Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Israr on 11 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH MANUJ KAUSHAL, JMFC-03, SE,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Mohd. Israr
FIR No.33/2021
Police Station : H.N.Din
Under Section :380/411 IPC
Date of institution :18.03.2021
Date of pronouncement :11.02.2026
JUDGMENT
Serial number of the
a) 2523/2021 case Date of commission of
b) 02.02.2021 offence Name of the
c) Shub Sahel complainant Mohd. Israr Name, parentage and S/o Sh. Mohd. Islamuddin
d) address of the accused R/o H.No. F-207, Gali no.8, Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi.
e) Offence complained of Section 380/411 IPC
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Conviction U/s 380 IPC
g) Final order
Acquittal U/s 411 IPC
h) Date of final order 11.02.2026
FIR No.33/2021 State Vs. Mohd. Israr PS H.N.Din Page no.1/10
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Briefly stated, it is the prosecution's case that on 02.02.2021 at 10.00PM at H.No.C-8, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS H.N.Din, accused committed theft of car battery (Exide a Milege red) installed in Hundai Santro car bearing no. DL-7CJ 0202 belonging to the complainant Shub Sahel. It is further the prosecution's case that on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused was found in possession of the said car battery which he retained knowingly or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property and thereby accused committed offences punishable u/s 380/ 411 IPC.
ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
2. Vide order dated 08.04.2021 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 380/411 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses and their testimonies are given below:-
(a) PW1 Shub Sahel deposed that on 02.02.2021, he had parked his car bearing no. DL-7CJ-0202 in the stilt parking. He further deposed that at around 10.00PM, when he came down in the parking area, he saw that somebody was trying to steal the car battery. He further deposed that he called caretaker Mr. Deepak and tried to catch the thief, however, the thief FIR No.33/2021 State Vs. Mohd. Israr PS H.N.Din Page no.2/10 pushed Mr. Deepak and ran out from the premises. He further deposed that he and caretaker Mr. Deepak with the help of others chased and caught the thief. He further deposed that at the same time police came at the spot and took the accused in their custody. He further deposed that accused disclosed his name as Mohd. Israr. He further deposed that he gave a written complaint Ex-PW1/A and the police arrested the accused vide memo Ex-PW1/B. He further deposed that police seized the car battery vide memo Ex-PW1/C. He correctly identified the car battery Ex-P1. He failed to identify the accused.
He was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel.
(b) PW2 Deepak has deposed on the same lines as PW-1 therefore, his entire testimony is not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. He correctly identified the battery Ex-P1 but failed to identify the accused. He was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel.
(c) PW3 ASI Dharmender has deposed that 02.2.2021, he was on patrolling duty with Ct. Jitender. He further deposed that while patrolling they reached near C-08, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi and heard noise. He further deposed that they met the complainant who gave a written complaint Ex.PW1/A and produced the accused alongwith the car battery. He further deposed that accused disclosed his name as Israr. He further deposed that he attested the complaint and prepared a rukka Ex-PW3/A. He further deposed that he got the FIR registered through Ct. Jitender. He further deposed that he seized the car battery vide memo Ex-PW1/C, arrested the accused vide memo Ex- PW1/B, personally searched the accused vide memo Ex-PW3/B and FIR No.33/2021 State Vs. Mohd. Israr PS H.N.Din Page no.3/10 recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex-PW3/C. He further deposed that he prepared site plan Ex-PW3/D, recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation filed the charge-sheet before the court. He correctly identified the accused and the case property Ex-P1. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
(d) PW4 Ct. Jitender has along the lines of PW3 ASI Dharmender. PW4 correctly identified the accused. PW4 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
4. Statements of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating evidence/documents was put to him. Accused stated that after apprehending him, the police forcefully took his signatures on document and sent him to the Jail. He further denied the prosecution's case. The accused opted not to lead any DE. Accordingly, DE was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
5. Learned APP for the State has argued that the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses have established the guilt of the accused and that he be convicted for offence under Section 380/411 IPC. Per Contra, Ld. LADC for the accused has argued that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. It is further argued that both the public witnesses have failed to identify the accused and there is no other independent witness. Hence, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted in the present matter.
FIR No.33/2021 State Vs. Mohd. Israr PS H.N.Din Page no.4/10
6. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
7. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state, Ld. LADC for accused and perused the file.
8. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"i) The onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is on part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any less.
ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
9. In the present case, the accused has been charged with offence U/s 380/411 I.P.C. To establish the offence u/s 380/411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(a) that the accused dishonestly intended to take the movable property of complainant out of his possession;
(b) that the act to take out the property was without consent of the FIR No.33/2021 State Vs. Mohd. Israr PS H.N.Din Page no.5/10 complainant;
(c) the accused moved that property in order to such taking and the offence was committed in any building used as human dwelling or used for the custody of property.
(d) that the accused was found dishonestly retaining the stolen property knowing or having reason to believe that it was a stolen property.
10. In the present matter, PW-1 in his testimony has deposed that on 02.02.2021 he had seen a person named Mohd. Israr trying to steal the battery of his car bearing registration no. DL-7CJ-0202 which was parked in the stilt parking of his house. He has further deposed that he called the caretaker Mr. Deepak to catch the thief however, the thief pushed Deepak and ran away. He has further deposed that subsequently, the accused was caught by them with the help of public after chasing him and thereafter he handed over the custody of the accused to the police. His testimony has been corroborated by the testimony of PW-2. They both have correctly identified the case property i.e. Exide batter Ex-P1. Nothing contrary has come on record in the cross- examination of the two witnesses by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. The aforesaid testimony of the two witnesses indicates that the thief disclosed his name as Mohd. Israr and was apprehended at the spot.
11. Having established that a person named Mohd. Israr had committed theft of the car battery in the house of the complainant, the only question which remains to be decided is whether the accused had committed the aforesaid theft. PW-1 and PW-2 have not identified the accused in the Court and they FIR No.33/2021 State Vs. Mohd. Israr PS H.N.Din Page no.6/10 have been cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State on the said point however, nothing incriminating has come on record in the said cross- examination. However, PW-1 and PW-2, on being cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused have stated that they had caught the accused after chasing him and further stated that due to the lapse of time they do not remember the face of the accused. They both have further admitted that they had handed over the accused to the police after apprehending the accused. No suggestion has been given by the Ld. Counsel for the accused to either of the witnesses to suggest that the accused was not caught by them on the date of the incident or to suggest that the accused was not the person who committed the theft. Further, both PW-1 and PW-2 have proved the seizure memo of the stolen battery i.e. Ex.PW1/C which shows that the stolen battery was recovered from the accused in their presence. Nothing has come on record in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 to cast any doubt on the aforesaid seizure memo.
12. From a perusal of the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove that PW-1 and PW-2 after catching the accused had handed over him to the police. The aforesaid testimony is corroborated by the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 who has stated that the complainant had handed over the accused and the case property Ex.P1 to them at the spot. They both have further correctly identified the accused. Moreover, nothing has come on record in the cross-examination of PW-3 and PW-4 which would cast any doubt on the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 or show that the accused was not present at the time of the commission of the offence. Furthermore, the accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C has FIR No.33/2021 State Vs. Mohd. Israr PS H.N.Din Page no.7/10 admitted to being apprehended by the police.
13. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that it is now well settled principle of law that even in a case where a witness has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined by the prosecution still so much of his testimony which inspires confidence can be read in evidence against the accused. In the present matter as discussed above, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 is coherent, consistent and corroborated by the testimony of remaining prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence on record and there is nothing on record to shake their credibility. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of the incident, the accused committed the theft of the car battery from the stilt parking of the complainant.
14. Further, the act of the accused in running away after the complainant called the caretaker Deepak indicates a guilty mind and dishonest intention. The conduct of fleeing from the spot supports the inference that the accused intended to cause wrongful loss to the complainant or wrongful gain to himself by removing the car battery from the vehicle. The accused has also failed to claim ownership of the recovered case property.
15. Another contention raised by defence counsel is that police did not join any independent person other than the PW-1 and PW-2 during the entire proceedings. It is argued that such non-joining of a public person is significant and raises a doubt towards false implication of accused by FIR No.33/2021 State Vs. Mohd. Israr PS H.N.Din Page no.8/10 complainant with the connivance of police officials.
16. In the opinion of this Court, the said contention of the defence counsel does not hold much water as the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 has been found to be truthful and reliable and no material deficiency or contradiction has been found therein. Therefore, there was no necessity of a testimony of other public witnesses. Furthermore, the accused has failed to provide any reason why the complainant would he falsely implicate him and why the PW-2 would give false testimony against him.
17. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Mohd. Israr. Accordingly, accused Mohd. Israr is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 380 I.P.C.
18. Since the accused has already been convicted of the offence u/s 380 IPC for having stolen the said car battery therefore, the charge u/s 411 IPC which deals with receiving or retaining the stolen property cannot be sustained. Reliance in this regard is placed on Sunil Mashi v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2007 wherein it was observed as under:
44. As such, the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 379 IPC, however, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 411 IPC as well. Keeping in view the fact that he has been convicted under Section 379 IPC, there was no justification for convicting him for offence under Section 411 IPC. As such, his conviction under Section 411 is set aside.
FIR No.33/2021 State Vs. Mohd. Israr PS H.N.Din Page no.9/10
19. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in ' Gopi Jaiswal vs State Of U.P.' (Criminal appeal no.1899/2009 decided on 8 November, 2011) held, "In view of the fact that the appellant Gopi Jaiswal was the real thief, his conviction could only be made under Section 379 IPC. His conviction under Section 411 IPC, in such situation, was not proper. A real thief cannot be a receiver of a stolen property. If a person is the real thief and the stolen property is also recovered from his possession, he should be convicted and sentenced for the offence of theft and as such he cannot be convicted and sentenced under Section 411 IPC. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 411 IPC cannot be upheld."
20. In view of the aforesaid judgments and considering the fact that the accused has been found guilty of the offence U/s 380 IPC therefore, this Court does not deem it fit to convict the accused for the offence u/s 411 IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted of the offence U/s 411 IPC.
21. Let the convict Mohd. Israr be heard on Quantum of sentence for 18.02.2026.
22. Announced in open Court today on 11.02.2026. Digitally signed by MANUJ MANUJ KAUSHAL KAUSHAL Date:
2026.02.11 15:22:00 +0530 (MANUJ KAUSHAL) JMFC-03 (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No.33/2021 State Vs. Mohd. Israr PS H.N.Din Page no.10/10