Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Afzal on 4 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWATI SHARMA,
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SHAHDARsT U/S 355 Cr.PC
CNR No - DLSH020085192016
a Serial No. of the case : E-FIR No.30333/2016
PS Vivek Vihar
[Cr. Case No. 17/2017
b Date of the commission of : 13.10.2016
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : Sh.Neeraj Bajaj
d Name of Accused persons : 1) Mohd. Afzal
and their parentage and S/o Sh. Mohd. Astaq
residence R/o Village Keeli Teh-
Sardhana Distt. Meerut, U.P.
2) Nitin Kumar
S/o Sh. Kanti Prasad
R/o R.No.1210, Mohalla
Kabli Gate near Chauda
Kuan, Bada Bawana, Distt.
Meerut, U.P.
e Offence complained of : 379/411/34 IPC
f Plea of the accused persons : Not guilty.
and their
examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted
h Order reserved on : 04.08.2025
i Order pronounced on : 04.08.2025
Swati Digitally signed
by Swati Sharma
FIR No.17/2017
State vs. Mohd. Afzal Sharma Date: 2025.08.04
18:09:33 +0530
PS:Vivek Vihar Page No.1/ 7
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Factual matrix and trial proceedings
1.Briefly stated the facts of the Prosecution case are that on 08.11.2016 at about unknown time, at Loni Road, near Central park, DDA Flats Road, GB SSS West Jyoti Nagar, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Vivek Vihar, accused along with his associate were found in possession of Hyundai Santro Car bearing registration No.DL-7CE-7100 belonging to complainant namely Neeraj Bajaj which they retained or received knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and thus, committed the offence u/s 411 IPC. Hence, the present case.
2. Chargesheet in this matter was filed in the court on for the offence u/s 379/411/34 IPC against accused persons whereupon Cognizance was taken in this matter and upon appearance of accused persons, copy of chargesheet and relevant documents attached with it were supplied to the accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Moving further, vide order dated 19.02.2019, charge was duly served upon the accused under section 411 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Thereafter, matter was taken up for recording of Prosecution evidence.
4. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note that the Swati Digitally signed by Swati Sharma FIR No.17/2017 Sharma Date: 2025.08.04 18:09:41 +0530 State vs. Mohd. Afzal PS:Vivek Vihar Page No.2/ 7 Complainant Neeraj Bajaj remained unserved through DCP concerned and thus, he was dropped from list of witnesses vide order dated 17.07.2025. It is pertinent to note that in total 12 witnesses had been cited by the Prosecution including only one public witness i.e. complainant Neeraj Bajaj and other investigation witnesses including police witnesses.
5. It is vital to mention here that the star witness to this case was the Complainant Neeraj Bajaj since he was the only eye witness to the case as well as the victim. To the utter dismay of Prosecution, complainant was dropped from the list of witnesses. Thus, no eye witness account of the incident could come on record.
6. In these circumstances, the recording of testimony of the remaining witnesses i.e. the other police witnesses as cited by the Prosecution and other formal witnesses, was dispensed with as they were not witnesses to facts and could have only deposed with respect to the investigation carried out. With respect to the dropping of the said witnesses, it is relevant to take a note of an order of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the matter titled as In Re : Speedy Trial of Undertrial Prisoners (dated 22.10.2018) wherein it has been held that :
"We direct all the Trial Courts to consider the possibility of pruning the list of witnesses in consultation with the Public Prosecutor as well as the Defence Counsel so that the number of witnesses required to be examined can be reduced at the threshhold."
7. Therefore, since no incriminating evidence or circumstance was found against the accused persons, recording Swati Digitally signed by Swati Sharma FIR No.17/2017 Sharma Date: 2025.08.04 18:09:48 +0530 State vs. Mohd. Afzal PS:Vivek Vihar Page No.3/ 7 of his statement under section 313 Cr. PC. was also dispensed with. Accused persons preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence and therefore, the matter was taken up for hearing of final arguments, which were duly addressed by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons as well as Ld. APP for the State.
With respect to the above stated trial proceedings in this matter, reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [104(2003) DLT 510] wherein it was held that:-
"...In cases whise ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal Prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date..........."
Thus, keeping in view the above said guidelines this court proceeded to expedite the matter pending for last 8 years.
Summary of arguments
8. Ld. APP for the State has vehemently argued that the accused persons be convicted for the offences with which they have been charged as the said offences are heinous in nature and leaving the accused persons free without any penalty being imposed upon them would rather make them commit similar offences again.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel has strongly Swati Sharma Digitally signed by FIR No.17/2017 Swati Sharma Date:
State vs. Mohd. Afzal 2025.08.04
18:09:56
PS:Vivek Vihar Page No.4/ 7 +0530
opposed the contentions of Ld. APP for the State stating that Prosecution has been unable to bring even an iota of valid evidence against the accused persons which points out towards their guilt. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that merely because the criminal proceedings were initiated against the accused persons in this matter, they cannot be held liable for it as the complainant has not been examined and no other evidence is available. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have strongly pressed upon setting the accused persons at liberty by acquitting him.
10. Accordingly, this court has heard the rival submissions advanced by the Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and has also perused the entire record carefully.
Brief reasons for the decision
11. At the outset, before proceeding further on to discussing the weight and relevancy of evidence led by the Prosecution, this court deems it appropriate to first highlight the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence, i.e. one, that the Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and two, that the burden upon the Prosecution lies to the extent of proving the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Prosecution to prove all the ingredients which constitute the offence so that all reasonable doubts in the case of the Prosecution are removed. It may be noted that strongest of Swati suspicion upon the accused persons, does not lead to the guilt of Sharma the accused persons. Thus, keeping in view the above stated Digitally signed by Swati Sharma aspects and principles of criminal jurisprudence this court shall Date: 2025.08.04 18:10:07 +0530 proceed to decide upon the innocence or guilt of the accused FIR No.17/2017 State vs. Mohd. Afzal PS:Vivek Vihar Page No.5/ 7 persons.
12. Coming to the facts of the case, Prosecution has cited 12 witnesses in the list of witnesses annexed with the chargesheet. Out of these 12 witnesses, only one is prime public witness and rest of the witnesses cited by the Prosecution are formal witnesses, who might have played some part in the investigation but were not first hand witnesses to the alleged incident. Certainly, the guilt of the accused persons could not have been proved by the Prosecution from the mere testimony of said formal witnesses inasmuch as, the alleged incident was never committed in their presence.
13. Even other circumstances and documents available on record pointed out towards lack of sufficient incriminating evidence against the accused persons. No other independent evidence has been collected from the spot which can link the accused persons with the alleged offence. Conviction of the accused persons cannot be secured with a mere disclosure statement unless vital evidence establishing guilt of the accused persons is brought in the court.
14. It is already settled in law that the burden upon the Prosecution is to bring home the guilt of the accused persons on the basis of evidence collected during investigation and when the star witness to the case is himself absent, there remains no scope of doubt with respect to the lack of sufficient proof by the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Moreover, as per the tenets of criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt in the case of the Prosecution goes to the accused persons. Digitally signed by Swati Swati Sharma Sharma Date:
2025.08.04 18:10:15 FIR No.17/2017 +0530 State vs. Mohd. Afzal PS:Vivek Vihar Page No.6/ 7 Conclusion
15. Therefore, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that Prosecution has failed to discharge the burden imposed upon it by law of proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. In these circumstances, this court has no hesitation in holding that accused persons namely Mohd. Afzal and Nitin Kumar are not guilty for the offences U/s 411 IPC. Accordingly, the Accused namely Mohd. Afzal and Nitin Kumar Digitally signed stand acquitted in the present case. Swati by Swati Sharma Sharma 2025.08.04 Date:
18:10:21 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Swati Sharma) on 04.08.2025 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdara District, Karkardooma [This judgment contains 7 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] FIR No.17/2017 State vs. Mohd. Afzal PS:Vivek Vihar Page No.7/ 7