Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj Singh Rawat on 5 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NEETIKA KAPOOR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-06, SOUTH WEST DWARKA, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. : DLSW020287702018
FIR Number : 169/2017
Police Station : Dwarka North
Section : 380/120B/411 IPC
STATE VS. MANOJ SINGH RAWAT & ORS.
a) Cr. no. of the Case : 25843/2018
b) Name & address of the Complainant : Tushar Singh, S/o Shishu Pal,
R/o H. No. 233, Gali No. 2, in
front of PS Kapashera, Delhi.
c) Name & address of the accused : (1) Manoj Singh Rawat, S/o
Sh. Darshan Singh, R/o H. No.
201, Gali No. 4, Shivaji
Mohalla, Sonia Vihar,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
(2) Dinesh Yadav S/o Sh.
Rajender Yadav, R/o H. No.
1563, Sector 15, Gurgaon,
Haryana.
(3) Naresh S/o Sh. Ved Pal,
R/o H. No. 111, Khedki Majra,
Mahipal General Store,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
FIR No: 169/2017 State Vs. Manoj Singh Rawat & Ors. Page 1 of 12
Digitally signed
NEETIKA by NEETIKA
KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date: 2025.05.05
17:56:20 +0530
d) Date of Commission of offence : 01.05.2017
e) Offence complained of : 380/120B/411 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquittal
Date of registration of FIR : 06.06.2017
Final arguments heard on : 05.05.2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 05.05.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons, namely, Manoj Singh Rawat and Dinesh Yadav are facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 380 r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and accused Naresh Kumar is facing trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC in connection with the case FIR No. 169/2017 registered at P.S. Dwarka North.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on unknown time and date at Reliance Store, Sector 13, Dwarka, accused Manoj Singh Rawat and Dinesh Yadav in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy committed theft of mobile phone (iphone 7) having IMEI No. 359454076967373 belonging to complainant Tushar Singh, Manager, Reliance Store, Sector 13, Dwarka, which was subsequently, recovered from accused Naresh Kumar on 07.06.2017 which he had received or retained knowing the same to be stolen property. Complainant gave a written complaint in PS, based on which, rukka was prepared and present FIR was registered.
FIR No: 169/2017 State Vs. Manoj Singh Rawat & Ors. Page 2 of 12 Digitally signed by NEETIKANEETIKA KAPOOR Date: KAPOOR 2025.05.05 17:56:24 +0530
3. During investigation, IO inspected the site of the incident and having inspected it, prepared a site plan. Invoice of the stolen mobile phones was seized by the IO during investigation. Recovered mobile phone was seized by the IO. Accused persons were arrested. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and based on the material collected, accused persons namely Manoj Singh Rawat and Dinesh Yadav were found responsible for the commission of offences punishable under Section 380 r/w 120B IPC and accused Naresh Kumar was found responsible for commission of offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. After completion of the investigation, case file was handed over by the IO to SHO of Police Station Dwarka North who after following the codal formalities, prepared and filed the instant challan against the accused.
4. On finding sufficient material on record against accused persons, they were were summoned before this court and on their appearance, copies of the challan and other documents were supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (herein referred to as Cr.P.C).
5. On finding a prima-facie case against the accused persons under Sections 380/120B/411 IPC of I.P.C., charge was put to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to have a defense to make.
6. Prosecution was called upon to adduce its evidence. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 05 witnesses. PW-1 Tushar Singh is the complainant, PW-2 Ram Kishore is the eye witness, PW-3 HC Jai Prakash had accompanied the IO during investigation, PW-4 Nitin Sabharwal is eye witness and PW-5 ASI Krishan Kumar is the Investigating Officer of the case.
7. Thereafter, statement of accused u/s 294 r/w Section 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused persons admitted the present FIR alongwith certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act which are Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 respectively, report of Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel alongwith certificate u/s 65B IEA which is Ex.X3, reply furnished by Babita Khattar, Senior Manager to the IO which FIR No: 169/2017 State Vs. Manoj Singh Rawat & Ors. Page 3 of 12 Digitally signed by NEETIKA KAPOOR NEETIKA Date:
KAPOOR 2025.05.05
17:56:27
+0530
is Ex.X4 and certificate of employment of accused Manoj Singh Rawat issued by Babita Khattar, Authorized signatory for Reliance SMSL Limited which is Ex.X5(colly).
8. After completion of prosecution evidence, incriminating evidence adduced by prosecution was put to accused persons by recording their separate statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein accused persons denied the case of prosecution. Accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They preferred not to lead any evidence in their defense. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
9. I have heard Mr. Manish Sidhawat, Ld. APP for State and Sh. Naveen Gaur, Sh. Rajnikant Mishra and Sh. H.S. Yadav, Ld. Defence Counsels for accused persons and have gone through the records carefully.
10. On the basis of evidence on record, the following points arise for determination in the present case:
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that at unknown time and date at Reliance Store, Sector 13, Dwarka, New Delhi, accused Manoj Singh Rawat alongwith co-
accused Dinesh Yadav entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and committed theft of a mobile phone of make Iphone 7 (32GB) having IMEI No. 359154076967373 belonging to the complainant Tuhsar Singh, Manager at Reliance Store, Sector 13, Dwarka, as alleged?
(ii) Whether on 07.06.2017 at unknown time at PS Dwarka North, accused Naresh Kumar having FIR No: 169/2017 State Vs. Manoj Singh Rawat & Ors. Page 4 of 12 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2025.05.05 17:56:30 +0530 over one mobile phone of make Iphone 7 (32GB) having IMEI No. 359154076967373 belonging to the complainant Tushar Singh, which he had dishonestly received or retained knowing or believing the same to be stolen property, as alleged?
(iii) Final order.
11. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the reasons for my findings, my findings on the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No. 1: No Point No. 2: No Final order: The accused persons, namely, Manoj Singh Rawat, Dinesh Yadav and Naresh Kumar are acquitted as per the operative part of the judgment.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS POINT NO. 1
12. To bring home the culpability of accused under Section 380 IPC, it is pertinent that relevant provisions of law are first read. Offence of theft is defined u/s 378 IPC and theft committed in a dwelling house is punishable u/s 380 IPC. Section 378 and 380 IPC are reproduced herein below:
"Section 378 IPC: Theft: 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.FIR No: 169/2017 State Vs. Manoj Singh Rawat & Ors. Page 5 of 12 Digitally signed
NEETIKA by NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2025.05.05 17:56:33 +0530 Explanation 1--A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2--A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft. Explanation 3--A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it. Explanation 4 --A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
Explanation 5.The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
Section 380 IPC : Theft in dwelling house, etc.-- Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
13. It is trite that in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused must be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the case at hand, is to be weighed keeping in view these legal standards.
FIR No: 169/2017 State Vs. Manoj Singh Rawat & Ors. Page 6 of 12 Digitally signed by NEETIKA KAPOORNEETIKA Date:
KAPOOR 2025.05.05
17:56:36
+0530
14. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined, PW1 Tushar Singh who being the complainant is the star witness of the case.
15. PW-1 Tushar Singh stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 16.04.2017, he was working as a Departmental Manager in Reliance Digital Store, Dwarka and was selling one iPhone 7 (32GB) to a customer and while giving demo, he found some broken tiles in the box of the mobile phone. Complaint was given which is Ex.PW1/A. After few days, police informed the witness that his mobile phone had been recovered. Later, one employee of the company namely Manoj Singh Rawat was called at PS. Later some other boys were also arrested. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court. He had handed over the invoice of the mobile phone to the IO which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B, same was later, released on superdari. Witness correctly identify the case property from the photographs on record.
16. In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj Singh Rawat, he admitted that that he was unaware about the theft of the mobile phone till the time when he opened the box. He failed to state the IMEI number of the mobile phone. He failed to state the person in whose custody the mobile phone was kept at the time of the incident. He denied the suggestion that the mobile phone had been misplaced by employees of the company and accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was duly cross-examined and discharged.
17. Further, PW-2 Ram Kishore stepped into the witness box and deposed that he was working as Departmental Manager in Reliance Digital and when they were selling Iphone to a customer, they found broken tiles in the box. Intimation regarding the incident was sent to security team. Thereafter, he alongiwith Tushar went to PS and on complaint of Tushar, present FIR was registered. Mobile phone was found to be active since January, 2017. In month of June, they were informed FIR No: 169/2017 State Vs. Manoj Singh Rawat & Ors. Page 7 of 12 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.05.05 17:56:40 +0530 that mobile phone had been recovered. Thereafter, he along with accused Manoj Singh went to PS. Accused Manoj was looking after Department of Material Handling, who was arrested. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court. Witness identified case property from the photographs which are Ex.P1(colly).
18. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he admitted that box was in sealed condition when it was opened. He denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
19. Further, PW-4 Nitin Shabarwal stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 16th April 2017, he was working as a store manager at Reliance Mall and learnt about the incident. When he went to PS, Manoj was also present there, who was working as sales executive in their store. Accused Manoj was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D. Personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW3/E. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court. Witness correctly identified the mobile phone from the photograph which are Ex.PW1/C(colly).
20. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he failed to depose whether he had accompanied the Tushar to PS or not. He admitted that recovery of the phone was not done in his presence. He admitted that despite the installation of CCTV cameras, no footage of the incident was found. He denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present state.
21. Perusal of testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW4 reveal that though they have supported the prosecution story by deposing that on 16 th April 2017, mobile phone was found to be missing from the box and certain broken tiles were found in the same. However, none of these witnesses are eyewitnesses to the incident as they had not witnessed, accused or any other employee take out the mobile phone from the box or place the broken tiles in the same. None of the witnesses could depose about the date or the time when mobile phone had been moved or taken out by by accused FIR No: 169/2017 State Vs. Manoj Singh Rawat & Ors. Page 8 of 12 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.05.05 17:56:44 +0530 Manoj Singh Rawat or Dinesh Kumar. None of the witnesses could depose about any criminal conspiracy or role of the accused persons in committing the theft. Though all the witnesses identified accused Manoj Singh Rawat, who was working as sales executive/material handling assistant, none of them could depose about the manner in which or the date or time on which mobile phone in question had been moved by him or accused Dinesh Kumar in order to commit the offence of theft. PW-4 admitted that despite installation of CCTV cameras, no CCTV footage of the incident was found which could show the involvement of the accused persons in the case. As such, testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW4 are not sufficient to prove guilt of the accused for offence under Section 380 and 120B IPC and thus, same requires corroboration.
22. Considering that, except PW1, PW2 and PW4, no other witnesses have been cited as eye witnesses and testimonies of other witnesses are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons for offence u/s 380/120B IPC as none of them are eyewitnesses to the incident, and their testimonies at best could be corroborative in nature. As such, prosecution has failed to discharge the burden to proof the ingredients of offence under Section 380/120B IPC against accused persons.
Point No. 223. To bring home the culpability of accused under Section 411 IPC, it is pertinent that relevant provisions of law are first read. Section 411 IPC is reproduced herein below:
"Dishonestly receiving stolen property.-Whoever dishonestly received or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term FIR No: 169/2017 State Vs. Manoj Singh Rawat & Ors. Page 9 of 12 Digitally signed by NEETIKA KAPOOR NEETIKA Date:
KAPOOR 2025.05.05
17:56:48
+0530
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
24. Additionally, accused Naresh Kumar has also been charged for offence under Section 411 IPC and in order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW-5 ASI Krishan Kumar who being the investigation officer, stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 1st May 2017, he had received a complaint from Reliance Mall through complainant Raj Kishore and had sent the mobile number and IMEI number for call details. On 6th June 2017, he along with Ct. Jai Prakash, went to Reliance Mall, where complainant gave his complaint which is Ex.PW1/A, based on which rukka was prepared and present FIR was registered. Site plan was prepared. Statement to Tushar and Ct. Jai Prakash were recorded. On 7 th June 2017, accused Naresh and another accused had come to PS and produced the mobile phone. Disclosure statement of accused Naresh was recorded. Notice under 41A Cr.P.C. was issued to him. Accused Naresh had disclosed that he had purchased the mobile phone of accused Dinesh, who also had accompanied him to PS. Notice under 41A Cr.P.C. was issued to accused Dinesh. Based on disclosure of accused Dinesh, he had contacted complainant Tushar, who had produced Manoj Singh Rawat in PS. Accused Manoj was interrogated. His disclosure statement was recorded. He was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/D. Personal search memo was prepared which is Ex.PW3/E. On 13.07.2017, mobile cover and stolen mobile phone was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/F. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court. Witness correctly identified the accused as well as the case property in the court. He was duly cross-examined and discharged.
25. Testimony of PW-3 is similar to testimony of PW-5 as he had accompanied the IO during investigation. He was duly cross-examined and discharged.
FIR No: 169/2017 State Vs. Manoj Singh Rawat & Ors. Page 10 of 12 Digitally signed by NEETIKANEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.05.05 17:56:52 +0530
26. From the testimony of PWs, it is evident that mobile phone was traced in possession of accused Naresh Kumar who had brought the same to PS from where it was seized by the IO. However, merely because case property was recovered from possession of accused, is not sufficient to warrant conviction of accused u/s 411 IPC as prosecution must establish that accused had knowledge that property was indeed a stolen property. (Refer Shiv Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 07.09.2022). From the evidence on record, there is nothing to suggest that accused Naresh Kumar had any knowledge that the mobile phone was a stolen property or he had dishonestly received or retained the same knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. Testimony of PW5 reveals that he had only investigated the matter after registration of FIR and had traced the mobile phone to be in use by accused from CDR details but they could not depose about the knowledge or intention on the part of accused in receiving or retaining the property. There is no other witness to establish the guilt of the accused. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish the dishonest intention or knowledge or essential ingredient of mens rea on the part of the accused in retaining the case property i.e. mobile phone and, therefore, failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that stolen article belonging to complainant though was recovered from accused Naresh Kumar but he had received or retained the same knowing or believing it to be a stolen property. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused Naresh Kumar. Thus, these points are answered in the negative and is decided against the prosecution.
FINAL ORDER
27. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, since the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused persons, namely, Manoj Singh Rawat, Dinesh Yadav and Naresh Kumar for commission of offence punishable FIR No: 169/2017 State Vs. Manoj Singh Rawat & Ors. Page 11 of 12 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.05.05 17:56:56 +0530 under section 380 r/w Section 120B and 411 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt, accused persons are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 380 r/w Section 120B and 411 of IPC.
28. Personal bonds/surety bonds stands cancelled. Endorsement, if any is also cancelled. Sureties stand discharged. Superdarinama, if any stands cancelled. Original documents, if any be returned to the rightful claimant against proper receipt as per rules.
29. The accused persons have already furnished personal and surety bonds as per the mandate of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they have undertaken that they shall put in his appearance before the appellate court within the prescribed period in case an appeal is filed and admitted for hearing. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced and signed in the open court on 05th Day of May, 2025.
Digitally signedNEETIKA by NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2025.05.05 17:57:04 +0530 (Neetika Kapoor) JMFC-06/SWD/Dwarka Court New Delhi/05.05.2025 **It is certified that this judgment contains 12 pages, and each page bears my signature.** FIR No: 169/2017 State Vs. Manoj Singh Rawat & Ors. Page 12 of 12