Delhi District Court
State vs Aryan on 3 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-05,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Ankur Panghal, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 767/25
CNR No. -: DLWT020025702025
FIR No. -: 560/2024
Police Station -: Anand Parbat
Section(s) -: 304(2)/317(2)/3(5) BNS
& 106 BNSS
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
(1) ARYAN
S/o Sunil
R/o Not Known, Anand Parbat, Central, Delhi
(2) ABHISHEK
S/o Suraj
R/o R/o Not Known, Anand Parbat, Central, Delhi
.... Accused Persons
1. Name of Complainant :- Manny Kandan
2. Name of Accused :- (1) Aryan
Persons (2) Abhishek
3. Offence complained of :- 304(2)/317(2)/3(5) BNS
or proved & 106 BNSS
4. Plea of accused persons :- Not Guilty
5. Date of Commission of :- 17.12.2024
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 01.02.2025
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 20.12.2025
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 1 of 29
PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:39:36 +0530
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 03.01.2026
9. Final Order :- (1) Aryan: Acquitted
(2)Abhishek: Acquitted
Argued by -: Ms. Arunima Goel, Ld. APP for the State.
Ms. Reena Yadav, Ld. Assistant LADC for accused
Abhishek.
Ms. Aarti, Ld. LAC for accused Aryan.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that on 17.12.2024 at about 11.00 AM nearby Ramjas School, Gate no.1, Anand Parbat, Delhi (hereinafter referred as spot) within the jurisdiction of PS Anand Parbat, accused persons namely Aryan and Abhishek, in furtherance of their common intention, committed theft of mobile phone POCO MAKZEE 231 by snatching forcefully from the possession of the complainant Sh. Manny Kandan without his consent,.
1.1. Further, the case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that on the abovementioned time, date and place, accused persons namely Aryan and Abhishek got recovered mobile phone make POCO MAKZEE 231 belonging to the complainant which they both dishonestly received or retained, knowing or having reason to believe that such property was stolen property. Furthermore, the accused persons have used a scooty bearing registration number DL 10 AF 2653 made Honda Activa of red colour in the commission of the present case, which was reported to be stolen in FIR No. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:39:44 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 2 of 29 38916/24 U/s 305 (b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as BNS) PS Patel Nagar. Thus, section 106 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as BNSS) was added in the present FIR. As such it is alleged that the accused persons namely Aryan and Abhishek have committed the offences punishable under sections 304(2)/3(5)/317(2) of BNS and Section 106 BNSS. Thereafter, a chargesheet was filed against the accused persons after completion of investigation on 01.02.2025 for the offences 304(2)/3(5)/317(2) BNS and section 106 BNSS. APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. Accused persons namely Aryan and Abhishek entered appearance before this court on 20.02.2025. In terms of section 230 of the BNSS, both accused persons were supplied the copy of the chargesheet as well as documents relied upon in the same.
3. On a finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, a charge was framed for the offences punishable U/s 304(2)/317(2)/3(5) BNS against the accused persons namely Aryan and Abhishek on 07.08.2025. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- Manny Kandan (complainant) PW2 :- ASI Girish (police official to prove statement U/s 180 BNSS dated Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL ANKUR PANGHAL Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 3 of 29 Date: 2026.01.03 17:39:51 +0530 17.12.2024) PW3 :- Rajiv Vashisht (Nodal officer Airtel Company) PW4 :- HC Anand Kumar (Accompanied with IO at the spot) PW5 :- ASI Virender (Investigating Officer) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A :- Statement of complainant recorded by police officials Ex.PW1/B :- Site Plan Ex. PW1/C :- Seizure memo of Mobile Phone Ex. PW1/D :- Seizure memo of other two mobile phones Ex. PW1/E :- Seizure memo of Scooty bearing no.DL-10AF-2653 Ex.P1 :- Photographs of scooty bearing (Colly) no.DL-10AF-2653 Ex.P2 :- Mobile phone make POCO Ex.P3 :- Mobile phones make Oppo and Vivo (Colly) Ex. PW 3/A :- Reply vide which CAF of mobile no 8375042627 and other documents were provided Ex. PW 3/B :- CAF of mobile no.8375042627 Ex. PW 3/C :- ID ownership documents (Colly) Ex. PW 3/D :- CDR of mobile number no. 8375042627 Ex. PW 3/E :- Certificate u/s 63 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter referred as BSA) Ex. PW 3/F :- Location charge Ex.PW 4/A :- Disclosure statements of accused persons & Ex.
PW4/B Ex.PW 4/C & :- Arrest memos of accused persons Ex. PW4/D Ex.PW 4/E & :- Personal search memos of accused persons Ex. PW4/F Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL 17:39:58 Date: 2026.01.03 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 4 of 29 ADMITTED DOCUMENTS (under S. 294 CrPC) Ex. AD-1 :- FIR without admitting the contents Ex. AD-2 :- Certificate U/s 63(4)(c) BSA Ex. AD-3 :- Endorsement on rukka
5. Sh. Manny Kandan (PW-1) is the complainant in the present case. He took the stand to depose that he does not remember the exact date of incident. PW 1 further deposed that he was as a driver of his employer namely Sh. Anil. PW 1 further deposed that on the day of incident, he had parked his Wagnor car at Ramjas School, Anand Parbat and he was standing in the sun. PW 1 further deposed that two persons came from the scooty and snatched his mobile phone from his hand. PW 1 further deposed that he caught hold of them and made call at 100 number. PW 1 further deposed that some police persons arrived there and he handed over the custody of both the accused persons to them. PW 1 further deposed that the police persons had seized his mobile phone also. PW 1 further deposed that Police has recorded his statement Ex.PW-1/A and Site plan Ex.PW-1/B was prepared in his presence and the mobile phone was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. PW 1 further deposed that Police has seized two other mobile phone vide memo Ex.PW-1/D and the scooty bearing no. DL-10AF-2653 was seized vide memo Ex.PW-1/E. Witness correctly identified the scooty bearing no. DL-10AF-2653 from the two photographs Ex.P-1 (colly), the phone make Poco Ex.P-2, two mobile phones make Oppo and Vivo are Ex.P-3 (colly). Witness has correctly identified both the accused persons who were present in the Court.
5.1. PW-1 was asked a leading question by the Ld. APP for the State, after seeking permission of the Court, regarding ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr.
Date: 2026.01.03 17:40:06 +0530 Page 5 of 29 the date of incident and some other facts. PW-1 accepted the fact that the incident had happened on 17.12.2024 at about 11:00 AM. PW-1 further deposed that he does not know if the name of the accused persons were Aryan and Abhishek or that their names were revealed in presence of police.
5.2. In cross-examination, Sh. Manny Kandan (PW 1) deposed that he is 7th standard passed out. He deposed that some public persons were present at the time of incident and no public person was present when police arrived there. PW-1 admitted that he has stated in his statement Ex. PW-1/A that the accused persons had fallen from the scooty and public persons had beaten them, in the meantime police arrived there and took away both the accused persons. PW1 admitted that police did not ask anything from the public person. PW1 further deposed that Police also did not record statement of public witnesses. PW 1 further deposed that he does not remember the registration number of scooty. PW 1 further deposed that he did not hand over the purchase bill of his mobile phone to the police. PW 1 further deposed that he had identified the phone as he has used it for a long time. PW 1 further deposed that Police had arrested the accused persons in his presence. Witness admitted that arrest memo of the accused persons does not bear his signature. PW 1 denied the suggestion that accused persons did not snatch his mobile phone or that they were not apprehended by the police at the spot or that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused or that he is deposing falsely.
6. ASI Girish (PW 2) took the stand to depose that on 17.12.2024, he was posted at PCR van Oscar 19 as in charge. PW ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:40:14 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 6 of 29 2 further deposed that one PCR call was received at about 11.25 AM and thereafter, he along with fellow staff reached at Ramjas School, Gate No. 1, Upper Anand Parbat. PW 2 further deposed that a crowd was gathered there and complainant Mani Kandan met him there and produced before them two boys who had snatched his mobile phone. PW 2 further deposed that some public persons had beaten some boys. PW 2 further deposed that thereafter, he asked the complainant and two those boys to sit in the van and thereafter, he brought them to PS Anand Parbat. PW 2 further deposed that the complainant had produced before the police official of PS Anand Parbat the two accused persons and stolen mobile phone. PW 2 further deposed that IO had seized the mobile phone vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 1/B. PW 2 further deposed that IO had seized the mobile phone vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 1/C. PW 2 has correctly identified both the accused persons who were present in the Court.
6.1 In cross-examination, ASI Girish (PW2) deposed that PCR call was assigned to him but no DD entry was made. PW 2 further deposed that the incident did not happen in his presence. PW 1 denied the suggestion that IO had prepared the memos in his absence or that the signatures were put by him later on or that he is deposing falsely.
7. Sh. Rajiv Vashisht (PW 3) took the stand to depose that on he is the summoned witness in the present case. PW 3 further deposed that IO served a notice U/S 92 CrPC upon Bharti Airtel to provide CAF, ID ownership, CDR, 65-B certificate and location charge of mobile number- 8375042627 and accordingly, CAF of the said mobile number and other documents were Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:40:22 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 7 of 29 provided vide reply Ex.PW3/A bearing signature of Sh. Ajay Kumar at point A along-with stamp of Bharti Airtel and the CAF is Ex.PW3/B bearing signature of Sh. Ajay Kumar at point A along-with stamp of Bharti Airtel. PW 3 further deposed that the ID ownership documents are exhibited as Ex.PW3/C(colly) bearing signature of Sh. Ajay Kumar at point A along-with stamp of Bharti Airtel. PW-3 further deposed that the CDR of the said mobile number is exhibited as Ex.PW3/D bearing signature of Sh. Ajay Kumar at point A along-with stamp of Bharti Airtel. PW 3 further deposed that the certificate U/S 63 BSA is exhibited as Ex.PW3/E bearing signature of Sh. Ajay Kumar at point A along- with stamp of Bharti Airtel. PW 3 further deposed that the location charge is exhibited as Ex.PW3/F bearing signature of Sh. Ajay Kumar at/point A along-with stamp of Bharti Airtel. PW 3 further deposed that he can identify the signature of Sh. Ajay Kumar as he has seen him write and sign during the course of employment.
7.1 In cross-examination, Sh. Rajiv Vashisht (PW 3) deposed that PW 3 admitted that he has not placed his authority letter on judicial record. PW3 further admitted that he has not placed any documents showing that he currently employed with Bharti Airtel. He voluntarily deposed that he can show his ID card. PW 3 further showed his officials ID card issued by Bharti Airtel. PW 3 further deposed that he has been working with Bharti Airtel since the year January 2019. PW 3 further deposed that Sh. Ajay Kumar has been working since the year 2007 and is also currently working with Bharti Airtel. PW 3 denied the suggestion that he cannot identify the signature of Sh. Ajay Kumar as he has never seen him sign during his employment or that he is deposing falsely.
Digitally signed by ANKURANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.01.03 17:40:28 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 8 of 29
8. HC Anand Kumar (PW 4) took the stand to depose that on 17.12.2024, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as HC and on said date IO received DD NO-45A, after which he along-with IO went to the spot Le Ramjas School near gate no-1, upper Anand Parbat, Delhi. PW 4 further deposed that at the spot IO made call to the PCR caller and asked as to where he was. PW 4 further deposed that the caller informed that he along-with accused persons is going to PS Anand Parbat in PCR Van and the scooty of the accused persons bearing registration number DL-10AI-2653 is parked at the spot. PW 4 further deposed that thereafter he both the scooty of the accused to the PS. PW 4 further deposed that at the PS complainant Manny Kandan and two accused persons were present. PW 4 further deposed that the PCR officials present at the PS produced the three mobiles phone recovered from the accused i.e., 1. POCO mobile phone. 2. OPPO mobile phone 3. VIVO mobile phone. PW 4 further deposed that thereafter IO conducted inquiry from the two accused persons. PW 4 further deposed that the accused persons disclose their names as Abhisek and Aryan. PW 4 further correctly identified both the accused persons. PW 4 further deposed that IO recorded the statement of the complainant Ex.PW 1/A, prepared rukka and got the present FIR registered. PW 4 further deposed that IO made site plan Ex.PW1/B at the instance of complainant. PW 4 further deposed that thereafter IO seized the recovered the stolen mobile phones by seizure memo exhibited as Ex.PW1/C & Ex.PW1/D. PW 4 further deposed that IO seized the scooty of the accused vide seizure memo exhibited as Ex.PW1/E. PW 4 further deposed that IO gave a notice U/S 35(3) BNSS to the accused persons and the accused persons joined the investigation. PW 4 further deposed Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:40:35 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 9 of 29 that IO interrogated the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statement as Ex.PW4/A & Ex.PW4/B. PW 4 further deposed that the accused persons were arrested vide arrest memos exhibited as Ex.PW4/C & Ex.PW4/D and IO conducted personal search of accused persons vide personal search memos exhibited as Ex.PW4/E & Ex.PW4/F. PW 4 further deposed that thereafter he got the medical examination of the accused persons conducted and brought them back to the PS. PW 4 further deposed that IO recorded his statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. Witness has correctly identified scooty from the photographs, Ex.P-1 (colly), stolen mobile phones as Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3 (colly).
8.1. In cross-examination, HC Anand Kumar (PW
4) deposed that the IO received DD No-45A at about 11:30 A.M. and they went to the spot on his personal scooty bearing registration number DL8SDD-7029. PW 4 further deposed that he came to PS on the scooty of the accused persons. PW 4 further deposed that his scooty was brought to the PS by the IO. PW 4 further deposed that he does not remember whether any photography or videography of recovery was made or not. PW 4 further deposed that he does not know whether IO had checked for CCTV camera on the spot or not. PW 4 admitted that the spot is located in a public place or that public persons were present at the spot. PW 4 further deposed that IO had conducted inquiry from the public persons. PW 4 admitted that no public persons have been made witness in the present case. PW 4 denied the suggestion that he did not accompany the IO on 17.12.2024 or that the IO did not investigate the case in fair and proper manner or that entire investigation was conducted while sitting at the PS. PW 4 further denied the suggestion that no mobile phones were recovered from ANKUR PANGHAL Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:40:42 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 10 of 29 the accused persons or that signatures of accused persons were obtained on blank papers or that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case or that he is deposing falsely.
9. ASI Virender (PW 5) took the stand to depose that on 17.12.2024, he was posted as ASI at PS Anand Parbat and on the said date, he along with HC Anand Kumar was on emergency duty and during the duty, he received DD No.45A, after which he along-with HC Anand Kumar went to the spot i.e., Ramjas School near gate no-1, upper Anand Parbat, Delhi. PW 5 further deposed that at the spot he made call to the PCR caller and asked as to where he was. PW 5 further deposed that the caller informed that he along-with accused persons is going to PS Anand Parbat in PCR Van and the scooty of the accused persons bearing registration number DL-10AF-2653 is parked at the spot. PW 5 further deposed that thereafter he brought the scooty of the accused to the PS. PW 5 further deposed that at the PS complainant Manny Kandan and two accused persons were present. PW 5 further deposed that the PCR officials present at the PS produced the three mobiles phone recovered from the accused i.e. 1. POCO mobile phone. 2. OPPO mobile phone 3. VIVO mobile phone. PW 5 further deposed that thereafter he conducted inquiry from the two accused persons. PW 5 further deposed that the accused persons disclosed their names as Abhisek and Aryan. PW 5 further deposed that he recorded the statement of the complainant Ex.PW1/A, prepared rukka Ex.PW5/A and got the present FIR registered. PW 5 further deposed that he prepared site plan Ex.PW1/B at the instance of complainant. PW 5 further deposed that thereafter he seized the recovered stolen mobile phones by seizure memo exhibited as Ex.PW1/C & Ex.PW1/D. PW 5 further ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:40:50 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 11 of 29 deposed that he seized the scooty of the accused vide seizure memo exhibited as Ex.PW1/E. PW 5 further deposed that he gave a notice U/S 35(3) BNSS to the accused persons and the accused persons joined the investigation. PW 5 further deposed that he interrogated the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statement as Ex.PW4/A & Ex.PW4/B. PW 5 further deposed that the accused persons were arrested by arrest memos already exhibited as Ex.PW4/C & Ex.PW4/D. PW 5 further deposed that he conducted personal search of accused persons vide personal search memos already exhibited as Ex.PW4/E & Ex.PW4/F. PW 5 further deposed that thereafter he got the medical examination of the accused persons conducted and brought them back to the PS. PW 5 further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses U/S 161 CrPc. PW 5 further deposed that he obtained CDR and CAF of mobile number 827504267 by serving a notice u/s 95 BNSS of Bharti Airtel Ltd. and placed the same on record. PW 5 further deposed that thereafter, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed before the Hon'ble Court. PW 5 correctly identified the Scooty from the photographs, Ex.P-1 (colly), stolen mobile phones as Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3 (colly).
9.1. In cross-examination, ASI Virender (PW 5) deposed that he received DD No-45A at about 11:30 A.M. and they went to the spot on the personal scooty of HC Anand Kumar. PW 5 further deposed that he does not remember the registration number of the said scooty. PW 5 further deposed that he came back to PS on the scooty of HC Anand Kumar. PW 5 further deposed that he does not remember whether any photography or videography of spot was made or not. PW 5 further deposed that no CCTV Cameras were installed at the spot. PW 5 admitted that ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:40:58 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 12 of 29 the spot is located in a public place or that many public persons were present at the spot. PW 5 further deposed that he had conducted inquiry from the public persons. PW 5 admitted that no public persons have been made witness in the present case. PW 5 denied the suggestion that he did not investigate the case in fair and proper manner or that entire investigation was conducted while sitting at the PS or that no mobile phones were recovered from the accused persons. PW 5 further denied the suggestion that signatures of accused persons were obtained on blank papers or that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case or that he is deposing falsely.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS
10. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of accused persons was recorded without oath on 03.12.2025 under section 351 BNSS. They stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused persons further submitted that they do not want to lead any defence evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
11. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsels for the accused persons at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration of the material appearing on record.
12. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. She has argued that the accused persons were apprehended from the spot ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:41:04 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 13 of 29 and the mobile phone has also been recovered from the accused persons. It further argued by Ld. APP for the state that PW-2 has deposed that the complainant has handed over the accused persons and recovered mobile to him. It is further argued that the testimony of PW-1 is consistent and is of sterling quality. Further it is argued that the testimony of PW-1 is corroborated by PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5. Further, the other evidence on record as corroborated the version of the eyewitness and the offences are proved beyond any doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
13. Per contra, Ld. Assistant LADC for the accused Abhishek has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Assistant LADC has argued that the complainant (PW-1) has deposed that no public persons were present, at the spot, when police arrived, but in his complaint, the complainant has mentioned that public persons were there. It is further argued that the complainant has not mentioned the registration number of scooty and no mobile phone bill was not produced by the complainant. It is further argued that the arrest memos of both accused persons do not bear signatures of the complainant. It is further argued that PW-2 has deposed regarding the availability of public persons but no public person was made witness, in present case. It is further argued that the MLC of accused persons is not there on record and there is no CCTV footage of the incident. It is further argued that no documents have been placed on record to prove the ownership of the mobile phone and the case of prosecution is based only upon the disclosure statements of accused persons. Ld. Assistant LADC has argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of the eye-witness. It ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr.
17:41:11 +0530 Page 14 of 29 is argued that prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that accused person namely Abhishek be acquitted for the said offences.
14. Per contra, Ld. LAC for the accused Aryan has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. LAC has argued that the complainant (PW-1) has deposed that no public persons were present and the complainant has not mentioned the registration number of scooty. Ld. LAC has argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of the eye-witness. It is argued that prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that accused person namely Aryan be acquitted for the said offences.
INGRIDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
15. The accused persons have been charged for the offences of snatching (S. 304(2) BNS) and dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property (S. 317(2) BNS). In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has to prove that the accused persons have committed snatching and have dishonestly received or retained stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
16. It would be appropriate to reproduce sections 304, 317 & 3(5) BNS, which are as follows:
"304. (1) Theft is snatching if, in order to commit theft, the offender suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes or secures or grabs or takes away from any person or from his possession any movable property.
(2) Whoever commits snatching, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03
17:41:17 +0530
Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 15 of 29
317. (1) Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft or extortion or robbery or cheating, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as stolen property, whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India, but, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property.
(2) Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(4) Whoever habitually receives or deals in property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(5) Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
3.(5) When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
17. In order to prove the offences punishable under section 304(2) BNS, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz., i. Theft: For an act to qualify as "Snatching," it must encompass all elements of theft, including Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:41:24 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 16 of 29 dishonest intention, lack of consent, and the movement of the property.;
ii. Suddenness/Quickness/Forcible Action: The act must be carried out in a sudden or quick manner or by using force;
iii. Movable Property: The property involved must be a movable property; and iv. Act done with intent to commit theft: The offender must commit the act with an intention to seize or secure or grab or take away movable property dishonestly.
18. In order to prove the offences punishable under section 317(2) BNS, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz., i. Possession of stolen property: The stolen property was in the possession of the accused; ii. Receiving of possession of stolen property from some person: Some person, other than the accused had the possession of the property before the accused got possession of it; and iii. Dishonest Intention: The accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the property was a stolen property.
19. Section 3(5) BNS provides exception to the general rule that no man can be held responsible for an independent act and wrong committed by another. It lays down the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention, Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:41:30 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 17 of 29 emanating from the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. It deals with doing of separate acts, similar or adverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for the result thereof as if he had done the act himself. The soul of Section 3(5) BNS is the joint liability of doing a criminal act. This section only provides a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. Two elements are necessary to fulfil the requirement of Section 3(5) BNS. One is that the person must be present on the scene of occurrence and the second is that there must be a prior concert or a pre- arranged plan. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, a person cannot be held guilty of an offence by operation of Section 3(5) BNS.
20. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The resumption of the notions of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that point was the guilt of accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
21. From bare perusal of the above-mentioned, it transpires that in order to bring home the charges for commission of offence under Section 304 read with Section 3(5) of BNS and Section 371 (2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS, it is imperative that prosecution proves the following facts beyond reasonable doubt:
i. That on 17.12.2024 at about 11 AM nearby Ramjas School, Gate No. 1, Anand Parbat, Delhi, both the accused persons namely Aryan and Abhishek, in furtherance of their common intention, committed theft of mobile phone ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:41:37 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 18 of 29 POCO MAKZEE 231, by snatching forcefully, from the possession of the complainant, namely Manny Kandan, without his consent; and ii. That on the abovementioned date, time and place, both the accused persons namely Aryan and Abhishek, got recovered mobile phone make POCO MAKZEE 231 belonging to the complainant, which they both dishonestly received or retained, knowing or having reason to believe that such property was stolen property.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMISSION OFFENCE OF SNATCHING i.e. FACT (i)
22. Before advancing to appreciation of evidence it is important to discuss that the present proceedings have emanated from the statement of complainant which is Ex. PW-1/A. PW-1/complainant is the star witness for the prosecution and the entire case of prosecution is based on the testimony of PW-1/complainant.
23. In a catena of judgements, it has been reiterated that the entire case of prosecution cannot be discarded merely because of non-examination of independent witnesses if the testimony of the complainant is found to be wholly reliable and credible. (Reliance has been placed upon Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, [2019] 11 S.C.R. 554 and Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab [2019] 1 S.C.R. 307). This Court shall now discuss with the reliability and admissibility of the testimony of PW-1/complainant.
Digitally signedby ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:41:44 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 19 of 29
24. The present case evolved from PCR call vide GD No. 45 A dated 17.12.2024 PS Anand Parbat in which the first information regarding snatching was received. On the same day statement of complainant was recorded U/s 180 BNSS in which the complainant has stated that the accused Aryan and Abhishek were in inebriated condition and were not able to tell anything correctly. Furthermore, the complainant in his statement U/s 180 BNSS has further stated that the accused persons were arrested in his presence. Furthermore, the complainant is his complaint Ex. PW1/A has stated that the accused persons fell down from the scooty, which they were riding, and both accused persons were beaten by the public. He further stated that a PCR van came from behind and the police officials caught the accused persons.
24.1. However, the complainant in his cross- examination stated that some public persons were there at the time of incident but no public persons were present, when police arrived there. On the other hand, PW-2 was posted at PCR van Oscar 19 on 17.12.2024 as in charge and he along with fellow staff reached at the spot upon receiving the PCR call. He, to the contrary, stated that crowd was there at the spot. Thus, there is material inconsistency, in the testimony of the complainant (PW-1) and PW-2, regarding presence of public persons, at the spot, when the police officials of PCR van reached at the spot.
24.2. The complainant was not able to tell the date of incident during his examination-in-chief and thereafter, a leading question was put to the complainant by Ld. APP for the state, after obtaining permission of the court regarding date of incident, to which complainant accepted the fact that the incident happened on 17.12.2024 at about 11:00 AM. The Hon'ble ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:41:51 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 20 of 29 Supreme Court of India recently in the judgment titled K. S. Dinachandran Versus Shyla Joseph & Ors. 2025 INSC 1451 has held that leading questions are permitted in cross-examinations and the response elicited cannot be said to have lesser probative value.
24.3. The complainant was also not able to tell the registration number of scooty upon which the accused persons are alleged to have come to commit the present offence. The complainant further deposed that the police has arrested the accused persons in his presence, but the arrest memos of both accused persons Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D do not bear the signatures of complainant. Furthermore, the complainant in his complaint Ex. PW-1/A has stated that both the accused persons were beaten by public and the complainant in his statement recorded U/s 180 BNSS has stated that both the accused persons were in inebriated condition, but no MLC of either of the accused persons has been filed along with the chargesheet, neither any explanation regarding the same was furnished by any witness during the trial. The complainant during his evidence has not mentioned the above stated fact regarding inebriated condition of both accused persons.
25. The three judges Bench of hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 09th January, 2025 in a case titled as Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2011) [2025] 1 S.C.R. 657 : 2025 INSC 47 has held that:
53. To the same effect it was also observed in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat (1988) Supp SCC 241 as follows:
"13. ... The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 21 of 29 17:41:59 +0530 should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. speaking for this Court in Sohrab v. State of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 819] observed : [SCC p. 756, para 8 : SCC (Cri) p. 824, para 8]..."
25.1. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi very recently on 31st October, 2025 in the case titled State vs. Ram Swaroop & Ors. in CRL.A. 969/2002 it was held that:
14. Reference in this context can also be made to another judgment in State of U.P. V. Naresh and Ors. 2011 AD (SC) 20 wherein it was observed in the following words:
"The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicit a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there were grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
15. The discrepancies/contradictions/improvements which are not material cannot discredit the testimony of an injured witness as was observed in the case titled as Vinod Tyagi & Ors. Vs. State 2013 IV AD (Delhi) 145.
Digitally signedby ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:42:04 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 22 of 29
16. Human memory has its own peculiar limitations of retaining, recapitulating, narrating and reiterating etc. It varies from person to person, event to event and from time to time etc. A person may very meticulously and vividly remember certain events, occurrences, persons or acts depending upon his own capacity, the importance attached to the persons, events, time, places, etc. Those very aspects may be too trivial for another person and therefore, little or no memory would be there. It is common that narration of events, etc. varies not only from person to person but the same person may not be able to recall and reiterate a particular thing/event, person/incident with the same precision and chronological order as was the first or the previous narrative was. This does not mean that the person was not privy to the event narrated, as long as the essential aspect remains intact and alive. A slip here or there or mix up about certain aspects would not rob the strength of the narration as long as the inference and impact of the narrative remains unadulterated and unaltered.
17. The discrepancies/inconsistencies etc. are required to evaluated in the real world in real life situations, where minor and trivial ones are to be ignored. A mix up in the face and name, some minor mix up in chronological narrative, time gap, exact timings which document prepared, where and signed by whom first, so on and so forth are not potent enough to uproot the testimony of a witness, if the soul of the narrative remains intact. In this context reference can be made to the judgment State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki & Anr reported in 1981 SCC (2) 752, it was held as under:
"In the depositions of witnesses there are always some normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person."
In Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra (Crl.A. 25-26/2000), the Apex Court held as under:
"Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the Court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution become doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.01.03 17:42:10 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 23 of 29 from person to person. The omissions in the earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the present case, the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of PW.2. Even if there is contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness. There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence."
26. When the testimony of the complainant in the instant case is tested on the above parameters, then it can be said that the fact which is stated by the complainant in his complaint Ex. PW-1/A is that the accused persons were beaten by public and the complainant during his evidence has stated that there were no public persons when police arrived. On the other hand, PW-2 has stated that crowd was present at the spot, when PCR van went at the spot. The versions of PW-2 and PW-1/complainant are contradictory to each other. The fact regarding beating of accused persons also remains unproved, in the absence of MLCs of accused persons. Further, the complainant has stated that the accused persons were arrested in his presence, but the arrest memos of accused persons Ex. PW4/C and Ex PW4/D do not bear his signature. In view of the same, the testimony of PW-1 i.e., the complainant, who is the star witness, in present case, becomes doubtful. There is no other public witness or CCTV footage of present incident.
Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03
17:42:15 +0530
Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 24 of 29
WITH RESPECT TO RECOVERY OF MOBILE PHONE OF COMPLAINANT FROM ACCUSED, i.e. FACT (ii)
27. It is also the case of prosecution that that the mobile phone of the complainant was recovered from the accused persons on 17.12.2024 at about 11 AM nearby Ramjas School, Gate No. 1, Anand Parbat, Delhi, i.e., a public place and despite that, no public witness has been examined to the recovery and seizure of the mobile Phone.
27.1. All the witnesses except PW-3 have stated that the place of incident was a public place, but no public person has been made as a witness in the present case. Failure on the part of the police officials to make sincere effort to join public witnesses for the proceedings when they may be available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. Reference can be taken from the decision of Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under;
"It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."
28. While the testimony of the police officials cannot be discarded away merely because of the fact that no public witnesses were not examined, however, their testimonies should be scrutinised in more detail. If it is found the police officials during the course of investigation did not even make endeavour to ask the public witnesses to join the investigation, did not even ask their ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:42:22 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 25 of 29 names and details etc. then it would cast a very serious doubt on the testimonies of the police officials. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tahir v. State (Delhi) [(1996) 3 SCC 338] , dealing with a similar question, the Hon'ble Apex Court held inter alia the following:
"In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. The obvious result of the above discussion is that the statement of a police officer can be relied upon and even form the basis of conviction when it is reliable, trustworthy and preferably corroborated by other evidence on record."
29. The requirement of the police officials to make endeavour to ask the public witnesses to join the proceedings was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1997 SC 2417, wherein it interalia held the following:
"In a given case it may so happen that no such person is available or, even if available, is not willing to be a party to such search. It may also be that after joining the search, such persons later on turn hostile. In any of these eventualities the evidence of the police officers who conducted the search cannot be disbelieved solely on the ground that no independent and respectable witness was examined to prove the search but if it is found -as in the present case -that no attempt was even made by the concerned police officer to join with him some persons of the locality who were admittedly available to witness the recovery, it would affect the weight of evidence of the Police Officer, though not its admissibility"Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL 17:42:27 Date: 2026.01.03 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 26 of 29
30. Similar observation was made by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Roop Chand vs. State of Haryana 1999 (1) CLR 69, wherein the Hon'ble Court while discussing the role of public witnesses in criminal investigation, had interalia held the following:
"4. It is well settled principle of the law that the investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the investigation officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the investigating officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from public is an afterthought and is not worth credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful."
31. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra (1995) 4 SCC 255 dealt with the issue of the requirement of the examination of an independent witness, and whether the evidence of a police witness requires corroboration. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that though the same must be subject to strict scrutiny, however, the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are either interested in the investigation or in the prosecution. However, as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars should be sought.
32. Therefore, in view of the above-mentioned case law, it becomes clear that while the testimony of the police officials cannot be discarded away forthwith in the absence of any public witnesses, however, it would be prudent to examine or scrutinise Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:42:34 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 27 of 29 their testimonies more closely and should preferably be corroborated. Accused may be convicted on the basis of the testimonies of the police officials if their testimonies are found to be reliable and trustworthy. In the instant case, as discussed above, no effort was made by PW5/IO in order to join the public witnesses during the investigation.
33. Section 105 of BNSS mandates that search of a place and seizure of a property/ article must be recorded through audio-video means and the video of such search and seizure is to be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class without any delay.
34. PW-5/IO, in his examination-in-chief or cross- examination, has nowhere stated that the videography of the search and seizure of the mobile phone of PW-1/complainant was done. Neither any video of the seizure of the mobile phone of PW-1/complainant has been placed on record by the prosecution and the said fact makes the entire manner of conducting of inquiry, seizure and search etc. of accused along with the alleged recovery of the mobile phone of PW-1/complainant highly suspicious.
35. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L Goswami vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 197 SCC (Crl.) 258 that the accused person is entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not discharge the onus proving the ingredients of offence and the fact regarding date of occurring of incident, in question, and thus, the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt. Thus, the ingredients of sections Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:42:40 +0530 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 28 of 29 304(2)/317(2)/3(5) BNS are not established beyond all reasonable doubts.
CONCLUSION
36. To recapitulate the above discussion, the prosecution was required to prove the ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of star witness i.e. the complainant PW-1 of the prosecution does not inspire confidence and does not cogently prove the incident in question. There is material inconsistency in testimony of complainant PW-1, which goes at the root of the prosecution case. The prosecution has not proved the offences under section 304(2)/317(2)/3(5) BNS beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons namely Sanjeet Aryan and Abhishek.
37. Resultantly, the accused persons namely ARYAN S/o SUNIL and ABHISHEK S/o SURAJ are hereby found not guilty and are ACQUITED of the offences under sections 304(2)/317(2)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
38. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court on 03.01.2026 in the presence of the accused persons. The judgment contains 29 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed byANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.01.03 17:42:46 +0530 (ANKUR PANGHAL) JMFC-05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 03/01/2026 Cr. Case No. 767/25 State vs. Aryan & Anr. Page 29 of 29