Delhi District Court
State vs Navneet Singh on 23 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05 (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : SH. NITESH GOEL
STATE V NAVNEET SINGH
FIR No. 227/13
Police Station: VIKAS PURI
Under Section 356/379/34 IPC
CNR NO. DLSW-02 042089-2019
Date of institution : 02.01.2016
Date of reserving : 16.12.2023
Date of pronouncement : 23.12.2023
JUDGMENT
a) CIS Number 14820/19
b) Date of commission of offence 17.07.2013
c) Name of the complainant Ashish s/o Sh. Rajesh
d) Name, parentage and address Navneet Singh s/o Sh. Javir
of the accused Singh r/o WZ 96B/1A MBS
Marg Sant Garh,Tilak Nagar,
Delhi.
e) Offence complained of 17.07.2013
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order Acquitted
h) Date of final order 23.12.2023
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.07.2013 at about 8.30 P.M. at CRPF Staff Quarters, Delhi Jal Board main road, Vikas Puri, Delhi within the STATE V NAVNEET SINGH FIR No. 227/13 PS: VIKAS PURI U/s 356/379/34 IPC 1 jurisdiction of PS Vikas Puri, accused alongwith other two co-accused persons (not arrested yet) in furtherance of their common intention used criminal force and com- mitted theft of a mobile phone by snatching the same from complainant Sh. Ashish without the consent of the complainant. It is thus alleged that accused has commit- ted an offence punishable u/s 356/379/34 IPC.
2. Charges were framed against the accused under Section 356/379/34 IPC vide order dated 22.10.2016 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. PW1 Sh. Ashish, has deposed that he reside at the above-mentioned ad- dress and drive battery rickshaw. In the year 2013, he was working in a CA Firm at Cannaught place. On 17.07.2013, after completing his duty, he reached Tilak Nagar Metro Station by metro and from there he boarded a bus and de-boarded the same at CRPF Camp. From there he started going towards his home on foot through CRPF Camp Park. Meanwhile three boys caught hold of him and snatched his mo- bile phone. They had also beaten him in process of snatching his phone. After snatching they started running from the spot. The accused who is present in the Court today started running towards his house and he chased him. Meanwhile, he threw his mobile towards his another companion who managed to escape from the spot but he managed to apprehend accused. Public persons also gathered there. He called at 100 number. Police reached there and took them to PS where their statement was recorded vide Ex.PW1/A. IO also prepared site plan at his instance vide Ex.PW1/B. Accused Navneet Singh was arrested vide Ex.PW1/C. Personal search of accused Navneet Singh vide Ex.PW1/D. Disclosure memo of accused Navneet Singh is Ex. PW 1/E. During cross examination he has stated that the mobile phone was bought by his father 03/04 months prior to the incident. The mobile phone was of make Lava STATE V NAVNEET SINGH FIR No. 227/13 PS: VIKAS PURI U/s 356/379/34 IPC 2 and its price was around Rs.1500/1600. There was bill of his mobile phone at home at the time of incident. He had not given that bill to the IO and same was not de- manded by IO also. He can identify other two accused persons who managed to escape from spot. He had not disclosed the descriptions of two accused persons who managed to escape from spot. IO had never inquired about the description of two accused persons who managed to escape from spot. Total three persons in- cluding accused Navneet Singh were involved in the crime. He had told the police officials that accused persons had beaten him but he do not know whether same is written in his statement or not. Accused persons have also thrown chilly powder in his eyes but police official had refused to write the same in his statement. He admit- ted that accused persons had beaten him is not mentioned in his statement Ex. PW1/A. Someone from public persons had called at 100 number. The incident took place at about 8.30 P.M. The accused was apprehended after 08/09 minutes. He had apprehended the accused near his house and public persons gathered there- after. The public persons were his neighborers among whom few were known to him. IO had not recorded statement of his any neighborer in his presence. He do not know whether the police has made witness any of his neighborer or not. There are two bus stops in front of each other near the spot. He admitted that many per- sons are present near bus stop at about 8.00-8.30 P.M. He also admitted that the road near bus stand is very busy one. The distance between bus stop and place of incident is at about 500 meters. He admitted that the spot was not correctly men- tioned in the site plan Ex.PW1/B. Mark A in the site plan is not the place where his mobile phone was snatched as shown in the site plan. His mobile phone was snatched in the park near the bus stand. He had correctly told the place of incident to IO. He denied that accused Navneet Singh was not involved in the present inci- dent rather some other two persons were involved. His MLC was not prepared in hospital. Accused persons had only slapped and pulled his hair that is why no visi- ble injuries. He had not gone to hospital for treatment. He denied that he had not STATE V NAVNEET SINGH FIR No. 227/13 PS: VIKAS PURI U/s 356/379/34 IPC 3 sustained any injury that is why he was not taken to hospital. He denied that no mo- bile phone was recovered in the present case as no such incident had taken place. He denied that accused Navneet Singh was falsely implicated in the present case. He denied that this is a false case that is why he is concealing the true facts. He denied that he had called on 100 number. He do not remember whether his father had called at 100 number or not.
4. PW2 Const. Praveen Kumar stated that on 17.07.2013, he was posted at PS Vikas Puri as Const. On that day. DD N. 82B regarding snatching was marked to ASI Sukhbir for investigation. Thereafter, he alongwith ASI Sukhbir went to the spot, i.e., CRPF Red Light, near Police Picket, Keshopur Village, Main Road, Vikas Puri, where they met complainant Ashish who produced accused Navneet Singh before ASI Sukhbir Singh. IO recorded statement of complainant Ashish. Thereafter, IO prepared one tehreer and handed over the same to him for the registration of FIR. He left the spot and went to police station Vikas Puri for registration of FIR. After getting FIR registered, he returned back to spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehreer to IO. Thereafter, accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos already Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. In this regard, IO recorded his statement. Witness correctly identified the accused.
During cross examination he stated that he was on emergency duty on the day of incident. Call was received at about 9:20 pm. At that time he was present in the PS. He had made the departure entry before leaving the PS. The distance be- tween the spot and PS is about 1 kilometer away. He reached at the spot within ten minutes on the personal car of IO. He admitted that at the spot there was no one other person except accused Navneet and complainant Ashish. He admitted that no other public person were there. He admitted that the spot is a crowded area. There were passerby as it was bus stop who were boarding and de boarding the bus. He admitted that he was not present when the accused was apprehended by STATE V NAVNEET SINGH FIR No. 227/13 PS: VIKAS PURI U/s 356/379/34 IPC 4 the complainant. He remained at the spot for about 10-15 minutes. The com- plainant Ashish told that incident had happened at about 8:30 pm. Accused was ar- rested about 10:30 pm. He had not got the conducted the MLC of the accused. He do not remember the time when IO handed over the Tehrir for registration of FIR. Statement of complainant was recorded on the spot. No public person were present at the time of recording the statement of complainant. He do not remember whether any statement of public witness was recorded. He do not remember the time when he left the spot and after how much time he came back to the spot with the copy of FIR and original Tehrir. He admitted that the site plan was prepared in his presence by the IO.
5. PW3 Retired SI Ravinder Kumar has proved the FIR vide Ex. PW 3/A OSR and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian evidence Act vide Ex. PW 3/B.
6. PW 4 Retired SI Rajender has deposed that on 21.11.2014 he was posted at PS Vikas Puri as ASI. On that day the investigation of the present case has been marked to him. He had sent the request of CDR of accused and complainant which were not received by him. He also tried to trace the accused but could not be traced. In the meantime he had submitted the charge sheet.
During cross examination he stated that he do not have any personal knowledge of the present case.
7. PW 5 Retired SI Sukhbir Singh has deposed that on 17.07.2013 he was posted at PS Vikas Puri as ASI. On that day he received DD no. 82 B regarding phone snatching in the area near CRPF Red Light near Keshopur Village main road Vikas Puri. Thereafter he along with Ct. Praveen went to the spot. When they reached on the spot, they met the complainant Ashish and accused Navneet who was handed over to him. Thereafter he recorded the statement of complainant on the dictation of the complainant which is already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A. There- after he prepared the Tehrir vide Ex. PW 5/A and the same was handed over to Ct.
STATE V NAVNEET SINGH FIR No. 227/13 PS: VIKAS PURI U/s 356/379/34 IPC 5 Praveen for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR Ct. Praveen came back on the spot along with the copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over the same to him. Thereafter he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant which is already Ex. PW 1/B.
8. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW 1/C. Personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo already Ex. PW 1/D. Witness correctly identified the accused. He also recorded the disclosure statement of ac- cused vide Ex. PW 1/E. Thereafter he recorded the statement of witnesses. There- after they came back to PS. On the next day he applied for one day PC remand of accused. In the meanwhile he was transferred from the PS Vikas Puri and handed over the case file to MHCR. His duty hours were from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. At the time of receipt of call he was at PS. He reached at the spot on motorcycle. The dis- tance between the spot and PS is about 2:00 km. The time of incident was 9:20 pm. He reached at the spot within 10 to 15 minutes. When he reached at the spot he found complainant and accused present there. There were many passerby as it was a public place. Complainant had called at 100 number. No public person was examined at the spot. He admitted that when the accused was apprehended at that time he was not present at the spot. He had not taken any proof of employment of working with C.A. from the complainant. He had not asked the complainant his duty time. On inquiry the accused had mentioned the name of only co-accused was dis- closed and the name of other co-accused he did not tell. All the Co-accused could not be found or traced during investigation. He did not ask the complainant about the description of the co-accused. He remained at the spot for about two hours. Ac- cused was arrested at about 11:30 pm. Complainant was not medically examined after the incident. No neighbour of the complainant was examined. The accused was apprehended at Red Light DJB, Keshopur Village. He admitted that the spot at mark A does not mention the name of the spot. The statement of complainant was recorded on the spot. No other person of the public person was present at that STATE V NAVNEET SINGH FIR No. 227/13 PS: VIKAS PURI U/s 356/379/34 IPC 6 time. He do not remember whether he demanded the bill of the mobile phone from the complainant. He admitted that no recovery of mobile phone was effected from the accused.
9. After the completion of prosecution evidence, PE was closed and statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. PC was recorded wherein he claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this matter. In the year 2013, he was pursuing BBA from IITM College PTU University. On the date of alleged incident at around 8:00 pm, he was going to his home and police official came and arrested him and also took his Samsung Galaxy mobile phone and took him to PS for the reason best known to them. Police official also took his signature on the blank papers and he was not al- lowed to contact his family. He do not know any of the co-accused as alleged in the FIR . Accused opted not to lead defence evidence. Thereafter matter was listed for final arguments.
10. I have heard the submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and ld. Counsel for accused and perused the record carefully.
11. During the course of arguments, Ld. APP submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, accused be convicted as per law.
12. Ld. Defence counsel for accused submitted that prosecution has not proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter as no incriminating material has come on record against him. Therefore, accused is entitled to be acquitted.
STATE V NAVNEET SINGH FIR No. 227/13 PS: VIKAS PURI U/s 356/379/34 IPC 7
13. I have heard submissions of ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully.
14. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Since, there is a strong presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and rebuttal of the same always lies upon the prosecution. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
15. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kaliram vs State of Himanchal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 and held that accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
16. In another case titled as Mousam Singh Roy & ors. vs. State of West Bengal (2003) 12 SCC 377, it was held that burden of proof in criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence.
Observation
17. In the present case the accused had been alleged of the theft and snatching of the mobile phone of the complainant. For the purpose of proving theft, the ingredient of Section 378 IPC is required to be proved by the prosecution.
STATE V NAVNEET SINGH FIR No. 227/13 PS: VIKAS PURI U/s 356/379/34 IPC 8
18. Let us first read the bare Section 378 IPC. Section 378 IPC is reproduced here as under :-
Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
19. In the present case for the purpose for proving the theft, the prosecution needs to prove that the phone, alleged to be stolen by the accused, was in the possession of the complainant. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to file on record the mobile phone bill of the complainant.
20. Further no public person had been cited as a witness by the prosecution, who could have corroborated the version of the complainant. Further, no such stolen phone had been recovered by the police official.
21. In the said scenario, the court is not convinced that the complainant was having a phone in his possession and further it is not confirmed yet that the same had been stolen. The possibility that the case has been planted upon the accused cannot be ruled out.
22. Further, the CDR of the complainant and the accused has not been placed on record to corroborate the testimony of the witness.
23. Further, as per the testimony of PW 1, many public witnesses were available at the spot where the accused was apprehended however, the IO has not interrogated any of the public witnesses despite the fact that few of the public persons were known to the complainant.
STATE V NAVNEET SINGH FIR No. 227/13 PS: VIKAS PURI U/s 356/379/34 IPC 9
24. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has utterly failed in proving the case against the accused. Accused is acquitted of the offense u/s 356/379/34 IPC.
25. Documents, if any be returned to the rightful person. Bail bond and surety bond stands discharged. Endorsement, if any, be cancelled. Superdari, if any, stands cancelled. Case property, if any, be released to its rightful owner.
26. File be consigned to record room. Nitesh Digitally signed by Nitesh Goel Date: 2023.12.23 Announced in open Court on 23.12.2023 Goel 17:35:36 +0530 (Nitesh Goel ) Metropolitan Magistrate-05 (South-West) 23.12.2023 STATE V NAVNEET SINGH FIR No. 227/13 PS: VIKAS PURI U/s 356/379/34 IPC 10