Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Afzal@Afjal on 12 June, 2025
THE COURT OF SH. UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE v. MOHD. AFZAL @ AFJAL
FIR No. -: 254/2023
Police Station -: Madhu Vihar
Section(s) -: 356/379 IPC
Cr. Case No. -: 7099/2023
1. CIS number : DLSH020135462023
2. Name of the complainant : Briham Dev Dixit
S/o Sh. Gopal Prashad Dixit
R/o H.No. C-17C, 3rd floor, near
Tarawati Hospital, Mandawali, Delhi.
3. Name of the accused, : Mohd. Afzal @ Afjal
parentage & residential S/o Sh. Salauddin R/o H.No. 25, Haji
address Jamil ka makan, Village Maharajpur,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP.
4. Offence complained of or : 356/379/34 IPC
proved
5. Date of commission of : 11.06.2023
offence
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
7. Final Judgment : Acquittal
8. Date of judgment/order : 12.06.2025
Date of Institution: 30.11.2023
Date of Reserving Judgment: 12.06.2025
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment: 12.06.2025
Duration: 1 year 6 months
12 days
Argued by: Sh. Kapil Sharma, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Ld. Counsel for accused
persons. Udbhav Digitally
by Udbhav
signed
Kumar Jain
Kumar Date:
Jain 2025.06.12
16:26:26 +0530
FIR No. 254/2023 State vs. Mohd. Afzal @ Afjal Page no. 1 of 10
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 11.06.2023 at about 10.00 PM near Associate Apartment, IP Extension, Delhi, two persons came on a scooty and snatched mobile phone make Redmi Note 9 Pro, colour light blue belonging to the complainant namely Briham Dev Dixit. As such, it is alleged that the accused persons committed the offence under sections 356/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") for which FIR No. 254/2023 was registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of FIR, the investigating officer (hereinafter 'IO') conducted investigation and during investigation, one person namely Mohd. Afzal @ Afzal who was arrested in some other matter, disclosed his involvement in the present matter. On culmination of the investigation, chargesheet against the present accused namely Mohd. Afzal @ Afjal for the alleged commission of offences u/s 356/379/34 IPC was filed. This Court took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 30.11.2023 and on the same day accused was produced before the court and he was supplied the copy of documents relied upon in the charge sheet in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC").
3. Since prima facie offences against the accused were made out, this Court vide order dated 11.03.2024 framed charge against accused for the offence punishable u/s 356/379/34 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and Digitally signed claimed trial. Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
2025.06.12 Jain 16:26:33 +0530 FIR No. 254/2023 State vs. Mohd. Afzal @ Afjal Page no. 2 of 10 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 Ct. Suresh PW2 Ct. Dinesh PW3 SI Padam Singh DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Arrest memo of accused Ex.PW1/B Disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW1/C Supplementary disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW3/A Statement of complainant Ex.PW3/B Tehrir Ex.PW3/C Site plan Ex.PW3/D TIP proceedings Ex.PW3/E Application for PC remand of accused ADMITTED DOCUMENTS u/s 294 Cr.P.C.Ex. P1 FIR No. 254/2023
Ex. P2 Certificate u/s 65B I.E. Act. Ex. P3 DD No. 79A dated 11.06.2023
5. Ct. Suresh (PW1) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 03.07.2023, he was posted as Constable at PS Madhu Vihar. On that day, while patrolling the area along with HC Sumit, they reached near the MCD Parking where they met a secret informer. The informer disclosed that two persons, who were involved in a snatching incident two to three days ago at Ashirwad Apartment and had snatched a mobile phone, were currently Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav FIR No. 254/2023 State vs. Mohd. Afzal @ AfjalKumar Kumar Jain Page no. 3 of 10 Date:
Jain 2025.06.12 16:26:40 +0530 roaming near Metro Station I.P. Extension with the intention of committing another snatching. Upon receiving this information, HC Sumit informed the SHO, PS Madhu Vihar, who directed him to conduct a raid. HC Sumit requested two to three public persons to join the raiding party, but all of them refused, citing personal reasons, and left without providing their names and addresses. Due to a paucity of time, no written notice could be issued to them. Thereafter, HC Sumit formed a raiding team including the constable, and they waited for the suspects along with the secret informer. After some time, two persons were seen coming from the direction of MAX Hospital. The secret informer signalled towards them and confirmed that they were the same individuals who had committed the snatching near Ashirwad Apartment. The informer then left the spot. When the suspects reached near Metro Station I.P. Extension, both were apprehended with the help of HC Sumit. Upon inquiry, they disclosed their names as Mohd. Afzal and Mohd. Usman. The mobile phone snatched in FIR No. 305/2023 was recovered from the possession of accused Afzal. Thereafter, both accused persons, along with the case property, were taken to the police station. Upon sustained interrogation, accused Afzal confessed that he had snatched a mobile phone (make Redmi Note Pro) near Balko Market from an individual. He stated that Prashant was driving the scooty while he was seated on the back and committed the snatching. HC Sumit informed ASI Padam Singh regarding the disclosure made by the accused. ASI Padam Singh then joined the investigation of the FIR along with the constable. ASI Padam Singh arrested accused Mohd. Afzal vide arrest memo exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A, bearing the constable's signature at point A. The IO also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, Ex.PW-1/B, and the supplementary disclosure statement, Ex.PW-1/C, both bearing the constable's signature Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 254/2023 State vs. Mohd. Afzal @ Afjal Digitally signed by Page no. 4 of 10 Udbhav Kumar Jain Date: 2025.06.12 16:26:46 +0530 at point A. Subsequently, the IO recorded the constable's statement in this regard.
5.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, witness denied the suggestions that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused, that he never went to the spot or joined the investigation, that the disclosure statement was recorded voluntarily by the accused, or that he was deposing falsely being a police witness and at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
6. Ct. Dinesh (PW2) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on the night of 11/12.06.2023, he was posted as Constable at PS Madhu Vihar and was on night emergency duty along with ASI Padam Singh. At around 10:00 p.m., ASI Padam Singh received GD No. 79A regarding the snatching of a mobile phone near Associate Apartment, I.P. Extension. Upon receipt of the said GD, he accompanied the Investigating Officer (IO) to the spot. Upon reaching the location, they met the complainant, Briham Dev, who narrated the entire incident to the IO. Thereafter, the IO recorded the complainant's statement and prepared a tehrir, which was handed over to the constable for registration of the FIR. He then went to the police station along with the tehrir and handed it over to the Duty Officer, PS Madhu Vihar. After the registration of the FIR, he returned to the spot with the original tehrir and a copy of the FIR, and handed them over to ASI Padam Singh. Subsequently, the IO searched for the accused persons and also checked CCTV cameras near the incident site; however, there were no cameras covering the location of the incident. The IO then prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, Briham Dev. Thereafter, the constable, along with the IO and the complainant, returned to the police Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 254/2023 State vs. Mohd. Afzal @ AfjalDigitally signed by Page no. 5 of 10 Udbhav Kumar Jain Date: 2025.06.12 16:26:53 +0530 station. The IO recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant and also recorded the constable's statement in this regard.
6.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, witness denied the suggestions that he never went to the spot or joined the investigation of the case and further denied that he was deposing falsely as a police witness or at the instance of the IO.
7. SI Padam Singh (PW3) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on the night of 11/12.06.2023, he was posted as ASI at PS Madhu Vihar and was on night emergency duty along with Constable Dinesh. At around 10:00 p.m., he received GD No. 79A regarding the snatching of a mobile phone near Associate Apartment, in front of Pankaj Plaza. Upon receipt of the said GD, he, along with Ct. Dinesh, proceeded to the spot. Upon reaching there, they met the complainant, Briham Dev, who informed him about the incident of mobile phone snatching committed by two persons riding a scooty. He then recorded the statement of the complainant as Ex.PW- 3/A bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he prepared the tehrir, Ex.PW-3/B bearing his signature at point A, and handed it over to Ct. Dinesh for registration of the FIR. After some time, Ct. Dinesh returned to the spot and handed over to him the copy of the FIR along with the original tehrir. He prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, as Ex.PW-3/C bearing his signature at point A. He also searched for the accused persons near the spot and checked the CCTV cameras in the area, but no clues could be found. Thereafter, he, along with the complainant and Ct. Dinesh, returned to the police station. He recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant and the statement of Ct. Dinesh under Section 161 CrPC. Subsequently, on 03.07.2023, HC Sumit informed him about the disclosure made by accused Mohd. Afzal Digitally FIR No. 254/2023 State vs. Mohd. Afzal @ Afjal Udbhav signed Udbhav by Page no. 6 of 10 Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
Jain 2025.06.12
16:27:00
+0530
regarding his involvement in this FIR. He then interrogated the accused Mohd. Afzal at PS Madhu Vihar, during which the accused disclosed his role in the case. He requested Ct. Suresh to join the investigation and arrested the accused Mohd. Afzal vide arrest memo already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A bearing his signature at point A. He also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Afzal, already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/B bearing his signature at point B, and his supplementary disclosure statement, already marked as Ex.PW-1/C bearing his signature at point B. On the same day, he applied for TIP (Test Identification Parade) of the accused through the complainant, but the accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. The TIP proceedings were Ex.PW-3/D. He also applied for one-day police custody remand of the accused vide application Ex.PW-3/E bearing his signature at point A. He further searched for co-accused Prashant and the remaining case property but was unable to find any clue. On the same day, the complainant came to the police station to enquire about the case status and, upon seeing the accused, stated that he was the same person who had snatched his mobile phone along with his associate. He then recorded the statements of witnesses and, upon completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet before the court.
7.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, witness denied all the suggestions that he never visited the spot, did not join the investigation, or recorded the disclosure statements at his own will. He also denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the accused based on a fabricated disclosure and that he was deposing falsely as a police witness and as the Digitally Investigating Officer in the case. signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
Jain 2025.06.12
16:27:06
+0530
FIR No. 254/2023 State vs. Mohd. Afzal @ Afjal Page no. 7 of 10
8. Complainant remained unserved in the present matter despite steps taken through DCP concerned and he was dropped from the list of witnesses. Since PW1 to PW3 were already examined and formal documents by virtue of Section 294 CrPC were already admitted, prosecution evidence was closed on 25.04.2025 by relying upon a Division Bench Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Govind & Ors. vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104 (2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that: -
"...In cases where the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak for there is no prospect of the case and again conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion of a future date."
STATEMENT AND DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
9. Since no incriminating evidence was brought forth by the prosecution, recording of statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with and right to lead DE was also closed.
ARGUMENTS
10. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. LAC for the accused. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material available on record.
POINT OF DETERMINATION
11. After going through the record and considering the material available on record, the only point of determination that is left is whether the prosecution in the absence of material witness can substantiate its case and prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
12. The general burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points Digitally signed by FIR No. 254/2023 Udbhav Udbhav State vs. Mohd. Afzal @ Afjal Kumar JainPage no. 8 of 10 Kumar Date:
Jain 2025.06.12 16:27:12 +0530 towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
13. The complainant/eyewitness failed to appear before the Court even after steps taken through DCP and he was dropped from the list of witnesses. In the absence of complainant/eyewitness, identification of accused, commission of offence and his presence on the spot remains doubtful. It is not the case that the alleged offence was committed behind closed doors, and it is highly unlikely that not even a single person saw the alleged commission of offence. Other witnesses who were dropped were also not present on the spot on the date of alleged offence. No public witness was called to support the case of prosecution. Therefore, non-appearance of complainant/eyewitness and absence of any public witness are factors which makes the story of prosecution unbelievable.
14. Further, PW-1 to PW-3 are the witnesses subsequent to the alleged incident/offence and none of them saw the alleged commission of offence. As such, even if all the other prosecution witness cited in the list of witnesses were to be examined, the case of the prosecution could not be proved.
15. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L. Goswami (Dr) v. State of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC 22 that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution. The same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in Nanjundappa & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine SC 628. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not discharge the onus of proving the Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
2025.06.12 Jain 16:27:17 +0530 FIR No. 254/2023 State vs. Mohd. Afzal @ Afjal Page no. 9 of 10 ingredients of offence as the complainant/material witness turned hostile. Thus, accused Mohd. Afzal @ Afjal is entitled to benefit of doubt.
CONCLUSION
16. In view of the above discussion, the accused Mohd. Afzal @ Afjal is hereby found not guilty. Accordingly, accused Mohd. Afzal @ Afjal is hereby acquitted of the offences under section 356/379/34 IPC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court today i.e., 12.06.2025.
Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav
Kumar Jain
Kumar Date:
2025.06.12
Jain 16:27:22
+0530
(UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN)
JMFC-04:SHD:KKD
This judgment contains 10 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
FIR No. 254/2023 State vs. Mohd. Afzal @ Afjal Page no. 10 of 10