Delhi District Court
State vs . Yash on 21 October, 2019
CNR No. DLCT020195362019
IN THE COURT OF SH. KAPIL KUMAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT0201953619
CIS No. 10038/19
State Vs. Yash
DD No. 71A dated 08.02.19
PS. Nabi Karim
U/s. 356/379 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 08.02.2019
2) The name of the complainant : Shekh Maksood Alam
3) The name & parentage of accused : Yash S/o. Sanjay R/o. L200, Laxman Puri, Nabi Karim, Delhi.
4) Offence complained of : 356/379 IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Convicted
7) The date of such order : 21.10.2019
Date of Institution : 21.02.2019
Judgment reserved on : 21.10.2019
Judgment announced on : 21.10.2019
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1) The case of prosecution against the accused is that on 08.02.19, at
about 5.20 PM, near Bloom Room Hotel, Ara Kasan Road, he used criminal CIS No. 10038/19, State Vs. Yash, DD No. 71A dated 08.02.19, PS. Nabi Karim, U/s. 356/379 IPC 1/5 CNR No. DLCT020195362019 force while snatching the mobile phone, make Samsung J7, from the possession of the complainant Sheikh Maqsood Alam and took the same dishonestly from the possession of the complainant without his consent. The accused was apprehended by the complainant at the spot only.
2) After completion of investigation, the report was filed before JJB. However, during the trial the accused was declared major for the present offence and thus the record was transferred to this court. In compliance of Sec. 207 Cr.PC, documents supplied to the accused. Arguments on point of charge were heard. Vide order dated 20.08.19, a charge u/s. 356/379 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its case, prosecution has examined two witnesses. The first is the complainant and the second is the investigating officer. Statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 (1) Cr.PC, in which he denied all the allegations and did not wish to lead DE.
4) I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. LAC for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
5) It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but the golden rule of the criminal jurisprudence is that the case of prosecution has to stand on its own legs.
6) The star witness of the present case is the complainant Sheikh CIS No. 10038/19, State Vs. Yash, DD No. 71A dated 08.02.19, PS. Nabi Karim, U/s. 356/379 IPC 2/5 CNR No. DLCT020195362019 Maksood Alam examined as PW1 by the prosecution. The testimony of PW1 is required to be appreciated carefully to see as to whether the prosecution is able to discharge its burden of proof or not.
7) PW1 deposed that on 08.02.19, at about 5.25 PM, he alongwith his brother in law came to Ara Kasan Road and were walking in front of Bloom Room Hotel. He deposed that one boy came and snatched his mobile phone Samsung J7 from his right hand and started running towards Ara Kasan Road. He deposed that he chased that boy and apprehended him. He deposed that his mobile phone was recovered from the hand of that boy who disclosed his name as Yash (accused). PW1 correctly identified the accused. PW1 further deposed that he took the accused to the police station. He deposed that his complaint Ex.PW1/A was recorded and his mobile phone was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He idenfied the mobile phone in the court as Ex.P1.
8) Perusal of examination in chief of PW1 reveals that he supported the case of the prosecution in all aspects. He deposed on the lines of initial complaint and correctly identified the accused. He was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing came on record which could be suggestive of the false implication of the accused. The manner in which PW1 deposed about the incident does instill the faith of this court.
9) Ld. Defence Counsel vehemently argued that the bill of the mobile phone in question was not given to the IO by the complainant and it is not proved on record as to whether the complainant was the owner of that mobile phone. This submission has not merits as for the offence u/s.356/379 CIS No. 10038/19, State Vs. Yash, DD No. 71A dated 08.02.19, PS. Nabi Karim, U/s. 356/379 IPC 3/5 CNR No. DLCT020195362019 IPC the relevant fact is the possession of the complainant over a moveable property and not the ownership over that property. It is not creating any difference that the bill of the mobile phone was not given to the IO when the possession of the complainant over the mobile phone in question at the time of the incident is proved on record.
10) It is argued that there is no independent public witness in the present case and this creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. PW1 deposed in the cross examination that public persons were present at the spot but no one came forward to help him. This reply of the witness to the question of Ld. Defence Counsel in the cross examination shows the practical reality of the society. No one want to indulge in the matter related to the police. The fact that there is no independent witness in the present case is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
11) It is well settled law that the quality of evidence is material not the quantity of evidence. In judgment titled as "Chittra Lal Vs.State of Rajasthan (2003) 6 SCC 397" the Hon'ble Apex Court that the plurality of the witnesses is not material and there is no impediment to convict the accused if the testimony of sole witness is reliable. In the judgment titled as "Bhimappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2006) 11 SCC 323" it was held that the testimony of solitary witness can be made the basis of conviction. Accordingly, the absence of independent public witness is not affecting the case of prosecution.
12) It was argued that no call at 100 number was made by the complainant which is a normal conduct of any person. The conduct of a CIS No. 10038/19, State Vs. Yash, DD No. 71A dated 08.02.19, PS. Nabi Karim, U/s. 356/379 IPC 4/5 CNR No. DLCT020195362019 person cannot be generalized. On this aspect complainant deposed that since he himself took the accused to the police station and as such he had not made a call at 100 number. The explanation of the witness is credible as since the complainant took the accused to the police station there was no point in making a call at 100 number.
13) There is nothing on record as to previous enmity between the parties. The accused and complainant were not known to each other. Complainant is a resident of Bihar. There was no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused. The testimony of IO/PW2 and the documents prepared during the investigation gives corroboration to the testimony of the complainant.
14) In view of the above discussion, it is proved on record that the accused snatched the mobile phone of the complainant on 08.02.19 in front of Bloomroom Hotel, Ara Kasan Road and committed theft of that mobile phone. All the ingredients of the offences u/s. 356/379 IPC proved on record against the accused and the accused is convicted accordingly.
The copy of the judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost. Be heard on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed KAPIL by KAPIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2019.10.21
15:36:19 +0530
Announced in open court (Kapil Kumar)
on 21.10.2019 MM5/Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi,
CIS No. 10038/19, State Vs. Yash, DD No. 71A dated 08.02.19, PS. Nabi Karim, U/s. 356/379 IPC 5/5