Delhi District Court
State vs Mayank Aggarwal on 12 June, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-11,
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Dr. Raj Kumar Singh, DJS
Pronounced in compliance of note no. (ii) contained in order no. 14/DHC/Gaz-
IIB/G-7/VI.E2(a)/2026 dated 29.04.2026 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Cr. Case No. : 300568/2016
CNR No. : DLCT020008712010
FIR No. : 83/2004
Police Station : Darya Ganj
Section(s) : Sections 380/451/342/323 IPC
In the matter of:
STATE
VERSUS
Mayank Agarwal
...... Accused
Offence Charged of Sections 380/451/342/323 IPC
Date of Institution 01.09.2011
Plea of Accused Not Guilty
Date of Judgment 12.06.2026
Final Order ACQUITTAL
-:BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
1.
The accused Mayank Aggarwal has faced trial in the present case arising out of
FIR No. 83/2004, PS Darya Ganj, for the offences punishable under Sections
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 1 of 17
Digitally
RAJ signed by
KUMAR RAJ
KUMAR
SINGH SINGH
380/451/342/323 IPC. The case relates to an incident alleged to have taken place
on 19.02.2004 at the first floor of property bearing No. 1665, Kucha Dakhni Rai,
Darya Ganj, Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.02.2004 at about 11:30
a.m., accused Mayank Aggarwal, along with co-accused Anand Chaudhary,
Shafiquddin, Wasid Siddiqui, Maqsood Khan and 3-4 other persons, went to the
first floor of property No. 1665, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, Delhi. It is
alleged that they tried to break open the lock/door of a room, pushed aside the
security guard Ramakant Mishra when he objected, wrongfully
confined/obstructed complainant Smt. Renu Goyal by snatching keys, voluntarily
caused hurt to her and removed articles such as chair, table, utensils, cycle etc.
from the room.
3. On the complaint of Smt. Renu Goyal, FIR was registered. Investigation was
carried out. During investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded, site plan
was prepared, complainant was medically examined, and certain documents
relating to the property transaction were also collected. After completion of
investigation, final report was filed before the Court.
4. Cognizance was taken. After compliance of Section 207 CrPC, charge was
framed against the accused on 04.05.2013 for the offences punishable under
Sections 380/451/342/323 IPC. The substance of the charge was read over and
explained to the accused in vernacular. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
5. During trial, accused admitted the genuineness, not contents, of copy of FIR Ex.
AD-1, endorsement on rukka Ex. AD-2, MLC of complainant Renu Goyal Ex.
AD-3 and DD No. 46-B entry Ex. AD-4. Accordingly, formal witnesses qua said
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 2 of 17
RAJ Digitally
KUMAR signed by
RAJ KUMAR
SINGH SINGH
documents were dropped from the list of witnesses. It is, however, settled that
admission of genuineness of a document under Section 294 CrPC only dispenses
with formal proof of such document. It does not amount to admission of truth of all
contents of the document, nor does it dispense with proof of disputed facts
constituting the offence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. The prosecution examined five witnesses.
7. PW1 Smt. Renu Goyal is the complainant and the most material witness of the
prosecution. In her examination-in-chief, she deposed that her father-in-law Late
Sh. Laxmi Narayan was owner of property No. 1665, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya
Ganj, Delhi. According to her, after death of her father-in-law, her husband used to
look after the said property. She deposed that in the year 2001, Shafiquddin and his
associates tried to grab the property and cases were instituted regarding the same.
8. PW1 further deposed that in February 2004, while she was present at the said
property, at around 12 noon, Anand Chaudhary, Shafiquddin, Masood, Wasid and
Mayank Aggarwal along with 3-4 persons came to the first floor of the house and
tried to break open the door of a room. Her guard Ramakant Mishra tried to stop
them but the accused persons pushed him. After hearing noise, she came from the
second floor to the first floor. There was a channel gate at the entrance between
first and second floor and while she was opening the channel gate, Anand
Chaudhary snatched the key, caught hold of her and gave a fist blow on her
stomach. She identified accused Mayank Aggarwal in Court and deposed that the
accused persons abused her and took chair, table, utensils, cycle etc. from the
room. She proved her complaint Ex. PW1/A, site plan Ex. PW1/B and
arrest/personal search memos of certain co-accused.
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 3Digitally
of 17
RAJ signed
KUMAR by RAJ
SINGH KUMAR
SINGH
9. In leading questions put by Ld. APP, PW1 stated that on 13.02.2004 the accused
side had demanded possession of the property from her husband; that on
14.02.2004 she and her family started residing there and a security guard was
deployed; and that on 19.02.2004 at about 11:30 a.m. the above accused persons,
along with Mayank Aggarwal and 3-4 other persons, came to the first floor.
10. The cross-examination of PW1 assumes significance. She was recalled for
cross-examination under Section 348 BNSS/Section 311 CrPC and was cross-
examined on 10.10.2025. In cross-examination, she stated that she knew accused
Mayank Aggarwal as son of their previous tenant. She denied that the tenanted
premises was in possession of accused Mayank Aggarwal and volunteered that
accused Mayank Aggarwal was never their tenant. She did not remember whether
her family had filed any suit for possession/eviction against the father of the
accused or against the accused.
11. PW1 further stated in cross-examination that on the date of alleged incident,
there were 7-8 persons including Anand Chaudhary, Shafiquddin, Masood Khan
and Wasid who came to the premises. She was confronted with her statement
under Section 161 CrPC on the aspect that names of only three persons were
mentioned at the relevant portion. She also did not remember whether there was
any dispute regarding the property with Shafiquddin and associates, and was
confronted with her police statement where the dispute since 2001 was mentioned.
12. PW1 specifically admitted that only accused Anand Chaudhary hit her and
tried to snatch the key. She denied the suggestion that the key snatched by Anand
Chaudhary was in respect of the share of her sister-in-law which had already been
sold to Anand Chaudhary and volunteered that the property was undivided. She did
not remember who made the PCR call, the name of IO, by which mode she went to
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 4 of 17
RAJ Digitally
KUMAR signed by
RAJ KUMAR
SINGH SINGH
the hospital, within how much time she reached the hospital, or on how many
documents the IO obtained her signatures. She initially stated that no accused
persons were arrested in her presence, but on being confronted with arrest and
personal search memos, she admitted her signatures thereon. She did not remember
whether IO prepared any site plan. She denied that Mayank Aggarwal was not
present, denied false implication, denied that nothing was stolen, and denied that
she did not sustain injuries.
13. PW2 Smt. Seema Goyal deposed that her late husband Vinod Goyal had a
share in the property. She stated in chief that one big hall at the first floor had
come to her share and on 14.01.2004 she sold her property to Anand Chaudhary,
but actual physical possession was not given to him. She stated that some
household articles such as bed, dining table, sofa etc. were lying on the said floor.
14. In cross-examination, PW2 admitted that accused Mayank Aggarwal was
residing at property No. 1665, Kucha Dakhni Rai. She admitted that she sold her
share, i.e. one hall-type room at the first floor, along with all household articles.
She also admitted that no quarrel took place in her presence; that she did not make
any complaint against accused Mayank Aggarwal before police or any authority;
and that she never went to the police station. In re-examination by Ld. APP, she
stated that as far as she knew, accused Mayank Aggarwal was residing at the
property as tenant, and that she had given statement to the IO Ex. PW2/A.
15. PW3 Sh. Anil Aggarwal is brother of PW2 Seema Goyal. He deposed that
after death of Vinod Goyal, there was dispute regarding share in the property
among heirs of Late Sh. Laxmi Narayan. His sister Seema sold her undivided share
in the property to family members of her in-laws and after selling the share,
possession of her portion was handed over to the purchaser. In cross-examination,
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 5 of 17
RAJ Digitally
KUMAR signed by
RAJ KUMAR
SINGH SINGH
he admitted that after selling the portion of property, the articles lying in the house
were also handed over to the person who purchased the property, except personal
effects of his sister.
16. PW4 Retd. Inspector Lekhraj Singh was the first IO. He deposed that on
19.02.2004, he received DD No. 46-B regarding house trespass at property No.
1665, Kucha Dakhni Rai. He reached the spot with ASI Abdul Qadir and Ct.
Sanjeev. At the spot, he met complainant Renu Goyal and also found Safikuddin,
Wasid Siddiqui, Maqsood Khan and Anand Chaudhary present. He recorded
statement of complainant Ex. PW1/A, prepared rukka Ex. PW4/A, got FIR
registered, prepared site plan Ex. PW1/B, arrested the persons found at the spot
and got complainant medically examined through W/Ct. Anusuya.
17. PW4 further deposed that he searched the spot, however, no item was found to
be stolen. Chance prints were not collected as the property was full of dust. He
recorded statements of tenants Renu Singh and Sanjay Singh and also recorded
statement of Seema Goyal and her brother. He also deposed that during
investigation, it was learnt that Seema Goyal had sold the property to Anand
Chaudhary. He searched for Anand Chaudhary and Mayank Aggarwal, but no clue
was found. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not recorded the statement
of guard Ramakant Mishra as he was not found during investigation and was
neither produced by complainant nor were his whereabouts disclosed.
18. PW5 Inspector Rajesh Malhotra was the second IO. He deposed that on
15.02.2005, he contacted Anand Chaudhary and interrogated him. Anand
Chaudhary produced one photocopy of sale deed and one possession letter of
property No. 1665, first floor, which were seized vide memo Ex. PW5/A. PW5
further deposed that he interrogated accused Mayank Aggarwal, made inquiries
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 6 of 17
Digitally
RAJ signed by
KUMAR RAJ
SINGH KUMAR
SINGH
from witnesses of sale deed and possession letter, prepared site plan Ex. PW5/B
and filed final report. In cross-examination, PW5 admitted that he had filed final
report under Section 169 CrPC as no sufficient evidence had come during
investigation.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
19. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded
under Section 313 CrPC read with Section 281 CrPC/Section 316 BNSS read with
Section 351 BNSS. The accused denied all incriminating circumstances. His
defence was that he was innocent and falsely implicated due to long-standing
property disputes and prior civil litigation. He denied being part of any unlawful
group, denied abusing or pushing anyone, denied snatching any key, denied
assault, denied removal of articles and denied sharing common intention with any
other person.
20. The accused opted to lead defence evidence. He examined himself as DW1
under Section 315 CrPC, was cross-examined and discharged. Thereafter, defence
evidence was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
21. Ld. APP for the State argued that PW1 has supported the prosecution case,
identified the accused in Court and proved the incident. It was submitted that the
medical examination of PW1, prompt reporting, DD entry and the testimony of IOs
support the prosecution version. It was further submitted that the accused was
present with the group and is liable with the aid of common intention.
22. Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the case is a result of property
dispute. It was submitted that no stolen article was recovered, the property was
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 7 of 17
Digitally
RAJ signed by
KUMAR RAJ
SINGH KUMAR
SINGH
already subject matter of sale/possession dispute, PW2 and PW3 do not support the
prosecution on material particulars, the guard Ramakant Mishra was not examined,
independent witnesses were not examined, and PW1 herself attributed the act of
assault/key-snatching only to Anand Chaudhary. It was further argued that Mayank
Aggarwal’s specific role is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE
23. To prove offence under Section 380 IPC, prosecution must prove commission
of theft of movable property from a building used as human dwelling or for
custody of property. Theft requires dishonest moving of movable property out of
possession of another person without that person’s consent.
24. To prove offence under Section 451 IPC, prosecution must prove house-
trespass committed in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment.
Thus, proof of criminal trespass, house-trespass and the necessary criminal intent is
essential.
25. To prove offence under Section 342 IPC, prosecution must prove wrongful
confinement, i.e. wrongful restraint of a person in such a manner as to prevent that
person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribed limits.
26. To prove offence under Section 323 IPC, prosecution must prove that hurt was
voluntarily caused by the accused. Hurt includes bodily pain, disease or infirmity.
27. Where prosecution relies upon Section 34 IPC, it must prove that the criminal
act was done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all.
Common intention can be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances
and can develop on the spot, but it must be proved from evidence and cannot be
presumed merely from presence.
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 8 of 17
Digitally
RAJ signed by
KUMAR RAJ
KUMAR
SINGH SINGH
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
28. At the outset, it may be observed that the present case arises out of a property
dispute. The Court is not required to decide title or civil rights over the property.
However, the nature of the property dispute is relevant to appreciate whether the
prosecution has proved the criminal offences charged against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
29. PW1 Renu Goyal is certainly an important witness. Her evidence cannot be
discarded merely because she is the complainant. A conviction can rest on
testimony of a single witness if such testimony is found reliable and inspires
confidence. At the same time, where the case is rooted in a property dispute and
the role of the accused is alleged collectively with several other persons, the Court
must carefully examine whether the testimony establishes the specific ingredients
of the charged offences.
30. PW1 has supported the broad prosecution case that there was an incident at the
first floor of property No. 1665 on 19.02.2004 and that persons from the opposite
side came there. She has also identified Mayank Aggarwal in Court. Her
testimony, to that extent, supports the prosecution case that some altercation or
dispute did occur at the spot.
31. However, the crucial question is not merely whether some quarrel took place.
The question is whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that
accused Mayank Aggarwal committed theft, house-trespass, wrongful confinement
and voluntarily caused hurt, either individually or in furtherance of common
intention.
RAJ Digitally
signed by
KUMAR RAJ KUMAR
SINGH SINGH
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 9 of 17
Section 380 IPC
32. As regards Section 380 IPC, PW1 stated that the accused persons took away
chair, table, utensils, cycle etc. from the room. However, the evidence on this
aspect remains general and unparticularised. The alleged stolen articles have not
been specifically identified by description, ownership, value or any other distinct
feature. No stolen article was recovered from accused Mayank Aggarwal or at his
instance.
33. The testimony of PW4, the first IO, materially affects the charge of theft. PW4
specifically stated that the spot was searched but no item was found to be stolen.
This is not a minor circumstance. It goes directly to the foundation of the offence
under Section 380 IPC.
34. Further, PW2 admitted that she had sold her share, i.e. one hall-type room at
the first floor, along with household articles. PW3 also admitted that after sale of
the portion of property, the articles lying in the house were handed over to the
person who purchased the property, except personal effects of his sister. PW5 also
proved that during investigation, photocopy of sale deed and possession letter were
seized from Anand Chaudhary.
35. In view of these circumstances, the prosecution has not been able to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that any identified movable property was dishonestly
removed out of the possession of complainant by accused Mayank Aggarwal.
Suspicion regarding removal of articles in the course of a property dispute cannot
take the place of proof of theft.
36. Therefore, offence under Section 380 IPC is not proved against accused
Mayank Aggarwal.
RAJ Digitally
signed by RAJ
KUMAR KUMAR
SINGH SINGH
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 10 of 17
Section 451 IPC
37. For Section 451 IPC, prosecution must prove not only entry into property but
also that such entry amounted to house-trespass with intent to commit an offence
punishable with imprisonment.
38. PW1 deposed that accused Mayank Aggarwal came with other persons to the
first floor and they tried to break open the door of a room. This part of her
testimony supports the prosecution to some extent. However, the surrounding
evidence creates doubt regarding exclusive possession and criminal intent.
39. PW2 herself stated that she had sold her share in the first floor portion to
Anand Chaudhary, though in chief she added that actual physical possession was
not given. In cross-examination, she admitted that she sold her share along with all
household articles. PW3 went further and stated that possession of the portion sold
by Seema Goyal was handed over to the purchaser and articles lying in the house
were also handed over. PW5 seized sale/possession documents from Anand
Chaudhary during investigation.
40. These facts show that the incident occurred in the backdrop of an existing and
serious dispute regarding possession and entitlement over the first floor portion.
This by itself does not wipe out criminal liability if the offence is otherwise
proved. However, in the present case, it does create a reasonable doubt regarding
the nature of entry and the criminal intent attributed to Mayank Aggarwal.
41. The specific role of Mayank Aggarwal in breaking open the lock or forcibly
entering the room is also not clearly proved. PW1 named him in chief and
identified him in Court, but in cross-examination, while narrating the persons who
came on the date of incident, she named Anand Chaudhary, Shafiquddin, Masood
Khan and Wasid. She was also confronted with her earlier statement regarding
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 11 of 17
RAJ Digitally
signed by
KUMAR RAJ KUMAR
SINGH SINGH
names of only three persons at one place. PW4 stated that when he reached the
spot, he found other co-accused present but not Mayank Aggarwal; rather, he later
searched for Mayank Aggarwal but no clue was found.
42. Thus, though there is evidence of dispute and altercation, the prosecution has
not proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Mayank Aggarwal committed
house-trespass with the requisite criminal intent. The offence under Section 451
IPC is therefore not proved.
Section 342 IPC
43. The prosecution allegation regarding wrongful confinement is founded on the
alleged snatching of keys at the channel gate between the first and second floor.
PW1 deposed that when she was opening the channel gate, Anand Chaudhary
snatched the keys, caught hold of her and gave a fist blow on her stomach.
44. However, for Section 342 IPC, prosecution must prove that PW1 was
wrongfully confined within circumscribed limits and prevented from proceeding
beyond those limits. The evidence does not clearly establish the place of
confinement, duration of confinement, manner of release, or any act by Mayank
Aggarwal in confining PW1.
45. PW1 herself stated in cross-examination that the quarrel took place on the
stairs. Her evidence proves, at the highest, a quarrel and snatching of keys by
Anand Chaudhary. It does not prove wrongful confinement by Mayank Aggarwal.
There is also no independent corroboration from the guard Ramakant Mishra or
other persons allegedly present.
46. Accordingly, Section 342 IPC is not proved against accused Mayank
Aggarwal.
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 12 of 17
Digitally
RAJ signed by
KUMAR RAJ
SINGH KUMAR
SINGH
Section 323 IPC
47. PW1 stated that Anand Chaudhary caught hold of her and gave a fist blow on
her stomach and that she sustained injury in her finger. Her medical examination is
supported by MLC Ex. AD-3, admitted as to genuineness by the accused. The
MLC supports the fact that she was medically examined after the incident.
48. However, the MLC by itself does not prove who caused the injury. The identity
and role of the person causing hurt must still be proved by oral or other evidence.
PW1 specifically admitted in cross-examination that only accused Anand
Chaudhary hit her and tried to snatch the key. No specific act of assault is
attributed to accused Mayank Aggarwal.
49. The prosecution therefore relies on common intention. However, to fasten
liability on Mayank Aggarwal with the aid of Section 34 IPC, prosecution had to
prove that he shared common intention with the person who caused hurt. The
evidence does not satisfactorily establish such common intention. There is no
proved overt act of Mayank Aggarwal in causing hurt. His presence itself is
doubtful to the extent discussed above, and the case is admittedly surrounded by a
property dispute. Mere naming of Mayank Aggarwal as one of the persons
accompanying the group, without clear proof of his active participation or shared
intention to cause hurt, is insufficient for conviction under Section 323 IPC with
the aid of Section 34 IPC.
50. Therefore, Section 323 IPC is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt against
accused Mayank Aggarwal.
Non-examination of material witnesses
RAJ Digitally
KUMAR signed by
RAJ KUMAR
SINGH SINGH
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 13 of 17
51. It is true that no particular number of witnesses is required for proof of a fact.
Non-examination of every cited witness is not automatically fatal. However, in the
present case, the non-examination of certain material witnesses assumes
importance.
52. The security guard Ramakant Mishra was allegedly the first person who tried
to stop the accused persons and was allegedly pushed. He was a material
eyewitness, but he was not examined. PW4 stated that he did not record his
statement as he was neither found nor produced by the complainant and his
whereabouts were not disclosed.
53. Other witnesses such as tenants/local witnesses were either not examined,
dropped, or became unavailable. In an ordinary case, the testimony of complainant
alone may be sufficient. But here, where the incident is connected with an old
property dispute and where the role of Mayank Aggarwal is not individually clear,
absence of such material corroboration creates a reasonable doubt.
CUMULATIVE APPRECIATION
54. On cumulative appreciation, the prosecution has been able to show that a
dispute and altercation took place at property No. 1665, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya
Ganj on 19.02.2004. PW1 has named and identified Mayank Aggarwal. The DD
entry and MLC support prompt reporting and medical examination of the
complainant.
55. However, criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the
specific offences charged. The evidence in the present case falls short of that
standard. The allegation of theft is not supported by recovery or clear proof of
dishonest removal of identified property. The charge of house-trespass is weakened
by the admitted sale/possession dispute and absence of clear proof of criminal
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 14 of 17
Digitally
RAJ signed by
KUMAR RAJ
SINGH KUMAR
SINGH
intent qua Mayank Aggarwal. Wrongful confinement is not established in the
manner required by law. Hurt to PW1 may be supported by medical evidence, but
the act of assault/key-snatching is specifically attributed to Anand Chaudhary and
common intention of Mayank Aggarwal is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
56. The Court is conscious that minor discrepancies due to passage of time should
not defeat a genuine prosecution case. At the same time, the present FIR is of the
year 2004 and the evidence must still satisfy the legal standard required for
conviction. The benefit of every reasonable doubt arising from the evidence must
go to the accused.
FINDING
57. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed
to prove the offences punishable under Sections 380/451/342/323 IPC against
accused Mayank Aggarwal beyond reasonable doubt.
58. Accordingly, accused Mayank Aggarwal is acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 380/451/342/323 IPC.
Announced in open Court on this 12th June, 2026.
This Judgment consists of 17 pages and each page bears my signature.
RAJ Digitally
signed by
KUMAR RAJ KUMAR
SINGH SINGH
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
JMFC-11/South-East/
Saket Courts/12.06.2026
Earlier JMFC-05, Central/THC/Delhi
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 15 of 17
APPENDIX / ADDENDUM
Tabulated Statement of Evidence
This appendix/addendum is prepared as a separate concluding segment of the
judgment for ready reference. It catalogues the witnesses examined, documents
exhibited/admitted and material objects, in line with the directions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC
1433.
Table A – Prosecution Witnesses Examined
PW No. Name of Witness Brief Description / Role
PW1 Smt. Renu Goyal Complainant / injured / principal material
witness
PW2 Smt. Seema Goyal Witness regarding property share, sale and
possession dispute
PW3 Sh. Anil Aggarwal Brother of PW2 / witness regarding sale and
handing over of possession/articles
PW4 Retd. Inspector Lekhraj First Investigating Officer
Singh
PW5 Inspector Rajesh Second Investigating Officer / filed final report
Malhotra
Table B – Documents Exhibited / Admitted by Prosecution
Exhibit No. Description of Document Proved by / Admitted
by
Ex. PW1/A Complaint / statement of complainant PW1 Smt. Renu Goyal
Renu Goyal
Ex. PW1/B Site plan PW1 / PW4
Ex. PW2/A Statement of Seema Goyal recorded PW2 Smt. Seema Goyal
during investigation, as referred during
re-examination
Ex. PW4/A Rukka prepared by first IO PW4 Retd. Inspector
Lekhraj Singh
Ex. PW5/A Seizure memo of photocopy of sale PW5 Inspector Rajesh
deed and possession letter produced by Malhotra
Anand Chaudhary
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 16 of 17
Digitally
RAJ signed by
KUMAR RAJ
KUMAR
SINGH SINGH
Ex. PW5/B Site plan prepared during further PW5 Inspector Rajesh
investigation Malhotra
Ex. AD-1 Copy of FIR Admitted by accused
under Section 294 CrPC
Ex. AD-2 Endorsement on rukka Admitted by accused
under Section 294 CrPC
Ex. AD-3 MLC of complainant Renu Goyal Admitted by accused
under Section 294 CrPC
Ex. AD-4 DD No. 46-B Admitted by accused
under Section 294 CrPC
Table C – Material Objects
M.O. No. Description of Object Proved by / Identified
by
Nil No material object was Not applicable
produced/exhibited in the present case
Table D – Defence Witness
DW No. Name of Witness Brief Description / Role
DW1 Mayank Aggarwal Accused examined in defence under
Section 315 CrPC
Table E – Defence Documents
Exhibit No. Description of Document Proved by
Nil No defence document is shown as Not applicable
exhibited on record
Prepared as appendix/addendum to the judgment.
RAJ Digitally
KUMAR signed by
RAJ KUMAR
SINGH SINGH
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
JMFC-11/South-East/
Saket Courts/12.06.2026
Earlier JMFC-05, Central/THC/Delhi
State vs Mayank Agarwal FIR No. 83/2004 PS Darya Ganj Page 17 of 17
