Delhi District Court
State vs Vishal on 23 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. AAYUSHI SAXENA,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case No. -: 194/2013 & 79902/2016
CNR No. -: DLSH020008882011
FIR No. -: 352/2011
Police Station -: Jagatpuri
Section(s) -: Section 356/379/411/34
IPC
In the matter of:
Digitally
signed by
STATE AAYUSHI
AAYUSHI SAXENA
(Represented by Sh. Bhuvnesh Sharma, SAXENA Date:
2025.07.23
Ld. APP for the State) 15:55:35
+0530
VERSUS
1) Vishal
S/o Sh. Uday Bhan
Village Arihar, PS Rudauli District,
Bara Banki, UP,Vagabond Krishan Kunj,
Pusta, Delhi.
2) Rajiv Gaba
S/o Sh. Bal Kishan
H. No. 1152, Multani Mohalla,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
3) Ganeshi Lal @ Anil
S/o Sh. Kanwar Pal
H. No. 39, Gali No. 5, Sarojini Park,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
...... Accused
1.Name of Complainant : Smt. Ajit Kaur State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 1 of 24 W/o Sh. Sadhu Singh, R/o S-33, South Anarkali, Near Gurudwara, Delhi-51.
1) Vishal S/o Sh. Uday Bhan R/o Village Arihar, PS Rudauli District, Bara Banki, UP, Vagabond Krishan Kunj, Pusta, Delhi.
2) Rajiv Gaba S/o Sh. Bal Kishan R/o House No. 1152, Multani Mohalla Gandhi
2. Name of Accused : Nagar, Delhi.
(Proceedings against him has already abated vide order dated 16.02.2019)
3) Ganeshi Lal @ Anil.
S/o Sh. Kanwar Pal R/o House No. 39, Gali No. 5, Sarojini Park, Shastri nagar, Delhi.
Section
3. Offence complained of or proved :
356/379/411 IPC
4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 03.07.2011
6. Date of filing of case : 21.09.2011
7. Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2025 State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 2 of 24 Accused no.1 Vishal has already been convicted vide order dated
8. Final Order : 13.03.2012.
Accused no.2 Ganeshi Lal has been acquitted u/s 356/379/411 IPC.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 30.07.2011 at about 04:00 PM at Parwana Road, Jagatpuri all the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted and used criminal force against the complainant Smt. Ajit Kaur and snatched her earring (bali). Also, on 04.08.2011 at Pusta road, near T point, Taj enclave road, Geeta Colony, accused Ganeshi Lal was found in possession of the above-said earring, belonging to the complainant Smt. Ajit Kaur knowing or having reason to believe that such property was stolen. Pursuant to the complaint of the complainant, FIR was registered under Section 356/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC").
2. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out. On culmination of the same, the Police State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 3 of 24 Report under Section 356/379/411/34 IPC against the accused persons was filed in the Court.
3. Vide order dated 21.09.2011 cognizance in the present matter was taken by Ld. Predecessor of this Court and summons were directed to be issued upon the accused Rajiv Gaba. Since accused Vishal and Ganeshi Lal were stated to be in JC, production warrants were issued against them. On 30.09.2011, accused Vishal and Ganeshi were produced from JC and accused Rajiv Gaba had appeared in the court and copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
on that very date.
4. On finding a prima facie case against accused persons, charge under Section 356/379/411 IPC was framed against accused Ganeshi Lal and charge under Section 356/379 IPC was framed against accused Vishal and Rajiv Gaba by Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 22.12.2011, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 27.04.2023 separate statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C. of accused Ganeshi Lal was recorded, wherein he admitted the following documents;
State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 4 of 24 5.1. TIP Proceedings order dated 20.08.2011 of accused Ganeshi Lal and Rajiv Gaba and case property dated 02.09.2011, which were exhibited as Ex.P1, Ex. P2 and Ex. P3.
5.2. DD No.44B dated 04.08.2011,which was exhibited Ex.P4.
In view of the same, witness, mentioned at serial no.6, 10 and 11 of the list of witnesses, was dropped.
6. On 13.01.2012, an application u/s 265B Cr.PC, in respect of plea bargaining was filed on behalf of accused Vishal and vide order dated 13.03.2012, passed by the plea bargaining Magistrate, accused Vishal was convicted for offense u/s 356/379 IPC. Since accused Rajiv Gaba had expired during trial of the case, proceedings qua accused Rajiv Gaba stood abated vide order dated 16.02.2019.
PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses.
7.1. PW1 Smt. Ajeet Kaur inter-alia deposed that on 30.07.2011, she was going to her brother's house namely Harjeet Singh at House no. 10, State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 5 of 24 Parwana Road by a rickshaw and at about 04:00 PM, when she got down from the rickshaw and was paying money to the rickshaw puller, three persons came on a black color motorcycle from the front. She further deposed that accused Vishal got down from the motorcycle and snatched her right earring and two other persons ran away from the spot. She further deposed that she made an alarm and some public persons ran after the accused persons and caught hold of accused Vishal. She further deposed that the abovesaid motorcycle fell down on the street and the other two accused persons ran away from the spot. She further deposed that Police came at the spot and IO recorded her statement Ex. PW-1/A and prepared site plan at her instance. She further deposed that accused Vishal was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B, and was personally searched vide memo Ex. PW-1/C. She also proposed that she could not identify accused Rajiv and Ganeshi Lal as they had already run away before she could see them. She also deposed that she neither knew the number of motorcycle nor she could identify the same but she stated that the same was of black color.
She duly identified accused Vishal in the Court.
PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 6 of 24 the accused Rajiv and Ganeshi Lal.
7.2. PW2 Ct. Kunwar Pal inter-alia deposed that on 30.07.2011, he was posted at PS Jagatpuri as a Ct. He further deposed that on receiving DD No. 28A at about 04:00 PM, he alongwith SI Luv Aatre, reached at Parwana Road, Jagatpuri, where they met with the complainant Smt. Ajeet Kaur, who gave her statement to IO/SI Luv Aatre and stated that at about 04:00 PM, when she was getting down from a rickshaw one boy came from behind and snatched her earring from her ear and tried to flee away alongwith his two other associates, who were sitting on motorcycle. He further deposed that one of them was caught by public persons at the spot and the other two fled away from the spot on a bike. He further deposed that IO/SI Luv Aatre seized the recovered bike bearing no. DL-5S-AA-4497 make Bajaj Discover, vide seizure memo Mark X and prepared a rukka for registration of FIR and went to the PS and came back with SI Yashwant Singh. He further deposed that SI Luv Aatre handed over the accused namely Vishal and the recovered bike to the SI Yashwant. He further deposed that SI Yashwant arrested accused Vishal (already convicted in present case) vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B, personally searched him vide memo Ex.
State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 7 of 24 PW-1/C and recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex. PW-2/A. He further deposed that thereafter second IO/SI Yashwant prepared a site plan at the instance of SI Luv Aatre and thereafter case property, i.e. the motorcycle was deposited in the malkhana. He further deposed that SI Yashwant recorded his statement.
Since Superdar/ accused Rajiv had not brought the vehicle .i.e., motorcycle bearing No. DL-5S- AA-4497, the same was not identified by PW-2.
PW-2 was not cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused persons despite opportunity.
7.3. PW-3 SI Love Atrey inter-alia deposed that on 30.07.2011, he was posted at PS Jagatpuri as SI. He further deposed that on receiving DD No. 28A Ex. PW-3/A regarding snatching, at about 04:00 PM, he alongwith Ct. Kunwar Pal, reached at Parwana Road, Jagatpuri, where they met with the complainant Smt. Ajeet Kaur, who produced accused Vishal and the motorcycle bearing no. DL-5S-AA-4497 to him. He further deposed that he recorded statement of the complainant Ex. PW-1/A, prepared rukka Ex. PW-3/A and handed over the same to Ct. Kunwar Pal, who got the FIR registered. He further deposed that he seized the abovesaid motorcycle vide memo Ex. PW-3/C and thereafter furhter investigation of the case was State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 8 of 24 marked to the Second IO. He further deposed that he could identify accused Vishal if produced before him (accused Vishal had already been convicted).
PW-3 duly identified the motorcycle Ex. P2.
PW-3 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajiv Gaba. Ld. Counsel for accused Ganeshi had adopted cross examination that was conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv.
7.4. PW-4 HC Narendar Pal inter-alia deposed that on 30.07.2011 he was posted at PS Jagatpuri as HC and was working as DO. He further deposed that his duty hours were from 04:00 PM to 12:00 Midnight and on that day at about 05:40 PM, Constable Kanwar Pal produced before him a rukka, which was sent by IO/SI Luv Attrey. He further deposed that he registered FIR Ex. PW-4/A (OSR) and made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW-4/B. He further deposed that he handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Constable Kanwar Pal, for handing over the same to Second IO/SI Yashwant for necessary action.
PW-4 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Ganeshi and Rajiv despite opportunity.
7.5. PW-5 ASI Shiv Murti inter-alia deposed that on 04.08.2011, he was posted at PS Gandhi State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 9 of 24 nagar as a HC and on that day, he alongwith Ct. Rohit were on patrolling duty. He further deposed that when they reached near Jheel Chowk, one secret informer told them that one person, who was wanted in the incident of PS Jagatpuri, was standing near Jheel Chowk and that he could be arrested, if efforts could be made. He further deposed that he requested 4-5 persons to join the raiding party but they denied to join the same. He further deposed that he apprehended that person, at the identification of the secret informer and that apprehended person disclosed his name as Rajiv Gaba, who was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-5/A, personally searched vide memo Ex. PW-5/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex. PW-5/C. He further deposed that in the disclosure statement, the accused disclosed his involvement in the Jagatpuri case. He further deposed that he had informed about the arrest of accused Rajiv Gaba in PS Jagatpuri vide DD No. 20A.
He duly identified accused Rajiv Gaba in the Court. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv Gaba.
7.6. PW-6 Inspector Yashwant Singh inter- alia deposed that on 30.07.2011, he was posted at PS Jagatpuri as SI and was present at the PS when State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 10 of 24 DO informed him that first IO/SI Love Atrey had got one FIR registered bearing no. 352/11 u/s 356/379/411/34 IPC and the accused and the victim were present at the spot. He further deposed that he went to the spot, he met SI Love Atrey and Ct. Kunwar Pal and one accused Vishal with the complainant Smt. Ajit Kaur. He further deposed that he discharged SI Love Atrey from the investigation and took over further investigation. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW-6/A, at the instance of the complainant and interrogated and arrested the accused Vishal vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B, personally searched him vide memo Ex. PW-1/C . He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure of accused Vishal Ex. PW-2/A. He further deposed that on 04.08.2011, information regarding arrest of accused Ganeshi Lal @ Anil was received from PS Geeta Colony, who had made a disclosure with the case property of the present case vide DD No. 17A Ex. PW-6/B. He further deposed that on 05.08.2011 at PS Gandhi Nagar an information regarding arrest of Rajiv Gaba was received vide No. 20A Ex. PW-6/C and he made a disclosure of the present case. He further deposed that on the same date, he arrested Rajiv Gaba after taking formal permission at the KKD Courts and on 08.08.2011, he arrested accused Ganeshi at KKD State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 11 of 24 Court vide arrest memo Ex. PW-6/D and Ex.PW-6/E. He further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of accused Rajiv Gaba and Ganeshi vide memos Ex. PW-6/F and Ex. PW-6/G. He further deposed that on 12.08.2011, he seized the case property from PS Geeta Colony vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/H. He further deposed that on 20.08.2011, he had to get TIP of both the accused conducted but the said accused persons refused to get TIP done and the TIP orders had been exhibited as Ex. P1 and Ex.P2. He further deposed that he obtained the photocopies of the document of PS Geeta colony and PS Gandhi Nagar vide which accused Ganeshi and accused Rajiv Gaba were arrested. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of Ct. Kunwar Pal and thereafter he completed the investigation and filed the chargesheet in the Court.
He duly identified accused Ganeshi in the Court. He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity.
7.7. PW-7 HC Rohtash deposed that on 04.08.2011, he was posted at PS Geeta Colony as HC and on that day he arrested one Ganeshi Lal vide DD No. 44B. He further deposed that he recovered one earring from the accused, which State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 12 of 24 was seized vide memo Ex. PW-7/A. He further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of accused and informed vide DD No. 17A to PS Jagatpuri regarding disclosure statement of accused about commission of offence in FIR No. 352/2011 Ex. PW-7/B. He further deposed that thereafter SI Yashwant recorded his statement.
He duly identified accused Ganeshi in the Court. He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity.
8. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Ganeshi under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. All incriminating materials brought on record were put to the accused Ganeshi in response to which he denied the allegations made against him and claimed himself to be innocent and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
9. Accused did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence and the same was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
10. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State. No final arguments were advanced by accused Ganeshi despite opportunity. I have also perused the case file State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 13 of 24 carefully.
11. Accused Ganeshi has been charged under Section 356/379/411 IPC.
11.1. Section 356 IPC prescribes punishment for assault or criminal force in an attempt to commit theft of a property carried by a person. The essential ingredients to bring home the act of the accused within the purview of this Section are :-
a) Use of assault/criminal force by the accused;
b) Such assault/criminal force was used against the person whose property is being stolen; and
c) Such assault/criminal force was used in attempt to commit theft of a property being worn/carried by such person.
11.2. The essential ingredients to prove an offence under Section 379 IPC are as follows: -
a) Accused had taken the movable property dishonestly;
b) Property was taken out of the possession of complainant;
c) Property was taken out without consent of complainant; and
d) The property was moved to such taking.
State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 14 of 24 11.3. To bring home the charge of Section 411 IPC, it is essential for the prosecution to prove re- tention of the stolen property on the part of the ac- cused and recovery of the same from the accused person. It is further essential on the part of prosecu- tion to bring on record clinching evidence which proves the ingredients of Section 411 IPC beyond doubt.
12. As per the testimony of PW1 (complainant), on 30.07.2011 while she was going to her brother's house at Parwana Road by a Rikshaw, at about 4 PM, when she got down from the Rikshaw and was giving money to the Rikshaw puller, three persons came on a black color motorcycle from the front and accused Vishal got down from the motorcycle and snatched her right earing but the other two accused persons ran away from the spot. She also deposed that accused Vishal was caught by some public persons. She also stated that she could not identify the other two accused persons as they already run away before she could see them.
13. Perusal of the file shows that accused Vishal was convicted by Ld. Plea Bargaining Judge on 17.03.2012 and proceedings against accused Rajeev have already abated vide order dated 16.02.2019.
State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 15 of 24
14. When PW6 Inst. Yashvant Singh was examined, he stated that on 04.08.2011 he received information regarding the arrest of accused Ganeshi Lal from PS Geeta Colony, who had made a disclosure of case property in the present matter vide DD NO. 17 A Ex. PW6/B and he also deposed that on 05.08.2011 he received information regarding the arrest of accused Rajiv Gaba from PS Gandhi Nagar, who had made a disclosure with case property vide DD NO. 20A Ex. PW6/C. He also deposed that thereafter he formally arrested accused Rajiv Gaba on 05.08.2011 and accused Ganeshi on 08.08.2011.
15. When PW-7 HC Rohtash Kumar was examined he deposed that on 04.08.2011 he was posted at PS Geeta Colony as HC and he had arrested accused Ganeshi Lal in Kalandera bearing DD No. 44B. He also deposed that he had recovered one earing from accused Ganeshi, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. He further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of accused and informed to PS Jagatpuri regarding disclosure statement of accused Ganeshi Ex. PW7/B about the commission of offence in FIR No. 352/2011 vide DD NO. 17A.
16. A perusal of seizure memo of the gold earing State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 16 of 24 Ex.PW7/A shows that the same does not bear signature of any public witness. The name of only Ct. Abodh Kumar has been mentioned as a witness. So, from this document it appears that no public witness was joined during the recovery proceedings of the case property. It is not even the case of prosecution that public witnesses were joined during recovery proceedings of the stolen property.
17. It is pertinent to reiterate that in such cases the entire prosecution of the accused is based on the alleged recovery of the stolen articles, therefore, it becomes absolutely essential for the court to examine the circumstances under which the recovery was made from the accused person. Any suspicion or doubt over the alleged recovery of stolen article/goods from the accused can prove fatal to the prosecution's case.
18. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Bijender @ Mander vs. State of Haryana" (Criminal Appeal No. 2438/2010 decided on 08.11.2021) whereby inter-alia it was observed that :-
"15. The short question that falls for our consideration thus is whether the conviction of the appellant on the strength of the purported disclosure statement (Ex. PD) and the recovery memo (EX PD/2), in the absence of any corroborative evidence, can State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 17 of 24 sustain?
16. We have imported ourselves with abounding pronouncements of this court on this point. It may be true that at times the Court can convict an accused exclusively on the basis of his disclosure statement and the resultant recovery of inculpatory material. However, in order to sustain the guilt of such accused, the recovery should be unimpeachable and not be shrouded with elements of doubts. We may hasten to add that circumstance such as (I) the period of interval between the malfeasance and the disclosure; (ii) commonality of the recovered object and its availability in the market; (iii) nature of the object and its relevance to the crime; (iv) ease of transferability of the object; (v) the testimony and trustworthiness of the attesting witness before the Court and / or other like factors, are weighty considerations that aid in gauging the intrinsic evidentiary value and credibility of the recovery. (See: Tulsiram Kanu vs. the State; Pancho vs. State of Haryana; State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar & Anr. and Bharama Parasram Kudhachkar vs. State of Karnataka).
17. Incontrovertibly, where the prosecution falls to inspire confidence in the manner and / or contents of the recovery with regard to its nexus to the alleged offence, the Court ought to stretch the benefit of doubt to the accused. Its nearly three centuries old cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that "it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer". The doctrine of extending benefit of doubt to an accused, notwithstanding the proof of a strong suspicion, holds its fort on the premise that "the acquittal of a guilty person constitutes a miscarriage of justice State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 18 of 24 just as much as the conviction of the innocent".
19. It is essential to note here that the circumstances under which the alleged recovery has been made from the accused creates a shadow of doubt over the version presented by the prosecution, more so when the case property was not recovered in presence of the complainant.
19.1. Police officials conducting investigation of an offence can ask any public person to join the investigation and upon refusal by the said person, the official concerned can even taken action under the relevant provision of the law. The failure to do so on the part of the investigating officer can be fatal to the prosecution in such cases where the entire case is based upon recovery of stolen articles. It was incumbent upon the investigating officer to at least show efforts on his part for joining of independent public witness during the alleged recovery, however, in the present case since there are no efforts on the part of the investigating agency therefore, the accused is entitled to benefit from the same. It is further relevant to point out here that the seizure memo Ex. PW7/A does not even mention the exact time of alleged recovery of the case property. No attempt having been made for joining of public/ independent person is a State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 19 of 24 circumstance which creates doubt on the recovery of the stolen motorcycle from the instance of the accused person.
19.2. It was inter-alia held in "Anoop Joshi vs. State" 1992 (2) CC Cases 314 (HC) that sincere efforts shall always be made by the police to join the independent witnesses. It has further in held in series of cases that failure of joining of independent witnesses at the time of recovery of stolen article shall cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution version. In the facts of the present case, since the recovery has been effected from a public place and thus, it is difficult to believe that there were no public persons available during the alleged recovery.
19.3. No doubt, it is settled law that the testimony of police witnesses can be relied upon if it inspires confidence of the court but in this case, no plausible explanation has been put forth by the prosecution for failure to join public witnesses during the investigation and specifically at the time of alleged recovery of case property, despite their availability in compliance of Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. The same brings the seizure under a cloud of doubt.
19.4. Reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 20 of 24 case of Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana 1999 (1) CLR 69 wherein it was observed that, "It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly, the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 21 of 24 afterthought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful''.
19.5. In case of Pradeep Narayana V. State of Maharashtra reported AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1930, it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused.
20. So, from the above, it becomes clear that there is nothing on record, except for the disclosure statement given by accused Ganeshi Lal in DD No. 17A dt. 04.08.2011, to connect him with the offence in the present case.
21. The testimony of complainant PW-1 is of no consequence with respect to the offence u/s 411 IPC as she neither saw accused Ganeshi at the time of incident nor her gold earing was recovered from accused Ganeshi in her presence. The remaining witnesses are police officials, whose testimonies solely hinge upon the disclosure statement of accused Ganeshi Lal.
22. It has been held in case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 22 of 24 Haryana High Court :-
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
23. Therefore, in view of the above discussion this court is of the considered opinion that the accused Ganeshi Lal is entitled to benefit of the doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. From the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the alleged recovery from accused Ganeshi in the present case is unimpeachable and matches the standard of proof required for conviction in such like cases.
CONCLUSION
24. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence produced on record, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Ganeshi Lal S/o Sh. Kunwar Pal is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 356/379/411 IPC.
State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 23 of 24
25. Case property, if any, shall be disposed of as per rules, after expiration of period of appeal and as per law. Case file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. 23.07.2025. Digitally signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.07.23 (Aayushi Saxena) 15:55:45 +0530 JMFC-05/SHD, Karkardooma Courts/Delhi/23.07.2025 This judgment consists of 24 pages and each page bears my Digitally signed by signatures. AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.07.23 (Aayushi Saxena) 15:55:50 +0530 JMFC-05/SHD, Karkardooma Courts/Delhi/23.07.2025 State Vs. Vishal FIR No. 352/2011 PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 24 of 24