IPC in respect of the same property is legally impermissible. The recovery of RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 17 the watch from him shall therefore be read only as a corroborative circumstance supporting the main charge under Sections 356/379/34 IPC.
50. The Court is also mindful of the defects in investigation. No independent public witness was joined at the time of alleged recoveries despite public persons being available according to the IO himself. No written notice was served to any person who allegedly refused to join. No seal handing over memo was prepared. No ownership proof of jewellery or phones was collected. PW7 gave a somewhat confused account on material aspects. These are not ideal features of an investigation.
51. At the same time, every defect in investigation does not by itself demolish an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The Court has to see whether despite those lapses, the core evidence on the main occurrence inspires confidence. In the present matter, those investigative lapses materially weaken the prosecution case against accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman and also weaken the Section 411 case against accused Mohammed Asif. However, they do not dislodge the direct, natural and convincing testimony of PW1 and PW2 regarding the actual snatching by accused Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Shadab.
52. On an overall appreciation of the oral evidence, documentary evidence and surrounding circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that :
Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.FIR No.135/2013
(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 18
(a) The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 20.06.2013 at about 10:00 PM in front of Welcome Hotel, Corner DBG Road, Nabi Karim, accused Mohammed Asif and accused Mohammed Shadab, in furtherance of their common intention, used criminal force against complainant Savita Sharma and snatched her purse and its contents from her possession without her consent. They are therefore liable for the offence punishable under Sections 356/379/34 IPC.
(b) The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman participated in the said incident of snatching or theft. He is therefore entitled to acquittal of the charge under Sections 356/379/34 IPC.
(c) The prosecution has also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the separate charge under Section 411 IPC against accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman. The alleged recoveries from him do not inspire such confidence as would safely sustain conviction.
(d) The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the separate charge under Section 411 IPC against accused Mohammed Asif because the jewellery articles allegedly recovered from him were not identified by the complainant and were in fact disowned by her during evidence.
(e) Insofar as accused Mohammed Shadab is concerned, the recovery and identification of the Titan wrist watch provides corroboration to the prosecution case on the main occurrence, but no separate conviction under Section 411 IPC can be Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 42/3N/2016 291653/2016 STATE Vs. MD. MARJAN @ SALMAN ETC.
FIR No.135/2013(Nabi Karim) Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 19 recorded against him once he stands proved to be one of the principal offenders in the theft itself.
(f) Consequently, accused Mohammed Asif and accused Mohammed Shadab are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 356/379/34 IPC.
(g) Accused Mohammed Marjan @ Salman is acquitted of the charges under Sections 356/379/34 IPC and Section 411 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt.
(h) Accused Mohammed Asif is acquitted of the separate charge under Section 411 IPC.
(i) Accused Mohammed Shadab is also acquitted of the separate charge under Section 411 IPC.
53. Let accused Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Shadab be heard on the point of sentence.
54. Judgment be uploaded as per rules.
Announced in open court RAJ Digitally
KUMAR signed by
on 01.04.2026 RAJ KUMAR
SINGH SINGH
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/01.04.2026 Note: This judgment contains 19 (Nineteen) pages and having my signature on each page. RAJ KUMAR Digitally SINGH signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH (Dr. Raj Kumar Singh) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/01.04.2026