Delhi District Court
State vs Gopal Krishan on 15 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI BENIWAL, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-11, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
FIR No.503/2022
PS Janakpuri
Under Section 356/379/411 IPC
State Vs. Gopal Krishan
CNR No. : DLSW-020062002023
Crl. Case No. : 1162/2023
Date of institution of the case : 27.01.2023
Date of commission of offence : 08.09.022
Name of the complainant : Rita
Name of accused and address : Gopal Krishan
S/o Late Sh.Satpal Diwana
R/o RZ-H-27, Gali No.7,
Raghu Nagar, Dabri, New
Delhi
Offence complained of : Under Section 356/379/411
IPC
Ld. APP for the State : Sh.Amit Sehrawat
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquittal
FIR No.503/2022
State Vs. Gopal Krishan
Page No.1/9
Date of reserving the judgment : Judgment not reserved.
Date of judgment : 15.01.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The accused has been charge sheeted for committing offences under Section 356/379/411 IPC.
2. It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 08.09.2022 at 6 PM at Dabri Gol Chakkar, under Dabri Flyover, Pankha Road, Janakpuri, accused used criminal force upon complainant Smt.Rita in committing theft of her purse and the same was found from his possession at the spot itself, and thereby, committed offence under Section 356/379/411 IPC.
3. Complaint was made and FIR was registered. IO conducted the investigation. After completion of investigation, the present charge sheet was filed. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused was summoned to face the trial.
4. Thereafter, copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused under Section 207 CrPC. After giving opportunity to state as well as accused for making submissions on charge, a notice for offences under Section 356/379/411 IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No.503/2022State Vs. Gopal Krishan Page No.2/9
5. Vide separate statement recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C, accused had admitted the documents i.e. FIR No.503/2022 Ex.A1 and register no.19 brought by MHC(M) Ex.A2. Hence the above document was ordered to be read in evidence without its formal proof.
6. PE was closed by order of this court and thereafter, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein he has refused the allegations levelled against him in toto. He stated that he was merely sitting on his bike near the spot and police officials lifted him by saying that they will ask some questions in the police station. He further stated that complainant did not identify him and she had also informed the IO that accused was not the person who had snatched her purse. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
7. Prosecution has examined 2 witnesses to prove its case.
8. Prosecution examined Rita as PW1. She stated that on 08.09.2022, at about 6 PM, she was going from her house to C4E Market Janakpuri. When she reached at the Dabri Flyover, suddenly two persons on a black colour motorcycle came from behind and person sitting as a pillion rider snatched purse from her right hand and turned their bike and started riding towards Sagarpur. When she made hue and cry, then public near round about tried to catch them and while trying to catch them, the pillion rider fell off from the bike and the other ran off with the FIR No.503/2022 State Vs. Gopal Krishan Page No.3/9 bike. Some public persons called on 100 number and thereafter, police officers arrived at the spot of incident and recorded her statement which is Ex.PW1/A bearing her signature at point A. Witness failed to identify the accused. Ld. APP for the State sought permission of the Court to examine the witness as he failed to identify the accused.
MHC(M) has produced the case property i.e. purse of witness. Witness correctly identified the same. Same is now marked as P1 (colly).
Witness has shown with her complaint Ex.PW1/A from point A to A1. After seeing the same, witness denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he has been won over by the accused.
9. Prosecution examined SI Sanjeet as PW2. He deposed that on 08.09.2022, he was on emergency duty from 8 AM to 8 PM. On the said day, he received a DD No.90 regarding apprehension of a snatcher. That he alongwith HC Tulsi Ram went to the spot i.e. near Dabri Round about, Pankha Road. He met with the complainant Rita on the spot. That complainant produced the accused and handed over him. Accused was present in the court and he was correctly identified by witness. Complainant informed him that the accused had snatched her purse and tried to run away, however, accused fell down and the FIR No.503/2022 State Vs. Gopal Krishan Page No.4/9 rider fled away. That PW2 conducted prima facie search and found one purse of silver colour in his right pocket of pant. He recorded statement of the complainant at the spot which is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point B. He prepared original tehrir and handed over the same to HC Tulsi Ram for registration of FIR. After some time, HC Tulsi Ram came back to the spot with copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over the same to him. He prepared site plan at the instance of complainant Ex.PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A. He seized the recovered purse from the accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B bearing his signatures at point A. He formally arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C bearing his signatures at point A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW2/D bearing his signatures at point A. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW2/E bearing his signatures at point A. He also prepared age memo of accused which is Ex.PW2/F bearing his signatures at point A. Tehrir is Ex.PW2/G bearing his signatures at point A. HC Tulsi Ram took the accused to DDU Hospital to get his medical conducted. He deposited the case property at Malkhana of PS Janakpuri. Thereafter, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before court. Print outs of photographs of case property i.e. purse was shown to witness. Witness correctly identified the same. Print outs of photographs are Ex.P1 (colly).
10. Matter was listed for final arguments. During the course of arguments, learned APP for the State navigated the attention of FIR No.503/2022 State Vs. Gopal Krishan Page No.5/9 the court to the facts of the instant case and the evidence brought forth by the prosecution. Ld Counsel for accused argued that the complainant is the key witness in the present case and he has failed to identify the accused person. It is further argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter.
11. I have heard learned APP for the State and learned Counsel for accused, perused the material placed on record and considered the submissions advanced.
12. Now coming to the merits of the case, I first deem it pertinent to enunciate the actus reus and mens rea required to inculpate the accused for offences under section 356/ 379 IPC.
13. To bring home a liability under section 356 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, following elements must spring out from the prosecution version and the evidence adduced thereby, viz,
1. A person must assault or use criminal force on another person;
2. Such use of criminal force or assault, as the case may be, must be with the intention to commit theft on any property;
3. Such property must be carried or worn by the person at the time when the offender uses criminal force or assaults.
FIR No.503/2022State Vs. Gopal Krishan Page No.6/9
14. Likewise, for entailing the consequences of committing theft under section 379 IPC, following ingredients must surface :
1. A person must take away of movable property;
2. Such taking away of the property must be done out of the possession of another;
3. The taking away of the property must be without the consent of the person who has a possessory right over the property;
4. While the property is being taken away, the property must move;
5. Such act must be done with a dishonest intention.
15. Since criminal liability can be attached by proving each element of the section under which liability is sought to be enforced, I shall go on to appreciate the evidence- documentary and oral, in light of how compellingly it satisfies each of such ingredient, if at all.
16. In the present case, the accused person has been charged for offence punishable under 356/379/411 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.09.2022, accused person, along with co-accused (not apprehended) snatched mobile phone from complainant Rita. That when she made hue and cry, public near the area apprehended him. Prosecution examined complainant as PW1. It is pertinent to note that she failed to identify the accused person in the Court. She was declared hostile on point of identity FIR No.503/2022 State Vs. Gopal Krishan Page No.7/9 and was cross examined at length by Ld.APP for the State. In her cross-examination, she denied that statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded at her instance. She denied the suggestion that she had settled the matter with accused person. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined investigating officer SI Sanjeet as PW2. In his examination in chief, he stated that he received information regarding apprehension of a snatcher, and when he reached at the spot, complainant produced the accused, and handed over his custody. It is apparent from the record that the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution, even to the extent that she has failed to identify the accused person. All the other witnesses were formal in nature and jointed the investigation after the alleged incident. It appears that they do not have any personal knowledge of the present keys and accused person was apprehended on the basis of statement of the complainant. I have also perused statement of accused person recorded under 313 CrPC, wherein he stated that he was merely sitting on a bike near the spot, and police officials lifted him by saying that certain questions would be asked to him in the police station. He further stated that the complainant could not even identify her in the police station, and she categorically informed the investigating officer that he was not the person who had snatched her purse.
17. Further, no evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove that accused person had snatched purse of the complainant.There is absolutely no evidence on record to establish that the purse was recovered from the possession of the FIR No.503/2022 State Vs. Gopal Krishan Page No.8/9 accused person. Even for Section 411 IPC to apply, the prosecution has to establish that the recovered property is a stolen property. The complainant is a star witness and he has failed to identify the accused person and has also denied the presence of case property in possession of accused. Despite presence of public witnesses, the investigating officer has not bothered to join them in the investigation. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused person.
18. In view of the aforesaid, accused Gopal Krishan is entitled to the benefit of doubt and is hereby acquitted for offence punishable under Section 356/379/411 IPC.
Digitally Pronounced in the open court BHARTI signed by BENIWAL BHARTI on 15th January, 2023. BENIWAL (BHARTI BENIWAL) Metropolitan Magistrate-11 South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi FIR No.503/2022 State Vs. Gopal Krishan Page No.9/9