Delhi District Court
State vs Bharat Singh @ Lucky on 1 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 44888/2015
FIR No. 1105/2014
PS. Karawal Nagar
U/s. 392/397/34 IPC and 411 IPC
Instituted on 30.04.2015
Argued on 14.01.2025
Decided on 01.02.2025
Final Order 01.02.2025
State Vs. 1. Bharat Singh @ Lucky
S/o Rajender Singh
R/o Village Ahmed Garh,
PS Jhinjhana, District Shamli,
Uttar Pradesh.
2. Raj Kumar @ Raju
S/o Jado Ram
R/o Village Bara Khanpur,
PS Jhinjhana, District Shamli,
Uttar Pradesh.
FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 1 of 20
Digitally signed
by TWINKLE
TWINKLE WADHWA
WADHWA Date:
2025.02.01
17:11:00 +0530
JUDGMENT
A. Brief facts of the case:-
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 04.12.2014 a DD entry No.12B was received at PS Karawal Nagar and was assigned to ASI Bhure Singh. On receipt of DD, ASI Bhure Singh along with Constable Sanjay went to the spot and met complainant Rajkumar and statement of Rajkumar was recorded. However the accused could not be traced despite best efforts. However on 30.12.2014 an information was received that a DD No. 23A regarding arrest of two accused persons who had made confession regarding their involvement in the present case and a gold chain was also recovered which is the case property of the present case. Accordingly, both the accused persons were arrested after complying with necessary formalities.
Both the accused persons refused to get the TIP done. However TIP of case property was successful. After completion of investigation, the present charge sheet was filed.
2. The accused in this case was granted bail but he stopped appearing and he was declared proclaimed offender on 13.12.2017. However file was taken up again on 22.05.2024 when they were apprehended in the some other case and the present case was revived. However no charge under Section 174A IPC is framed against them in this case.
B. Prosecution Evidence:-
3. Prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in this case.
4. PW-1 W/HC Anjula deposed that on 04.12.2014, she was FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 2 of 20 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.01 17:11:10 +0530 working as duty officer from 8 am to 4pm and around 9.20 am, she received a rukka through Ct. Sanjay Singh sent by SI Bhoori Singh, on the basis of which PW1 got registered case FIR No.1105/2014 under section 392/34 IPC. She also made corresponding entry in the DD register at serial no. 13A and made endorsement to this effect on original rukka at point A. She had brought the original register containing the FIR (Ex. PW1/A) which bears her signature at point A. She further deposed that after registration of the case, she handed over the computer copy of the FIR and original rukka to Constable Sanjay Singh, to hand over the same to ASI Bhoori Singh.
5. PW2 Raj Kumar deposed that on 04.12.2014, he had taken his daughter Nandani to DRP Public school, when he was returning and reached outside the gali of his house at about 8.10/8.15am, two boys came on a motorcycle of make pulsar black colour and they inquired from him as to whether this gali would go across the other road. He inquired from them as to where they had to go and in the meantime, one scooter came on which two persons were riding. PW2 further deposed that while he was about to proceed towards his house, one of them put a katta type weapon on his left side and told not to raise alarm otherwise he would shoot PW2. He inquired from them as to why they were doing so on which one of them told PW2 to take out whatsoever he was having. They took his two gold rings, gold chain from his neck, a gold "kadda" and threatened PW2 to not to raise alarm. Besides they also took the key of his motorcycle. He raised alarm, called the police from his mobile phone which he had brought from his house, police came there and recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A which bears his signature at point A. PW2 further stated that he had seen the two accused persons present in custody and submitted that they were not the persons, who robbed him of his articles.
FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 3 of 20 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA Date:
WADHWA 2025.02.01 17:11:13 +0530 Later on he came to the Court at the request of the IO in connection with the TIP of the accused persons and identified two accused persons whom PW2 saw from a distance and told IO that they appeared to be the same persons but today the accused persons present in the Court are not the same persons who robbed PW2 of his articles. He further stated that he had come to Court, date he did not remember, to identify his chain and he identified the chain before the Ld. Magistrate, belonging to PW2, which was robbed. During the testimony of PW2 pulanda was opened, and a gold chain was taken out which PW2 identifies as the same which belongs to him and which was robbed by the accused persons and also identified during the judicial TIP. The chain is Ex.P1. PW2 further stated that he had seen those persons from a distance and they appeared like the persons who robbed him, but today he had seen the accused persons present in the Court thoroughly and they were not the same who robbed his articles.
6. PW-3 HC Bijender deposed that he was working as MHC (M) PS Saket and on 29.12.2014 SI Amit Kumar, Spl. Staff, South, deposited one chain golden colour, seized from accused Bharat Singh @ Lucky under section 102 Cr.P.C in case FIR No. 108/14 u/sec. 411/482/34 IPC PS Saket in a sealed condition bearing seal of AK which was entered at serial no. 1914 in register no. 19 and the case property was deposited in the malkhana. PW3 stated that on 12.02.2015 the case property i.e chain was transferred to PS Karawal Nagar in case FIR No.1105/14 u/sec. 392/34 IPC vide RC no. 31/21/15 through Ct. Bhupender PS Karawal Nagar. So long as this pulanda remained with PW3, nobody tampered with it. He had brought original register no.19 and register no. 21. Zerox copy of the relevant abstract is Ex.PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B. FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 4 of 20 Digitally signed by TWINKLE WADHWA TWINKLE Date:
WADHWA 2025.02.01
17:11:16
+0530
7. PW-4 Ct. Sanjay Singh deposed that on 04.12.2014, he was on emergency duty from 8 am to 8pm and at about 8.14am DD no. 12B was received in the PS regarding chain snatching at Ramabai Mohallah, Johripur Road at the "Nukkad" of gali no.3, on which he along with ASI Bhure Singh reached at the spot where we met with one Raj Kumar who gave his statement to the IO. After recording statement of Raj Kumar, IO prepared a rukka gave PW4 the same and directed to go to the PS Karawal Nagar and get the case registered. He went to the PS Karawal Nagar and handed over the original rukka to the duty officer who got the case registered and returned back the rukka along with copy of the FIR to him. PW4 stated that he came back to the spot with copy of FIR and rukka and handed over the same to the 1O and thereafter IO directed him to take Raj Kumar to Kamla Market, Office of the Crime Bureau for the preparation of the sketch of the suspects at the instance of Raj Kumar. He took Raj Kumar to the office of the crime bureau and Raj Kumar got prepared the sketch of the suspect. The officer of the crime bureau prepared the sketch of the suspects and they gave the photocopy of the sketch which he handed over to the IO.
8. PW-5 HC Vinod deposed that on 29.12.2014, he was posted at Special Staff South District, on that day at around 2:00 pm he along with SI Amit Kumar, ASI Mahender, HC Manoj, Ct. Naresh and Ct. Sonu, were present at Asian Market, Pushp Vihar in a Govt. vehicle and were patrolling. A secret informer met with SI Amit Kumar and informed him that three boys would come from Mehrauli to Madangiri on a motorcycle who are involved in the cases of chain snatching, if checked they could be apprehended. On this information, Sl Amit Kumar informed the Incharge Special Staff, who instructed him to take necessary action. Sl Amit Kumar requested 4-5 FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 5 of 20 Digitally signed TWINKLE by TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date: 2025.02.01 17:11:19 +0530 passerby to join the raiding party but nobody joined and left without disclosing their names and addresses. PW5 stated that a raiding party was prepared consisting of above said staff. SI Amit Kumar along with the staff and the secret informer put barricades on M B Road and started checking the vehicles. The Govt. gypsy was parked ahead of the barricades towards the Badarpur side. At around 2.40pm, three boys came on a motorcycle, the secret informer pointed out towards them and told that they were the same boys who are involved in the incident of chain snatching. They stopped the motorcycle and the driver of the motorcycle was apprehended by Sl Amit Kumar, who gave his name as Attar Singh. PW5 further deposed that the middle rider was apprehended by him who gave his name as Bharat @ Lucky and the pillion rider was apprehended by Ct. Sonu, who gave his name as Raj Kumar @ Raju. PW5 identified accused Raj Kumar @ Raju and Bharat Singh @ Lucky. He further deposed that on search of accused Raj Kumar @ Raju, 16 golden chain were recovered which were in broken condition and from Bharat Singh @ Lucky, 14 broken chain were recovered. The motorcycle was found stolen from Kalkaji area and the accused persons could not produce any documents.
9. PW5 further deposed that all the three accused persons disclosed that they had stolen the bike from the area of Kalkaji from the Nehru Place near the flyover and about the chains, both the accused persons disclosed that they had robbed these chains from different areas in Delhi. 1O SI Amit Kumar recorded disclosure statement of both accused persons regarding the robbery of the chains and the chains were separated in different small boxes. The same was converted into pulanda and one of the chain was found to be stolen from Karawal Nagar PS 20-25 days earlier. PW5 further stated that both accused persons disclosed that they along with their accomplishes Jot Singh and Pujari FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 6 of 20 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA Date:
WADHWA 2025.02.01 17:11:22 +0530 had robbed one person in the area of Johri Pur. The accused persons were got medically examined and thereafter they pointed out the place of incident. IO accordingly informed the officers of the PS Karawal Nagar. He can identify the golden chain of this case as disclosed by the accused persons. PW5 further stated that the disclosure statement of accused Raj Kumar is Ex. PW5/F and disclosure statement of accused Bharat Singh is Ex.PW5/G. The seizure memo of chains recovered from accused Bharat Singh is Ex. PW5/H and seizure memo of chains recovered from accused Raj Kumar is Ex. PW5/J.
10. In his cross-examination, PW5 deposed that he could not give physical description of any person who was asked by SI Amit Kumar to join the investigation. SI Amit Kumar had not taken any action against those persons who had refused to join the investigation. PW5 denied that SI Amit Kumar had not requested any public person to join the investigation. They had not given any information to the traffic police for placing barricades on the road. Vol. it was not required. PW5 affirmed that road in question remains usually crowded. PW5 further stated that he had not put any mark of identification on the gold chain recovered in this case. PW5 voluntarily deposed that the chain was seized and sealed, and on that basis he had identified it.
11. PW-6 SI Amit Kumar deposed that on 29.12.2014, he along with ASI Mahender, HC Manoj, Ct. Sonu, Ct. Naresh were patrolling in the area in a Govt. gypsy along with driver Ct. Lakhminder and at around 2pm he received a secret information that three snatchers / robbers would come from Chattar Pur Mehrauli and would go to Madangiri on motorcycle. The informer had told him that number of the bike as 3476. He shared this FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 7 of 20 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA Date: WADHWA 2025.02.01 17:11:25 +0530 information with Inspector Spl. Staff who directed him to apprehend the accused persons after putting barricades etc. He along with the above said staff put barricades on the M B Road and also parked the gypsy on the road ahead of the barricades. He asked 4-5 passerby to join the raiding party but nobody joined and left without disclosing their names and addresses. The secret informer was with him at the site of the road. PW6 further stated that around 2.40pm three boys on a motorcycle came from Mehrauli side, the secret informer pointed out towards those boys and pointed out those boys as snatcher. He gave signal of other staff and they apprehended the three boys on the motorcycle. The driver Attar Singh was apprehended by PW6. PW6 further deposed that Bharat @ Lucky present in the Court was apprehended by HC Vinod and Raj Kumar @ Raju was apprehended by Ct. Sonu. PW6 further stated that the front number plate of the bike was found broken and only 3SC was found written. The rear number plate was bearing no.DL-3SCN-3476 make Suzuki Hayte creme colour. PW6 identified accused Raj Kumar @ Raju in the Court. The motorcycle was found stolen from PS Kalkaji area. The number plates were got seized by PW6 in a white cloth pulanda and thereafter he sealed the same with the seal of AK.
12. PW6 further deposed that he searched all the three accused persons and from accused Bharat Singh @ Lucky 14 golden chain in broken condition were recovered. 16 broken chains were recovered from accused Raj Kumar @ Raju. PW6 prepared seizure memo of the motorcycle and thereafter prepared a rukka and got the case registered at PS Saket through Ct. Sonu. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Sonu and thereafter he prepared the site plan. After registration of the case Ct. Sonu came to the spot and handed over. copy of FIR and original rukka to PW6. PW6 arrested both the accused FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 8 of 20 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.01 17:11:28 +0530 persons and specifically pointed out about the each chain as to from where they had robbed it. PW6 prepared detailed disclosure statement of both the accused persons in the office of Special Staff. Disclosure statement of accused Raju is Ex. PW5/F and disclosure statement of accused Bharat @ Lucky is Ex. PW5/G. The seizure memo regarding recovery of chain from accused Raj Kumar is Ex. PW5/J and the seizure memo from accused Bharat @ Lucky is Ex. PW5/H. PW6 further stated that accused Raju disclosed that 25-30 days earlier he had robbed the chain along with accused Bharat along with Jot Singh and Pujari from PS Karawal Nagar, Johripur area in the morning time from one male. PW6 had prepared the site plan of the apprehension of the accused persons Ex. PW6/A at the spot itself. The accused persons had pointed out all the places of the recoveries after they were got medically examined. PW6 further stated that all the recovered chains were separately sealed in pulandas and the recovered chain of this case was also converted into a pulanda after putting the same in a plastic dibbi after sealing the same with the seal of AK after taking the seal from Ct. Sonu and again PW6 handed it over to Ct. Sonu. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. Next day PW6 informed the officials of PS Karawal Nagar regarding the recovery of the chain. IO of this case came and he handed over him the relevant documents. PW6 could identify the chain of this case as pointed out by accused Raju. PW6 further stated that the chain Ex.Pl is the same which accused Raju had disclosed to have robbed from Johripur, Karawal Nagar area.
13. In his cross-examination PW6 deposed that he had not taken any action against those persons who had refused to join the investigation. PW6 denied that he had not requested any public person to join the investigation.
FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 9 of 20 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.01 17:11:31 +0530 They had not given any information to the traffic police for placing barricades on the road. He had not put any mark of identification on the gold chain recovered in this case. Vol. the chain was seized, sealed and on that he had identified it.
14. PW7 Retd. ASI Bhuri Singh deposed that on 04.12.2014, he was posted at Karawal Nagar as ASI. On that day, he was on emergency duty and on receiving DD No. 12 B which is exhibited as Ex.PW7/A, he alongwith Ct. Sanjay went to Main Johripur Road, Ramabai Mohalla, Gali No. 3, Delhi where he met with complainant Raj Kumar. PW7 further stated that he recorded the statement of complainant (Ex.PW2/A) and prepared rukka (Ex.PW7/B). PW7 handed over the rukka to Ct. Sanjay for the registration of FIR and in the meantime, he prepared site plan Ex.PW7/C. Ct. Sanjay returned back and handed over to him the copy of FIR and rukka. PW7 made efforts to trace the accused persons but in vain. He sent complainant alongwith Ct. Sanjay to Crime Beauro Office, Kamla Market for preparing the sketch of the accused persons. He recorded supplementary statements of witnesses and returned back to the police station. He made efforts to trace the accused persons but in vain. PW7 further stated that on 30.12.2014, he received information vide DD No. 23A (Ex.PW7/D) regarding arrest of two accused persons namely Bharat Singh and Raj Kumar who had confessed regarding their involvement in the present case and a chain has been recovered which is the case property in the present case. He moved production warrant on 03.01.2015 against both the accused. On 05.01.2015, both accused persons were produced before the Court. He moved an application for interrogation and formal arrest of both the accused persons. The application was allowed and he recorded disclosure statements of both FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 10 of 20 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.01 17:11:35 +0530 the accused persons after interrogation (Ex.PW7/E and Ex.PW7/F). He arrested both of them and their arrest memos (Ex.PW7/G and Ex.PW7/H). Personal search of the accused persons were conducted vide memos Ex.PW7/I and Ex.PW7/J.
15. PW7 further stated that he moved an application for conducting TIP of both the accused persons, but both the accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. PW7 further deposed that copy of TIP proceedings is Ex.PW7/K. Both accused were sent to JC and on 16.01.2015, PW7 obtained one day PC remand of accused Raj Kumar. PW7 made efforts to apprehend other accused persons but in vain. On 12.02.2015, Ct. Upender collected the sealed case property from the Malkhana of PS Saket under his instruction, He returned back and handed over the sealed case property to him. The pullanda was sealed with the seal of "AK" and marked as Mark-B2. He took the pullanda in police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/L and deposited the same in Malkhana. On 19.02.2015, both the accused persons were produced in the Court during the JC. The complainant came in the Court and identified both the accused persons and PW7 recorded the statement of the complainant. PW7 further stated that on 20.02.2015, he went to Pushp Vihar Chowki and met with the Special Staff who where the recovery witnesses in the present case and recorded their statements. On 28.02.2015, TIP of the chain was conducted and the case property was correctly identified by the complainant. PW7 further stated that the TIP proceedings are running into 3 pages (Ex.PW7/M). PW7 had collected the copy of FIR, arrest memo, seizure memos and personal search memo and disclosure statement of both the accused persons in case FIR No.1018/14, PS Saket and placed the same on the file with respect to both accused persons.
FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 11 of 20
Digitally
signed by
TWINKLE
TWINKLE WADHWA
WADHWA Date:
2025.02.01
17:11:39
+0530
16. In his cross-examination, PW7 deposed that at the time of the incident, he was posted in the Police station, K.Nagar for the last 2 years. He could not find any CCTV footage pertaining to the incident. He had recorded statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. twice on 04.12.2014 at the place of incident and 19.02.2015 at Karkardooma Court. He had handed over Rukka to the Constable Sanjay on 04-12-2014 at 09:05 a.m. He had prepared site plan after sending Rukka at the place of incident on 04-12-2014. He had sent the complainant along with Ct. Sanjay for preparing Sketch of the accused persons. First statement of complainant was recorded at the place of the incident and second statement was recorded on the Karkardooma Court. PW7 had recorded confession statement of the accused persons on 05-01-2015 at Karkardoma Court. PW7 denied that accused had refused TIP as it was shown to the victim/witness. PW7 had not read the statement of the complainant given by him in the Court on 28-07-2015. PW7 did not know whether the complainant could not identify the accused persons in the Court. PW7 denied that he had informed the complainant about the accused persons and thereafter recorded his second statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 19-02-2015. He did not remember the FIR number of the case in which recovery was effected in P.S Saket. PW7 further stated that on 20-12-2014, he had made DD entry for Karkardooma Court and thereafter went to Pushp Vihar Police station. He had recorded disclosure statement of accused persons in Karkardooma Court on 05-01-2015. PW7 denied that accused are innocent or that this case was implanted on them. PW7 denied that accused persons have not committed the crime. PW7 had conducted all the investigation and made all the paper while sitting in police station. PW7 denied that accused are falsely implicated in this case.
FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 12 of 20 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA Date: WADHWA 2025.02.01 17:11:42 +0530
17. PW 8 HC Bhupender deposed that on 12.02.2015, he was posted as Constable at PS Karawal Nagar,on that day on the instruction of the IO he went to PS Saket and collected the sealed case property of the present case along with the sealed case property of one another FIR from the PS Saket vide RC No. 31/12/2015 (Ex.PW3/B). PW8 further stated that after collecting the same, he returned to PS Karawal Nagar and handed over the sealed pullandas to the IO. PW8 further deposed that till the sealed pullandas were in his possession, the sealed remain intact and no any type of tampering was done. PW8 identified road certificate (Ex. PW3/B), placed in the judicial file and identifies his signature.
18. In his cross-examination, PW8 deposed that he remained at PS Karawal Nagar from 2013 to 2017 and IO asked him to go to PS Saket. He had not made any DD Entry. PW8 did not remember the time when he left the police station. Vol. It was morning time. The road certificate was filled in his presence by MHC(M) PS Saket. He had not made any entry in this regard. PW8 denied that the pullanda was planted on the accused and accused persons were falsely implicated.
19. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. wherein he admitted TIP proceedings which was exhibited as Ex.A-1.
20. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he has denied his involvement and opted not to lead evidence.
C. Findings:-
21. The complainant has deposed before the Court as PW-2. In his statement before the Court, he stated that he can identify the pillion rider of FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 13 of 20 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA Date: WADHWA 2025.02.01 17:11:45 +0530 the scooter who robbed him of his articles, however, he submitted that none of the accused in the present case were the ones who had robbed him of his articles. In his deposition, he further stated that at the request of IO, he came to the Court in connection with TIP of the accused persons and he had told the IO after seeing accused persons from a distance that they appeared to be the same persons who had robbed him of his articles. But the accused persons in the Court are not the same persons who had robbed him of his articles.
22. As far as the incident of robbery is concerned, the only witness before the Court is complainant himself. There is no other eye witness produced before the Court who had seen the incident. There is no evidence before the Court to substantiate the case of prosecution that it was accused persons who have robbed the complainant by use of a deadly katta.
23. In the present case, the accused persons were arrested in PS Saket in some other case and some gold chains were recovered from them including the gold chain which was robbed from complainant in this case. This chain was correctly identified by complainant in TIP before Ld. MM. However, the recovery of chain is only a corroborative evidence and cannot replace primary evidence and cannot form basis for conviction under Section 392/397/34 of IPC.
24. The convictions must be based on evidence which is credible, trustworthy and directly links accused to the crime. When public witnesses become hostile, the primary evidence is weakened or nullified; corroborating evidence alone, without strong direct evidence, may not meet the legal threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Corroborating evidence refers to secondary or supportive evidence that confirms and strengthens the primary FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 14 of 20 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.01 17:11:49 +0530 evidence. It cannot replace the need of credible and direct evidence, specially when the primary testimony of a public witness becomes unreliable due to his turning hostile to the prosecution.
25. The Courts must scrutinize the reasons why witnesses turned hostile and then assess whether corroborating evidence can establish the guilt of accused or nor. If the corroborating evidence does not conclusively points towards the guilt of accused or only provides circumstantial support, it cannot form basis of conviction. Conviction must be based on reliable and convincing evidence which cannot be entirely inferred from corroborating evidence if the main evidence is unreliable.
26. There is no reason why complainant would turn hostile, he had no motive to falsely implicate the accused persons and he had no motive to turn hostile. May be the witness is speaking the truth i.e. after seeing them from distance, he had stated to the IO that they appeared to be the same persons who had robbed him. However, on a closer scrutiny in the Court, he deposed that they are not the persons who robbed him. It appears that the witness is speaking the truth. Nevertheless, according to his testimony, accused are not the same persons who robbed him.
27. Further, the police witnesses who are examined in this case are not the eye witnesses. They have only proved the investigation of the case and their testimonies are not a primary evidence which can be used for the purpose of conviction of accused for robbery.
28. In the circumstances, prosecution has failed to prove their case against accused persons for the offences under Section 392/397/34 of IPC and Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 15 of WADHWA Date: 20 2025.02.01 17:11:52 +0530 both accused persons are hereby acquitted for the said offences.
D Conviction under Section 411 IPC:
29. Section 411 IPC reads as under:-
411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property Whoever dishonestly receives 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 which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
30. A bare reading of the above section would show that mere possession of stolen property is not and cannot be an offence. A necessary ingredient of this section is that accused received stolen property with the requisite intention. Accused could receive stolen property if there was some one other than him to offer it. The property should be stolen before accused received it. The accused should have received the property knowing or having reason to believe that it was stolen property.
31. It has been repeatedly held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that to be liable under section 411 of IPC, it must be proved that the accused either dishonestly received the property or having received honestly, dishonestly retained it. The mere recovery of stolen properties is not an offence under section 411 IPC.
32. To hold a person liable for an offence under section 411 IPC, it is mandatory to prove that the stolen property was in his exclusive possession and possession was not joint. Hence, Karta of a joint hindu family though he is presumed to be in possession of entire family property, could not be held criminally liable for the stolen goods brought into the house by other Digitally signed by TWINKLE FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 16 ofWADHWA TWINKLE 20 WADHWA Date:2025.02.01 17:11:56 +0530 neighbours of the family. Similarly, where recovery of stolen property is effected from a household where both husband and wife are residing, the recovery cannot be said to be in exclusive possession of wife only because she is house-wife and remains at home.
33. Further, mere recording of confession of accused along with recovery is not sufficient to presume that the accused had received the property with dishonest intention. Something more has to be proved to show that stolen property was knowingly received or retained by accused.
34. While dealing with an offence under section 411 IPC, the Court is only concerned with the property which has been recovered and it is in respect of this property only that the accused is said to have committed the offence. The Court is not concerned with rest of the property which has not been recovered.
35. Further, mere failure of accused to explain how he came to know about the place of concealment of the ornaments, will not justify drawing adverse inference against him on the question of possession. Such knowledge, however, may be inferred from its unusual character, bulk or quantity or such other facts showing that the property could not remain in the house without the knowledge of the accused. The place of recovery must be in the exclusive control of accused and accused must have exclusive dominion over stolen property.
36. The burden of proof is on prosecution to prove guilt of the accused and there is no general exception to this rule. However, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove from where did the accused receive the FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 17 of 20 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.01 17:11:59 +0530 stolen property or the time when he received it. The prosecution only needs to prove that the property is the stolen property and accused dishonestly retained it knowingly or received it having reason to believe that this is the stolen property. Dishonesty must be inferred from the circumstances of each case. The circumstances must be such to justify an inference that the receiving or retention of the property was dishonest, it is a question of fact which prosecution must prove.
37. The existence of knowledge of accused about the stolen property can seldom be affirmatively proved by positive evidence. Hence, it has to be inferred generally from the recent possession of accused persons of the same or from inferences derived from the circumstances of the case where it is difficult to exclude the fact of knowledge.
38. According to section 101 of Evidence Act, whoever desires the Court to given any judgment as to any legal right based on the existence of certain facts which he asserts, the burden is on such person to prove that those facts exists. The illustration (a) to Section 114 of Evidence Act comes as an aid to the prosecution to discharge that burden. The illustration states that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the stolen goods knowingly unless he can account for his possession. Under this illustration, before a presumption could be drawn against the accused persons, he has to be asked to account for his possession.
39. Coming to the facts of the present case, as there was recovery from accused persons after their arrest, hence, a separate charge under Section 411 of IPC was framed against both accused persons. However, perusal of the disclosure statements of the accused persons alongwith recovery memo FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 18 of 20 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.01 17:12:03 +0530 Ex.PW5/J would show that the gold chain in this case was recovered from accused Raj Kumar. This chain has been duly identified by complainant in his TIP. However, as per the disclosure of both the accused, there was a third accused also but he could not be apprehended.
40. In the present case, on the arrest of accused Rajkumar by the police officials of PS Saket, more than 16 broken chains were recovered from him which is a suspicious circumstance. Possession of multiple gold chains by accused Rajkumar which he had failed to explain, raises a presumption against him of dishonest intention. Not only that, Rajkumar was arrested with other co-accused persons who were also found in possession of multiple broken gold chains which they also could not explain. Hence, the manner of arrest of accused Rajkumar along with other co-accused and recovery of multiple gold chain from him which he could not account for, shows that he had either dishonestly received these articles or dishonestly retained stolen articles.
41. The circumstances warrant an unavoidable compulsive conclusion regarding the dishonest receiving or retaining of stolen articles i.e. gold chain in this case by accused Rajkumar. After the initial burden of proving their case was discharged by prosecution, the onus shifted to the accused to explain the recovery of gold chain from him. However, he did not offer any such explanation except bare denial in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He could not explain the reason of recovery of such chains from him except that this case is falsely planted on him. The testimony of police witnesses cannot be discarded altogether only because they were in uniform. There is no motive on the part of these police officials to falsely FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 19 of 20 Digitally signed by TWINKLE WADHWA TWINKLE Date:
WADHWA 2025.02.01
17:12:07
+0530
implicate him nor any such contention has been made nor stated in Section 313 Cr.P.C. whereby imputing any motive on police officials for falsely implicating him in this case.
42. Further, by way of the testimony of police witnesses of PS Saket it is specifically established that the chain has been recovered on the personal search of accused Rajkumar and the chain was in his exclusive possession.
These witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination and there is nothing in their testimony to come to the conclusion that they are not deposing the truth. Hence Rajkumar is convicted under Section 411 IPC.
D. Conclusion:-
43. In view of above discussions, accused Rajkumar is hereby convicted under Section 411 IPC and acquitted for the offences under Sections 392/397/34 IPC.
44. Accused Bharat Singh is acquitted for the offences under Sections 392/397/34 IPC.
Digitally signed byAnnounced in Open Court TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA
as on 01.02.2025 WADHWA Date: 2025.02.01
17:12:11 +0530
( Twinkle Wadhwa )
Additional Session Judge-02
North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 1105/2014 State Vs. Bharat Singh @ Lucky and another page 20 of 20