Delhi District Court
State vs . Sangeeta @ Savita on 8 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANKALP KAPOOR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-06, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLSW020473602022
CNR No. DLSW020473602022
Case No.10001/2022
FIR No.155/2022
PS: Dwarka North
U/S: 356/379/34 IPC and 411 IPC
State Vs. Sangeeta @ Savita
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. no. of the case : 10001/2022
B. Date of institution : 17.08.2022
C. Date of offence : 01.03.2022
D. Name of the complainant : Aarti W/o Vikas Kumar
R/o Flat no.570, Sharvhit Apartment
Sector-17, Dwarka, New Delhi.
E. Name of the accused : Sangeeta @ Savita s/o Rohit
R/o Plot no. 60 Nyadar Enclave, Deep
Enclave, Vikash Nagar, Uttam Nagar,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
F. Offence complained of : 356/379/34 IPC and 411 IPC
FIR No.155/2022 State vs. Sangeeta @ Savita Page No.1 of 10
G. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
H. Final order : Acquittal
I. Date of such order : 08.05.2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the above mentioned case filed by the State against the accused namely Sangeeta @ Savita w/o Rohit.
2. Factual Matrix: Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 01.03.2022, the complainant Ms. Arti was performing her prayers in the Shiv Mandir, Kakrola Housing Complex, when her mangalsutra was snatched by one lady by using criminal force. As such, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 356/379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") and as the mangalsutra was recovered from the accused Sangeeta @ Savita she was also charge-sheeted under Section 411 IPC.
3. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed on 16.08.2022. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.
4. Appearance of accused and chain of subsequent events: The accused entered her appearance in the present case on 15.09.2022. On her appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to her in terms of Section FIR No.155/2022 State vs. Sangeeta @ Savita Page No.2 of 10 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter "CrPC").
5. Framing of Charge: The court framed charge against the accused persons pursuant to arguments being advanced on the point of consideration thereof on 08.12.2022. The court observed that prima facie offences under sections 356/379/411 IPC were committed by the accused namely Savita @ Sangeeta. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused and after being satisfied that the accused comprehended the same, the court recorded her plea.
6. The accused vide her statement dated 29.03.2023 admitted the FIR bearing number 155/2022 dated 01.03.2022 and section 65B certificate of the Indian Evidence Act. In light of the said statement of accused PW at serial number 02 was dropped from the list of witnesses.
7. Plea of the accused: The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Evidence adduced by the prosecution: The State called and examined the complainant Ms. Arti Singh and IO/ SI Jeet Ram as witnesses to corroborate the story put forth.
9. Testimony of PW-1, Ms. Arti Singh (complainant): In her examination-in-chief, the said witness testified that on the date of incident in the year 2022 she was offering prayers in the Shiv Mandir, Kakrola housing complex and was offering water to the Shivling when her mangalsutra was snatched by one lady. She further deposed that there were many ladies in the mandir at that time. She further deposed that the alleged snatcher was caught FIR No.155/2022 State vs. Sangeeta @ Savita Page No.3 of 10 hold by the other ladies along-with the mangalsutra of the complainant. She further deposed that a call at number 100 was made by the priest whereupon the police reached at the spot and thereafter they went to the PS. PW-1 further deposed that her statement was recorded at the PS. She further deposed that the accused was arrested in her presence, her disclosure statement was also recorded in her presence and the seizure memo of the mangalsutra was also prepared in her presence. The witness correctly identified her mangalsutra in the court. The witness failed to identify the accused in the court.
As the witness had resiled from her previous statement qua the identification of the accused, the Ld. APP for the State, after due permission from the Court sought to cross-examine the PW after declaring her hostile. In her cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State the PW-1 upon being shown the accused failed to identify her in the Court. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that she had been won over by the accused outside the Court and intentionally not identifying her. PW-1 lastly denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely as she had settled the matter with the accused, outside the Court. PW-1 lastly denied the suggestion that she has concocted a story to save the accused from the implication of the present case.
PW-1 was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite of an opportunity being given.
10. Testimony of PW-2, SI Jeet Ram (IO of the case): PW-2 deposed that it was Shiv Ratri on the date of incident and he was posted as an SI at PS Dwarka North. He further deposed that on that day he received a call from the complainant that she had apprehended the accused. PW-1 correctly FIR No.155/2022 State vs. Sangeeta @ Savita Page No.4 of 10 identified the accused in the court. The witness was also allowed permission to refresh his memory. After refreshing his memory, he further deposed that the incident is of 01.03.2022 and on that day he received DD number 56A regarding the snatching of mangalsutra. He further deposed that he along- with W/Ct Dhanwanti and HC Rajneesh reached the spot at about 2:45 PM and after reaching the spot they met the complainant who had apprehended the accused with the mangalsutra and handed over her to the IO and his team. He further deposed that the complainant also gave a written complaint at the spot itself, whereupon the IO prepared the rukka and sent HC Rajneesh for registration of FIR. He further deposed that HC Rajneesh left the spot at about 03:30 PM and came back there at about 4:30 PM with the copy of FIR and original rukka. He further deposed that he made an endorsement on the rukka. He further deposed that the site plan was prepared by him at the instance of the complainant, and the accused was also arrested at about 3:30 PM and her personal search was conducted. He further deposed that the disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded and seizure memo of the mangalsutra was prepared in presence of W/Ct. Dhanwanti and HC Rajneesh. PW-2 further deposed that thereafter the accused was taken for her medical at DDU Hospital. PW-2 further deposed that the photographs of the case property i.e., mangalsutra were also taken. He lastly deposed in his chief examination that he recorded the statements of the witnesses and filed the charge-sheet before the court.
In his cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel PW-2 deposed that he reached the spot at about 03:30 PM and when he reached there, public persons were gathered at the spot. He further deposed that there was no CCTV camera installed at the spot which he had checked on the next day FIR No.155/2022 State vs. Sangeeta @ Savita Page No.5 of 10 of the incident. PW-2 denied the suggestion that there is no CCTV camera in the locality. He denied the suggestion that he did not carry out the investigation in fair and proper manner. PW-2 further deposed that he had not joined the public persons in the investigation as they all refused citing their personal difficulties. PW-2 further deposed that he had not given any notice u/s 179 IPC to the public persons. PW-2 accepted as correct the suggestion that the mangalsutra was handed over to him by the complainant. He lastly denied suggestion as to false deposition.
11. The prosecution had cited a total of 06 witnesses in the present matter, out of which the complainant was the only eye-witness of the incident. Furthermore, the role of PW W/Ct Dhanwanti and HC Rajneesh were covered in the testimony of PW-2 and hence they were not summoned before the court being a repeat witness. Accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed vide separate order, keeping in view the submissions of the Ld. APP. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for statement of accused.
12. Statement of accused: The accused in her defence stated that she had been falsely accused in the instant case. The accused chose not to lead Defence evidence. Hence, DE stood closed.
13. Final arguments: I have heard Sh. Pankaj Gulia, Ld. APP for the State and Sh. N.K.Tiwari, Ld. counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that the evidence of hostile witness can be read on material points and it can be used to prove the offences charged against the accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused be FIR No.155/2022 State vs. Sangeeta @ Savita Page No.6 of 10 punished for the said offences.
Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. counsel has argued that the complainant has turned hostile qua the identity of the accused and despite reading her evidence as a whole, nothing has come on record against the accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offences.
14. Ingredients of the offence: The charges against the accused are under Section 356/379/411 IPC, which remain for adjudication by this court. For offence under Section 356 IPC, it has to be proved that the accused had assaulted or used criminal force upon the victim while attempting to commit theft of the property or worn by the victim. Furthermore, for the offence under Section 379 IPC, it has to be proved that the accused persons dishonestly moved the case property, out of the possession of the complainant without the consent of the complainant. Lastly for the offence under Section 411 IPC it is to be established by the prosecution that the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused, which he/she had dishonestly retained knowing fully well that the same is a stolen property.
Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
FIR No.155/2022 State vs. Sangeeta @ Savita Page No.7 of 10
15. Hostile Witness: The main witness of the prosecution has turned hostile in the present case. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses is not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in omnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witnesses, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under:-
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
Therefore, it has to be seen if the evidence of such hostile witness can be relied in part. Since, the only offences to be adjudicated in the present matter is that of Section 356/379/411 IPC, the identity of the accused assumes significance. In the present case, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to help the prosecution. The said eye-witness/ complainant of the incident has failed to identify the accused from the dock. The identification from the dock is a substantial piece of evidence. Further, apart from the fact that the incident took place on while she was praying in Shiv mandir and a lady had snatched her mangalsutra, the complainant has not FIR No.155/2022 State vs. Sangeeta @ Savita Page No.8 of 10 deposed about any fact which could have linked the accused with the commission of the offence under Section 356/379 IPC. Therefore, there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. No other public witness of the incident has been cited other than the complainant and there is no other circumstance to point towards the guilt of the accused. The complainant has failed to identify the accused in the dock.
Furthermore, what needs to be appreciated is that in addition to the above non-identification of accused in the court, there are several other inconsistencies in the prosecution case which have not been explained by the prosecution. Firstly, the complainant in her examination deposed that the priest of the temple had made a call at number 100 however; the PW-2/ IO deposed that the complainant herself had made a call at the 100 number. The IO did not cite the priest or caller in the list of witnesses. Secondly, both the witnesses in their deposition had stated that there were public persons at the spot however none was joined by the IO in the investigation for the reasons best known to him. Thirdly, the IO/PW-2 stated that HC Rajneesh after getting the FIR registered got back at the spot at 04:30 PM and provided to the IO the copy of FIR but it is pertinent to mention herein that the arrest memo of the accused which is admittedly prepared at 03:30 PM also has the details of the FIR mentioned. Fourthly, qua the offence under Section 411 IPC the basis and most important ingredient is that the recovery of stolen property should have been made from the possession of the accused herself however; PW-2 has clearly in his cross-examination deposed that the mangalsutra i.e., the case property was handed over to him by the complainant and thereafter it was seized by him. The said deposition by the FIR No.155/2022 State vs. Sangeeta @ Savita Page No.9 of 10 IO raises several questions regarding the authenticity of the seizure memo which has been prepared by the IO.
Thus, even if the evidence of the hostile witness is considered partly, there is nothing to implicate the accused. As such, none of the essential ingredients of the offence stands fulfilled in the present case.
16. Ratio: To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution was required to prove the offences under Section 356/379/411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The star witness of the prosecution i.e., the complainant has turned hostile qua the identity of the accused. Furthermore, as discussed hereinabove there is no evidence to link the accused with the crime charged against her. Further, the ingredients of the offence are not fulfilled from the material on record.
17. Resultantly, the accused Sangeeta @ Savita is hereby found not guilty. She is hereby ACQUITTED of the offence under Section 356/379/411 IPC.
18. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court Digitally signed today i.e. on 08th May, 2023. SANKALP by SANKALP KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2023.05.08 16:55:08 +0530 (Sankalp Kapoor) Metropolitan Magistrate-06 South West/Dwarka Court/New Delhi FIR No.155/2022 State vs. Sangeeta @ Savita Page No.10 of 10