Delhi District Court
State vs Dil Preet Singh on 15 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJOT SINGH AUJLA, JMFC-11, DWARKA COURT,
NEW DELHI
FIR No. 459/2023
PS Janakpuri
Under Section 356/379/411/34 IPC
State Vs. Dilpreet Singh and Anr.
CNR No. : DLSW02-002184-2024
Crl. Case No. : 491/2024
Date of institution of the case : 10.01.2024
Date of commission of offence : 23.11.2023
Name of the complainant : Sh. Sudesh Salodiya
S/o Sh. Manoj Salodiya
Name of accused and address : Dilpreet Singh
S/o Sh. Gurmeet Singh
R/o WZ-135, Gali no. 32, Santgarh, Tilak Nagar,
Delhi.
Amanpreet Singh
S/o Gurmeet Singh
R/o WZ-135, Gali no. 32, Santgarh, Tilak Nagar,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : Under Section 356/379/411/34
IPC
Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Pankaj Gulia
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquittal
Date of judgment reserved : 02.12.2024
State v. Dilpreet Singh and Anr.
FIR no. 459/2023 page 1 of 8
Digitally
HARJOT signed by
SINGH HARJOT
SINGH
Date of judgment : 15.01.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely, Dilpreet Singh and Amanpreet Singh had been charge- sheeted for committing offence under Section 356/379/411/34 IPC.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 23.11.2023 at about 12:05 PM infront of Krishna Bhawan, near Asalatpur village, near Sant Marx School, A-2 Block, Janakpuri, accused Dilpreet Singh and Amanpreet Singh in furtherance of their common intention came riding on a scooty and snatched one lady's bag from complainant Sudesh Salodiya and committed theft of Rs.14,000/-, her voter ID card, driving license, PAN card, Aadhar Card and bank documents and the said lady's bag and certain documents were recovered from your possession and thereby committed offence u/s 356/379/411/34 IPC.
3. Complaint was made and FIR was registered. IO conducted the investigation. After completion of investigation, the present charge sheet was filed. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused persons were summoned to face the trial.
CHARGE
4. Thereafter, copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused persons under Section 207 CrPC. After giving opportunity to state as well as accused for making submissions on charge, a charge for offence under Section 356/379/411/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The complainant compounded the offence u/s 379/411 IPC against the accused persons. Separate statement of the complainant was recorded. Accordingly, accused Dilpreet Singh and Amanpreet Singh were acquitted of the offence u/s 379/411 IPC vide order dated 31.08.2024. The present case proceeded against the accused persons qua offence under section 356 IPC only.
State v. Dilpreet Singh and Anr.
FIR no. 459/2023 page 2 of 8
Digitally
HARJOT signed by
SINGH HARJOT
SINGH
5. Vide separate statement recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C, accused persons admitted the documents i.e. FIR No. 459/23 alongwith certificate u/s 65B IEA Ex.P1 (colly), DD no. 056A dated 23.11.2023, Ex. P-2, DD no. 74A dated 02.12.2023, Ex. P-3, TIP proceedings of accused persons dated 14.12.2023, Ex. P-4, Entry in register no. 19 and 21 in FIR no. 495/23 and 801/23 Ex. P-5 and judicial record of FIR no. 801/23 PS Tilak Nagar Ex. P-6. Hence the above documents were ordered to be read in evidence without their formal proof.
6. PE was closed by order of this court. Since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused persons, therefore, requirement of recording of statement of accused persons u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. Prosecution has examined one witness to prove its case. Prosecution examined Ms. Sudesh as PW1. Her version is reproduced as follows: "On 23.11.2023, I was working as IVF consultant at Bali Nursing Home, Karol Bagh, Delhi. On that day, I was going from A2 Block, Janakpuri on foot to meet my friend via road near Sant Mark School, Janakpuri. At about 12:05 PM, when I reached at Asaladpur village, opposite Krishna Bhawan, suddenly two persons came from behind on a scooty and the person sitting on the pillion seat snatched my bag/purse from my hand and fled away via Asaladpur village road. Both the persons were not wearing any helmet. I could not see the registration number of the scooty. My bad had around Rs.14,000/- cash, voter ID card, driving licence, PAN card, SBI ATM card and Aadhar card. My bag was of light pink colour. Thereafter, I filed a police complaint which is Ex. PW 1/A bearing my signature at point A. I did not see their faces as they snatched my purse and fled away and I could only see them from behind."
Witness was declared hostile by ld. APP for the State and she was cross examined by him. Attention A of the witness was drawn towards the accused persons and witness failed to identify them.
Witness was confronted with her previous statement Ex. PW 1/A from point A to A1 wherein it was mentioned that "she can identify the persons who had snatched her purse". Witness stated that she did not give any such information to the police official. Witness was shown the site plan which is Ex. PW 1/B. Witness affirmed that she had affixed her signatures on the said site plan at point A. She admitted that she had given her statement Ex. State v. Dilpreet Singh and Anr.
FIR no. 459/2023 page 3 of 8
Digitally
HARJOT signed by
SINGH HARJOT
SINGH
PW 1/A and her signatures on site plan Ex. PW 1/B on her own will and without any threat or inducement from the police officials. She denied the suggestion that the accused persons had snatched her purse on 23.11.2023 at about 12:05 PM infront of Krishna Bhawan, near Asaladpur village, Sant Mark School. She denied the suggestion that she was deliberately not identifying the accused persons as she had settled the matter with them.
Witness has been shown one light pink colour purse and witness failed to identify the same. Same is Ex. P. FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. Matter was listed for final arguments. During the course of arguments, learned APP for the State navigated the attention of the court to the facts of the instant case and the evidence brought forth by the prosecution. Ld. APP for State argued that the prosecution has discharged its burden beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons shall be convicted for the offence charged with. Per-contra, Ld. counsel for accused persons argued that the complainant is the key witness in the present case and she has failed to identify the accused persons. It is further argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter.
9. I have heard learned APP for the State and learned Counsel for accused persons, perused the material placed on record and considered the submissions advanced.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
10. Now coming to the merits of the case, I first deem it pertinent to enunciate the actus reus and mens rea required to inculpate the accused persons for offence under section 356 IPC.
11. To bring home the liability under section 356 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, following elements must spring out from the prosecution version and the evidence adduced thereby, viz,
1. A person must assault or use criminal force on another person;
2. Such use of criminal force or assault, as the case may be, must be with State v. Dilpreet Singh and Anr.
FIR no. 459/2023 page 4 of 8
Digitally
HARJOT signed by
SINGH HARJOT
SINGH
the intention to commit theft on any property;
3. Such property must be carried or worn by the person at the time when the offender uses criminal force or assaults.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
12. Since criminal liability can be attached by proving each element of the section under which liability is sought to be enforced, I shall go on to appreciate the evidence- documentary and oral, in light of how compellingly it satisfies each of such ingredient, if at all.
13. In the present case, the accused persons are being tried for offence punishable under 356 IPC. Offence under section 379/411 IPC against the accused persons stands compounded. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.11.2023 at about 12:05 PM infront of Krishna Bhawan, near Asalatpur village, near Sant Marx School, A-2 Block, Janakpuri, accused persons had snatched bag of complainant Sudesh Salodiya and the said lady's bag and certain documents were recovered from the possession of the accused persons.
In the case in hand, the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimony of PW/Complainant Sudesh Salodiya. She did not support the case of the prosecution even to the extent that she failed to identify the accused persons in the court. During her examination in chief, she deposed that she could not see the faces of accused persons as they came from behind suddenly and snatched her bag/purse. She denied the suggestion given by Ld. APP for state that the accused persons snatched her purse. She further denied the suggestion that she is deliberately not deposing against the accused persons as she has settled the matter with the accused persons. Therefore, complainant who is also the eye- witness to the incident in question has not deposed against the accused persons and thereby could not prove the case of the prosecution.
14. It is also pertinent to mention that the incident had occurred on 23.11.2023 at about 12:05 PM infront of Krishna Bhawan, near Asalatpur village, near Sant Marx School, A-2 Block, Janakpuri. That, there is a high possibility that when such incident took place, crowd of atleast 3-4 public persons may have gathered at the spot. However, the IO did not bother to examine any independent person or eye-witness of the alleged incident. That non-joining State v. Dilpreet Singh and Anr.
FIR no. 459/2023 page 5 of 8
Digitally
HARJOT signed by
SINGH HARJOT
SINGH
of the independent witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by the police. Furthermore, IO did not make any mild effort to check the presence of CCTV cameras covering the spot of incident. Therefore, nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to link the accused persons with the causation of the offence.
15. In the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that it was the accused persons who had assaulted the complainant and had snatched her bag/purse. Also, no witness has been examined by the prosecution in this respect. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, prosecution has failed to lead even iota of evidence to prove charges against the accused persons much less, to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts.
16. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that any serious effort was made by any of the police witnesses to join public witnesses in the proceedings. It is a well settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police.
17. In a case law reported as "Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court 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 evidence 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".
State v. Dilpreet Singh and Anr.
FIR no. 459/2023 page 6 of 8
Digitally
HARJOT signed by
SINGH HARJOT
SINGH
18. Non joining of public witnesses despite availability casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation. Reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of the judgment in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
" ... According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused".
19. It has to be understood that the burden is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, by leading positive evidence. This burden never shifts upon the accused to establish his innocence. On account of the failure of the only star witness of the incident to support the case of the prosecution, the prosecution case has suffered a fatal blow which goes to the root of the matter. Mere suspicion, howsoever, strong it might be, cannot replace the standard of proof required to establish the guilt of an accused in a trial for commission of a criminal offence.
State v. Dilpreet Singh and Anr.
FIR no. 459/2023 page 7 of 8
Digitally
HARJOT signed by
SINGH HARJOT
SINGH
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh And Ors. (2004) 9SCC 186 observed the following:
"The golden thread whichr runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view of which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent."
21. Therefore, no evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove that accused persons had snatched the bag/purse of the complainant. The complainant is a star witness and she has failed to identify the accused persons. That, the place of occurrence must be having public persons present, the investigating officer has not bothered to join them in the investigation. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons.
22. In view of the aforesaid, accused Dilpreet Singh and Amanpreet Singh are entitled to the benefit of doubt and are hereby acquitted for offence punishable under Section 356 IPC.
Announced in open Digitally
HARJOT signed by
court on 15.01.2025 SINGH HARJOT
SINGH
(Harjot Singh Aujla)
JMIC -11
South West Dwarka, Delhi
15.01.2025
Certified that this judgment contains 8 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally HARJOT signed by SINGH HARJOT SINGH (Harjot Singh Aujla) JMIC -11 South West Dwarka, Delhi 15.01.2025 State v. Dilpreet Singh and Anr.
FIR no. 459/2023 page 8 of 8