Noida: Three men accused in a vehicle theft case have been acquitted after spending 27 years entangled in legal proceedings, after the prosecution failed to establish that the vehicle recovered by police was the same one reported stolen. The court found the evidentiary link between the alleged recovery and the original theft claim insufficient to sustain a conviction.On July 29, 1999, Gunveer Singh reported the theft of his Tata 407 vehicle at Sector 39 police station. He told police that some unknown people had stolen his truck bearing a UP registration number on the intervening night of July 23-24.Police registered a case under IPC Section 379 (dishonestly taking movable property out of someone’s possession without consent) and arrested the three men — Md Nasir and Intezar of Bulandshahr and Omveer of Delhi’s Okhla — near Degree College ground on Aug 5. IPC Section 411 (dishonest reception or retention of stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe it is stolen) was added to the FIR, and police filed a chargesheet on Oct 16, and the court framed charges on Jan 6, 2000.All three denied the charges and sought a trial. Prosecution presented two witnesses, including the complainant and the SHO.On Feb 8, 2001, Gunveer Singh told the court that his truck was recovered by the police and handed over to him. After an interval of almost 11 years, the prosecution presented SHO of the police station as a witness. Shailendra Kumar Sharma told the court on Sept 17, 2012, that in Aug 1999, a police team caught a vehicle lifters’ gang and recovered the truck along with three motorcycles. However, there were no witnesses during the recovery, and the truck was being driven by a man named Anwar, who got away from the police clutches.Having heard the arguments of both sides, judge Shrayansh Niranjan said, “According to the prosecution’s story, the recovered truck had a Delhi number plate, in such a situation, it was necessary to ensure the identification of the vehicle, for which the engine number, chassis number, etc., should have been matched, but the recovered vehicle was never presented in the court.” He added that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had stolen the complainant’s vehicle and that it was recovered from the three men.He added that according to the SHO’s statement, Anwar was driving the stolen vehicle, which means that the vehicle was not recovered from the custody of the men. “Therefore, considering all these facts and circumstances, the charges levelled against the accused are not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In such a situation, it would be justified to give the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit them,” the judge ruled.Citing Supreme Court judgement in S.D. Shahabuddin vs State of Telangana 2025, the court said that an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be proved based on mere observation. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the recovered vehicle is the same vehicle that was stolen.
