Delhi District Court
State vs Sunny on 7 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA JINDAL,
ACJM (NORTH-WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR NO.: DLNW020036612020
Cr. Case No.: 857/2020
FIR No.: 354/2018
P.S.: Maurya Enclave
STATE VS. Sunny
Under Section: 356/379/411 IPC
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. of the case : 857/2020
Date of commission of the offence : 21.09.2018
Name of complainant : Bhavnoor
D/o Sh. Sardar Devender Singh
R/o ND-13, Vishakha Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi
Name of accused : Sunny
S/o Sh. Ashok
R/o Jhuggi No. B-337, GP Block,
Pitampura, Delhi
Offences complained of : U/s 356/379/411 IPC
Date of order : 07.05.2026
Final order : Acquittal
FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 1 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA JINDAL
JINDAL Date:
2026.05.07
16:40:21
+0530
JUDGMENT
I. TITLE AND PARTIES
1. The present criminal case arises out of FIR No. 354/2018, registered at Police Station Maurya Enclave, North-West District, Delhi, on 21.09.2018, for offences punishable under Sections 356, 379, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC"). The accused, Sunny s/o Sh. Ashok, aged approximately 22 years at the time of the alleged offence, is a resident of Jhuggi No. B-337, GP Block, Pitampura, Delhi. The State of NCT of Delhi is the prosecution. The complainant and first prosecutrix witness is Ms. Bhavnoor Kaur d/o Sardar Devender Singh, r/o ND-13, Vishakha Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi.
II. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE A. Prosecution's Case
2. As per the First Information Report (Ex. A1) and the charge sheet filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "Cr.P.C."), the prosecution's case, in brief, is as follows:
3. On 21.09.2018, at approximately 6:30 PM, the complainant, Ms. Bhavnoor Kaur, a student of Pearl Academy pursuing a Fashion Media course, had boarded an auto-rickshaw from ND Market, Pitampura, intending to travel to Club Road, Punjabi Bagh. She was holding her OnePlus mobile phone (white from the front, Rose Gold from the back, bearing Airtel SIM No. 7838586261) in her hand. At that moment, the accused, Sunny, came FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 2 of 22 Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2026.05.07 16:40:25 +0530 running and snatched the mobile phone from her hand and fled towards the GP Block Jhuggi, Pitampura.
4. The complainant raised an alarm shouting "chor, chor" (thief, thief) and chased the accused. A member of the public, identified as Sachin Marathi s/o Sh. Sukhdev, r/o Jhuggi No. D-17A, GP Block, Pitampura, apprehended the accused near the Gopal Mandir area. A crowd gathered and the accused was beaten by the public. Meanwhile, SI Pankaj Saroha, accompanied by ASI Ved Prakash No. 794/NW, who were on emergency patrol duty, arrived at the spot near the Main Road, GP Block Jhuggi, in front of Gopal Mandir. Upon dispersing the crowd, they found the accused in a badly beaten condition.
5. The complainant identified the accused and informed the police that he had snatched her mobile phone. SI Pankaj Saroha conducted a personal search of the accused, and from the right pocket of the accused's jeans, recovered the OnePlus mobile phone (white front, Rose Gold back), which the complainant identified as her stolen property. The accused disclosed his name as Sunny s/o Ashok, r/o B-337, GP Block Jhuggi, Pitampura, Delhi.
6. The accused was sent for medical treatment to BSA Hospital, Rohini, in the custody of ASI Ved Prakash. Constable Surender No. 2530/NW was called to the spot. The complainant's statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by SI Pankaj Saroha. A seizure memo (Mark X) was prepared for the recovered mobile phone. The accused was formally arrested on 21.09.2018 at 9:00 PM by SI Pankaj Saroha. The accused was produced before the court on 22.09.2018 and was sent to judicial custody. The recovered mobile phone was subsequently released on Supardari (interim FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 3 of 22 Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:31 +0530 custody) to Karman Singh s/o Sardar Devender Singh (the complainant's brother/family member) vide order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the Ld. MM, Mahila Court-2, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
7. During investigation, the disclosure statement (Fard-e-Inkashaaf) of the accused was recorded, wherein the accused allegedly confessed to snatching the mobile phone from the complainant and also disclosed his involvement in several other snatching incidents in the Pitampura area, allegedly committed in association with co-accused persons named "Kallu" and "Ravi."
8. The charge sheet was filed on 10.02.2020 by SI Gajender Singh (the subsequent IO, after SI Pankaj Saroha was transferred), under Sections 356/379/411 IPC. The SCRB report (Previous Conviction/Involvement Report) dated 06.02.2020 reflects only the present FIR against the accused and no prior criminal record.
B. Defence's Version
9. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him on 02.06.2023 and claimed trial. The defence did not lead any evidence. The accused, through his counsel, challenged the prosecution's case primarily on the ground that the complainant (PW-1) did not support the prosecution's case during trial and failed to identify the accused in court. The defence also relied upon the fact that the sole eyewitness (PW-2, Sachin Marathi) turned hostile and denied any knowledge of the incident.
FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 4 of 22 Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2026.05.07 16:40:36 +0530 C. CHARGE
10.Charge was framed by on 02.06.2023, as under:
11.First Charge: That on 21.09.2018, at around 6:30 PM, near ND Market, Pitampura, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Maurya Enclave, the accused Sunny s/o Sh. Ashok committed theft of a OnePlus mobile phone (white from the front, Rose Gold from the back) belonging to the complainant Ms. Bhavnoor Kaur, by using general force, thereby committing an offence punishable under Sections 356/379 IPC.
12.Second Charge: That on the aforesaid date and time, the accused was found in possession of the said mobile phone as per seizure memo (Mark X), which he dishonestly retained or received, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property belonging to the complainant Ms. Bhavnoor Kaur, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.
13.The charge was read over and explained to the accused in the vernacular. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
III. EVIDENCE ADDUCED A. Documentary Evidence
14.The following documents were exhibited during the course of trial:
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:41 +0530 FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 5 of 22 Ex. A1: FIR No. 354/2018 (admitted by the accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C. without disputing genuineness and preparation, but not its contents) Ex. A2: Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (admitted by the accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C. without disputing genuineness and preparation, but not its contents) Ex. PW1/A: Statement of PW-1 Ms. Bhavnoor Kaur (her examination- in-chief as recorded during trial) Ex. PW1/B: Seizure memo (bearing the signature of PW-1 at point A) Ex. P1 (5 Photos Colly): Five photographs of the case property (mobile phone), identified by PW-1 B. Oral Evidence PW-1: Ms. Bhavnoor Kaur (Complainant)
15.PW-1 was examined on 02.06.2025. In her examination-in-chief (on solemn affirmation), PW-1 stated that she is the complainant in the present case and that she does not want to pursue the case. She narrated the incident in broad terms, that on 21.09.2018 at about 6:30 PM, while she was going from ND Market, Pitampura, to Club Road, Punjabi Bagh, and had boarded an auto, she was holding her OnePlus mobile phone in her hand. An unknown person came suddenly and took away her mobile phone and fled towards GP Block, Pitampura. She raised an alarm of "chor chor." Some members of the public apprehended him and he was beaten. Her phone was handed over to her at the same time. She stated that police had recorded her statement, but she cannot identify that person (i.e., the accused).
FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 6 of 22 Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2026.05.07 16:40:45 +0530
16.Significantly, PW-1 also filed a separate statement (on record, dated 02.06.2025) stating that she has compounded the case with the accused under Sections 379/411 IPC without any consideration, that she has no grievances with the accused, does not want any compensation from the accused or the State, and is making the statement out of her free will without any force, fear, coercion, inducement, or threat.
17.The Ld. APP sought and was granted permission to cross-examine PW-1 as she was resiling from her previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Cross-examination by Ld. APP:
18.During cross-examination by the Ld. APP, PW-1's attention was drawn towards the accused, but she failed to identify him. She denied the suggestion that she was deliberately not identifying the accused. Her attention was drawn to the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/B), which she correctly identified bearing her signature at point A. She stated that she had provided the bill of her mobile phone during investigation to police official Karman Singh, who got the mobile phone released on Supardari. She correctly identified the case property through five photographs (Ex. P1). She denied the suggestions that she had seen the accused committing the snatching, that she came to know the name of the accused as Sunny, that a police official came on patrol and apprehended the accused, that she had settled the case for consideration, that she was deposing in favour of the accused to save him from conviction, or that her statement was recorded as narrated by her, or that she was deposing falsely. She stated she could not tell if the IO had recorded any supplementary statement of hers.
FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 7 of 22 Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2026.05.07 16:40:49 +0530
Cross-examination by Defence Counsel:
19.The defence counsel offered no questions (Nil). Opportunity was given.
PW-2: Sachin Marathi s/o Sh. Sukhdev, r/o Jhuggi No. D-17A, GP Block, Pitampura, Delhi (Recovery Witness/Eyewitness)
20.PW-2 was examined on 02.02.2026. In his examination-in-chief, PW-2 stated that he does not recollect any facts of the present case, cannot identify any accused, has no role in the present FIR, and that since the place where he resides is a crowded area, he might have been present regarding some incident and therefore the police might have mentioned him as a witness.
21.The Ld. APP sought and was granted permission to cross-examine PW-2 as he was resiling from his previous statement.
Cross-examination by Ld. APP:
22.PW-2 denied that the IO had recorded his statement. His attention was drawn towards the accused, but he failed to identify him. He denied all the material suggestions put to him by the Ld. APP, including:
That on 21.09.2018 at about 6:30 PM on the main road near GP Block Jhuggi, he had seen a girl running behind the accused; That he had apprehended the accused Sunny; That the public gathered at the spot and gave beatings to the accused; That meanwhile police officials came and from the pocket of the accused, one mobile phone belonging to the complainant was recovered;
That the name of the accused was revealed as Sunny;FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 8 of 22 Digitally signed by ANURADHA
ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:54 +0530 That the statement of the victim was recorded; That he had been won over by the accused or had settled the case outside the court or had taken consideration amount in order to save the accused from conviction;
That he was deliberately not identifying the accused.
23.His attention was drawn to Ex. P1 (photographs of the mobile phone), but he failed to identify the same.
Cross-examination by Defence Counsel:
24.The defence counsel offered no questions (Nil). Opportunity was given.
Remaining Witnesses Dropped:
25.The court, vide order dated 02.02.2026, noted that PW-2 had turned hostile and that despite rigorous cross-examination by the Ld. APP, nothing material came out. In such circumstances, examining the remaining witnesses was considered a futile exercise. Accordingly, the remaining witnesses (including the IO, ASI Ved Prakash, HC Ranvir Singh, Ct. Surender, ASI Ajay Pal Singh, SI Pankaj Saroha, and Karman Singh) were dropped. The Statement of Accused (SA) under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with.
IV. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
26.In light of the charges framed and the evidence adduced, the following issues arise for determination: Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:59 +0530 FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 9 of 22
1. Whether the accused Sunny committed an assault or used criminal force on Ms. Bhavnoor Kaur in attempting to commit theft of her mobile phone, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 356 IPC?
2. Whether the accused Sunny committed theft of the OnePlus mobile phone belonging to Ms. Bhavnoor Kaur, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC?
3. Whether the accused Sunny dishonestly received or retained stolen property, namely the aforesaid mobile phone, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC?
4. What is the effect of the complainant's failure to identify the accused in court?
5. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?
V. EVIDENCE ANALYSIS A. Analysis of the Testimony of PW-1 (Ms. Bhavnoor Kaur)
27.PW-1 is the complainant and the most crucial witness in the present case. Her testimony, however, is a classic instance of a witness turning hostile. While she broadly narrated the incident, confirming that her mobile phone was snatched by an unknown person on 21.09.2018, she categorically stated that she cannot identify the accused. She also filed a statement on record expressing her desire to compound the case.
28.The Ld. APP cross-examined PW-1 with a view to confronting her with her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, PW-1 denied all material suggestions. She denied having seen the accused FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 10 of 22 Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:41:04 +0530 committing the snatching, denied knowing the accused's name as Sunny, and denied that the police apprehended the accused and recovered the phone from his pocket.
29.The only aspects of the prosecution's case that PW-1 corroborated during trial are:
That she was the complainant in the case; That her mobile phone was snatched by an unknown person on 21.09.2018 at about 6:30 PM near ND Market, Pitampura;
That she raised an alarm and some public persons apprehended the person;
That her phone was returned to her;
That she correctly identified her signature on the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/B);
That she correctly identified the case property through photographs (Ex. P1).
30.Critically, PW-1 failed to identify the accused in court. The identification of the accused by the complainant is a sine qua non for establishing the guilt of the accused in a case of this nature. The failure of PW-1 to identify the accused in court, combined with her statement of compounding, severely undermines the prosecution's case.
31.It is also noted that PW-1 stated she cannot tell if the IO had recorded any supplementary statement of hers, which raises a question about the completeness of the investigation. Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:41:09 +0530 FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 11 of 22
32.The statement of compounding filed by PW-1 on 02.06.2025 is relevant. It is noted that offences under Section 379 IPC and Section 411 IPC are compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and Section 356 IPC is also not listed as a compoundable offence under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the statement of compounding filed by PW-1 cannot, by itself, result in an acquittal or compounding of the offences. However, it is a relevant circumstance that goes to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the prosecution's case.
B. Analysis of the Testimony of PW-2 (Sachin Marathi)
33.PW-2 is the sole eyewitness and recovery witness cited by the prosecution. He was the person who, according to the prosecution's case, had apprehended the accused at the spot. His testimony is a complete denial of the prosecution's case. He stated that he does not recollect any facts, cannot identify any accused, and has no role in the present FIR.
34.During cross-examination by the Ld. APP, PW-2 denied all material suggestions, including that he had apprehended the accused, that the public had beaten the accused, that the police had recovered the mobile phone from the accused's pocket, and that the name of the accused was revealed as Sunny. He also failed to identify the accused in court and failed to identify the case property (Ex. P1).
35.The court, in its order dated 02.02.2026, correctly noted that PW-2 had turned hostile and that despite rigorous cross-examination, nothing material came out.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2026.05.07 16:41:13 +0530 FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 12 of 22
36.The testimony of PW-2 is of no assistance to the prosecution. His denial of all material facts, including his own presence at the spot and his role in apprehending the accused, renders his evidence wholly unreliable from the prosecution's perspective.
C. Analysis of Documentary Evidence
37.The FIR (Ex. A1): The FIR was admitted by the accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C. without disputing its genuineness and preparation, but not its contents. The FIR records the complainant's statement in detail, narrating the snatching incident, the apprehension of the accused by Sachin Marathi, the recovery of the mobile phone from the accused's pocket, and the accused's disclosure of his name and address. However, the FIR is a document that records the first version of events as narrated to the police. Its contents have not been proved through the testimony of the complainant or any other witness during trial, as both PW-1 and PW-2 have turned hostile.
38.The Certificate under Section 65B (Ex. A2): This certificate pertains to the computer-generated FIR and was admitted by the accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C. without disputing its genuineness and preparation.
39.The Seizure Memo (Ex. PW1/B): PW-1 correctly identified her signature on the seizure memo. This establishes that the seizure memo was signed by the complainant. However, the contents of the seizure memo, specifically, that the mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused, have not been proved through the testimony of any witness during trial, as the IO and other police witnesses were dropped.
FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 13 of 22Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:41:18 +0530
40.The Photographs (Ex. P1): PW-1 correctly identified the case property through five photographs. This establishes the identity of the mobile phone as the property belonging to the complainant. However, the recovery of the said phone from the accused's possession has not been proved through oral evidence.
41.The Disclosure Statement (Fard-e-Inkashaaf) of the Accused: The disclosure statement of the accused, recorded during investigation, contains an alleged confession by the accused to the snatching of the mobile phone and several other snatching incidents. However, it is a well- settled principle of law that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The disclosure statement, being a statement made to a police officer, cannot be used as substantive evidence of guilt against the accused. Only the portion of the disclosure statement that leads to the discovery of a fact may be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and only to the extent of the discovery. In the present case, no discovery pursuant to the disclosure statement has been proved through oral evidence during trial.
D. Overall Assessment of Evidence
42.The prosecution's case rests entirely on the testimony of two witnesses, PW-1 (the complainant) and PW-2 (the eyewitness/recovery witness). Both witnesses have turned hostile and have failed to support the prosecution's case in any material respect. The remaining witnesses, including the Investigating Officer and the police witnesses who were FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 14 of 22 Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2026.05.07 16:41:24 +0530 present at the spot and conducted the recovery, were dropped by the prosecution itself, on the ground that examining them would be a futile exercise.
43.The consequence of this is that the prosecution has failed to prove the following essential ingredients of the charges through oral evidence:
a) The identity of the accused as the person who snatched the mobile phone;
b) The recovery of the mobile phone from the possession of the accused;
c) The presence of the accused at the scene of the crime;
d) The use of force or assault by the accused on the complainant.
44.The documentary evidence on record, the FIR, the seizure memo, the disclosure statement, and the charge sheet, cannot substitute for the absence of oral evidence. The contents of the FIR and the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements are not substantive evidence and cannot be used to prove the guilt of the accused, particularly when the witnesses who made those statements have resiled from them in court.
VI. LEGAL REASONING A. Ingredients of the Offences Charged Section 356 IPC (Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person):
45.Section 356 IPC provides that whoever assaults or uses criminal force on any person, in attempting to commit theft of any property which that person is then wearing or carrying, shall be punished with imprisonment of either FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 15 of 22 Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:41:30 +0530 description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
46.The essential ingredients of Section 356 IPC are: (i) the accused assaulted or used criminal force; (ii) on any person; (iii) in attempting to commit theft; (iv) of property which that person was then wearing or carrying.
Section 379 IPC (Theft):
47.Section 378 IPC defines theft as the dishonest taking of any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent. Section 379 IPC prescribes the punishment for theft.
48.The essential ingredients of theft under Section 379 IPC are: (i) dishonest intention to take property; (ii) the property must be moveable; (iii) it must be taken out of the possession of another person; (iv) without that person's consent; (v) there must be some moving of the property.
Section 411 IPC (Dishonestly receiving stolen property):
49.Section 411 IPC provides that 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.
50.The essential ingredients of Section 411 IPC are: (i) the property must be stolen property; (ii) the accused must have received or retained it; (iii) the accused must have done so dishonestly; (iv) the accused must have known or had reason to believe that the property was stolen.
FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 16 of 22 Digitally signed by ANURADHAANURADHA JINDAL Date: JINDAL 2026.05.07 16:41:36 +0530 B. Standard of Proof
51.In a criminal trial, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The standard of proof is not one of absolute certainty, but it must be a high degree of probability that excludes all reasonable doubt.
C. Effect of Hostile Witnesses
52.When a witness turns hostile and resiles from his or her previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the court may permit the party who called the witness to cross-examine him or her under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, the previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence and can only be used to contradict the witness. The court cannot convict an accused solely on the basis of a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when the witness has resiled from it in court.
53.In the present case, both PW-1 and PW-2 have turned hostile. The Ld. APP cross-examined both witnesses and put to them the material facts of the prosecution's case, all of which were denied. The cross-examination of hostile witnesses by the Ld. APP has not elicited any material evidence in support of the prosecution's case. The denials of the hostile witnesses cannot be treated as proof of the prosecution's case.
D. Admissibility of Disclosure Statement
54.As noted above, the disclosure statement (Fard-e-Inkashaaf) of the accused is inadmissible as substantive evidence under Section 25 of the Indian FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 17 of 22 Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:41:41 +0530 Evidence Act, 1872, as it is a confession made to a police officer. Only the portion leading to a discovery of fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the present case, no discovery pursuant to the disclosure statement has been proved through oral evidence.
E. Consequence of Dropping of Remaining Witnesses
55.The prosecution dropped all remaining witnesses, including the Investigating Officer (SI Gajender Singh), ASI Ved Prakash (the recovery and arrest witness), HC Ranvir Singh (the Duty Officer who registered the FIR), Ct. Surender (the Rukka messenger), ASI Ajay Pal Singh (the MHCM who deposited the case property in the Malkhana), SI Pankaj Saroha (the first IO who recorded the complainant's statement and conducted the recovery), and Karman Singh (the Supardari holder). The dropping of these witnesses, particularly the IO and the recovery witness (ASI Ved Prakash), is fatal to the prosecution's case. The recovery of the stolen mobile phone from the possession of the accused, which is the cornerstone of the prosecution's case, has not been proved through the testimony of any witness.
F. Application of Law to Facts
56.Applying the above legal principles to the facts of the present case:
a) Section 356 IPC: The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused assaulted or used criminal force on the complainant. PW-1 did not identify the accused in court and denied having seen the accused committing the snatching. No other witness has proved this ingredient.
The charge under Section 356 IPC is not proved.
FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 18 of 22Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:41:46 +0530
b) Section 379 IPC: The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused dishonestly took the mobile phone from the possession of the complainant. PW-1 did not identify the accused. PW-2 denied all material facts. The recovery of the mobile phone from the accused's possession has not been proved through oral evidence. The charge under Section 379 IPC is not proved.
c) Section 411 IPC: The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of stolen property knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen. The recovery of the mobile phone from the accused's possession has not been proved through oral evidence. The charge under Section 411 IPC is not proved.
57.In the absence of credible oral evidence identifying the accused as the perpetrator and proving the recovery of the stolen property from his possession, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
VII. FINDINGS
58.In light of the foregoing analysis, this court arrives at the following findings:
Issue No. 1 (Section 356 IPC): The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed an assault or used criminal force on the complainant in attempting to commit theft of her mobile phone. Finding: Not Proved.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:41:52 +0530 FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 19 of 22 Issue No. 2 (Section 379 IPC): The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed theft of the OnePlus mobile phone belonging to the complainant. Finding: Not Proved.
Issue No. 3 (Section 411 IPC): The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused dishonestly received or retained stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen. Finding: Not Proved.
Issue No. 4 : The failure of PW-1 to identify the accused in court, combined with her resiling from her previous statement and her statement of compounding, is a significant circumstance that undermines the prosecution's case. Finding: The failure of PW-1 to identify the accused and her resiling from her previous statement, along with the turning hostile of PW-2, has resulted in the prosecution's case collapsing for want of credible evidence.
Issue No. 5 (Proof beyond reasonable doubt): The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Finding: Not Proved.
VIII. CONCLUSION
59.The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of two witnesses, the complainant (PW-1) and the eyewitness/recovery witness (PW-2). Both witnesses turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution's case in any material respect. The prosecution dropped all remaining witnesses, including the Investigating Officer and the police witnesses who were present at the spot and conducted the recovery. In the absence of credible oral evidence identifying the accused as the perpetrator and proving the recovery of the stolen property from his possession, the prosecution has FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 20 of 22 Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:41:59 +0530 failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences charged under Sections 356, 379, and 411 IPC. The documentary evidence on record, including the FIR, the seizure memo, and the disclosure statement, cannot substitute for the absence of oral evidence. The accused is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the doubt and must be acquitted.
IX. FINAL ORDER
60.In view of the foregoing discussion, findings, and the conclusion set out above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Sunny s/o Sh. Ashok beyond reasonable doubt for the offences charged under Sections 356, 379, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
61.Accordingly, the accused Sunny s/o Sh. Ashok is hereby ACQUITTED of all the charges framed against him under Sections 356/379/411 IPC, in terms of Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
62.The accused, if on bail, is discharged from the bail bonds. The bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.
63.The case property, i.e., the OnePlus mobile phone (white from the front, Rose Gold from the back, IMEI No. 865265031237912), has already been released on Supardari to Karman Singh s/o Sardar Devender Singh vide order dated 24.09.2018. The Supardari holder is directed to produce the said mobile phone before the court, if required, failing which the Indemnity Bond executed by him for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be liable to be forfeited to the Government of NCT of Delhi. In view of the acquittal, the FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 21 of 22 Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2026.05.07 16:42:04 +0530 case property may be released to the rightful owner (the complainant/Supardari holder) on compliance of necessary formalities, subject to any further orders of this court.
The file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court on 07.05.2026. Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:42:09 +0530 Anuradha Jindal ACJM/North-West/Rohini Courts New Delhi/07.05.2026 FIR No. 354/18 State Vs. Sunny Page 22 of 22