Delhi District Court
State vs Raghvender @ Golu on 8 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-08, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURT, NEW
DELHI
STATE VS. Raghvender @ Golu
FIR NO: 21/2016
P. S Uttam Nagar
U/s 392 r/w 34 /411 r/w 34 IPC
Crc No./10911/19
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 09.07.2016
Name of the complainant : Sh. Atul, S/o Sh. Shyam Chand,
R/o L-179, Mohan Garden Ext.
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence : 06.01.2016
Name of the accused : Raghvender @ Golu, S/o Rajbir
Singh, R/o H. No. E-197, Mansa
Ram Park, Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi.
Offence complained of : 392 r/w 34 /411 r/w 34 IPC
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 13.09.2024
Final Order : Convicted
Date of orders : 07.10.2024
1
Digitally signed by
ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08
18:14:25 +0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused namely Raghvender @ Golu for having committed the offence punishable u/s 392 r/w 34 /411 r/w 34 IPC of Indian Penal Code, 1861 (hereinafter referred as "IPC").
2. Briefly stated, as per the prosecution, the complainant Atul used to do a private job in Narela and he along with his family resides at H. No. L-179, Mohan Garden Extension, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. On 06.01.2016, the complainant was returning to his home from his office after work. He got down at Dwarka More from bus and was walking towards his home. At around 9:15 PM, when the complainant reached near S.L Public School, Bhagwati Garden, Extension, two persons came from behind. One of the persons caught hold of the complainant and the other person stole his mobile phone from his hand. After robbing the complainant, both the persons started running away. However, the complainant raised alarm and with the help of 4-5 public persons, he managed to catch hold of one of the persons who robbed him while the other person managed to flee away from the spot. The person who was caught by the complainant and the public persons disclosed his name as Raghvender @ Golu S/o Rajbir Singh i.e. the accused in the present case.
3. After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out by PS Uttam Nagar. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed against the accused Raghvender @ Golu. After completing the necessary formalities u/s 207 Cr.P.C, charge for the offence punishable u/s 392 r/w 34 IPC / 411 r/w 34 IPC was framed against the accused vide 2 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:14:33 +0530 order dated 01.08.2024, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:
• Sh. Atul, the complainant in the present case, deposed as PW-1;
• HC Harbir, deposed as PW-2; and • SI Manraj, deposed as PW-3.
5. PW-1 is the victim, eye-witness complainant of the present case. He is the star witness of the prosecution. During his examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 06.01.2016, he was coming back from Narela in the bus and was going towards his house. He de-boarded the bus from Dwarka More and was walking towards his house. At about 9:15 PM, when he reached at S L Public School, two persons came from his behind. One of them caught hold of him and another person snatched his mobile phone Gionne black colour phone from his hand. Thereafter, he raised alarm and one of the said persons was apprehended at the spot with the help of public persons. The public persons started beating the accused. He further stated that he subsequently came to know that name of the person who was apprehended by the public was Raghvender @ Golu. He also stated that the someone had made call at 100 number. Police reached at the spot and searched the accused. During the search, the stolen mobile phone of the complainant was recovered from the possession of the accused. PW-1 further stated that his statement was recorded by the 3 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:14:39 +0530 police Ex. PW-1/A. Site plan was also prepared at the instance of the complainant. The mobile phone recovered from the accused was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B. He further stated that the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/C and his personal search was also conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW-1/D. He also stated that he could not produce the case property as the same was given by his mother to someone else and the same got misplaced. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
6. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. LADC for the accused. During the cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he did not hand over the bus ticket to the IO. He admitted that the IO did not record the statement of any independent witness in his presence. He denied the suggestion that the mobile phone was not recovered from the possession of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
7. PW-2 was one of the first police officials who had reached at the spot after receiving the information about the incident. He deposed that in the intervening night of 06-07.01.2016, IO ASI Manraj had received call vide DD No. 81A related to the incident of snatching of mobile phone. Thereafter, he along with the IO reached at the spot i.e. near S.L Public School and saw that a huge crowd had gathered there. They met the complainant who had apprehended the accused. The statement of the complainant was recorded by the IO. The accused was searched and one Gionee mobile phone of the complainant was recovered from his right pocket. He further stated that the mobile phone was sealed by the IO in a pullanda with the seal of MR.
4 Digitally signed byANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:14:45 +0530 Thereafter, the IO prepared the tehrir and got the present FIR registered. IO seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/ C and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW-2/A. Pointing out memo Ex. PW-2/B was prepared by the IO. During the course of the investigation, the accused was arrested by the IO and his personal search was also conducted. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
8. PW-3 SI Manraj was the investigating officer of the present case.
During the examination-in-chief, he gave a detailed account of the investigation conducted by him. He deposed on similar lines as deposed by PW-2. He also stated that he had prepared the rukka Ex. PW-3/A on the basis of the which he had got the present FIR registered. He also prepared the site plan Ex. PW-1/B at the instance of the complainant. He also stated that during the course of the investigation, he went to the house of the co-accused who could not be found. However, the co-accused was subsequently apprehended and it was found that he was juvenile. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
9. PW-3 was duly cross-examined by Ld. LADC for the accused. During the cross-examination, he deposed that he had reached at the spot at about 10:15 PM on foot. He also stated that he did not record the statement of any independent witness who were present at the spot. No CCTV camera was installed near the spot. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot. He also denied the suggestion that he had prepared the seizure memo while sitting at the police station. He further stated that the area was illuminated with the 5 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:14:51 +0530 street light. He had prepared the documents and rukka while sitting on the footpath of the spot. He denied the suggestion that the case property was planted upon the accused. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
10. The accused has admitted certain documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. i.e. genuineness of FIR, certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, DD No. 81A dated 06.01.2016, age certificate dated 16.01.2016 issued by the SDMC Primary School, Matiala II, Najafgarh Zone, Ex. X-1 to X-3 respectively. Hence, formal proof of these documents was dispensed with.
11. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, PE was closed on 09.09.2016. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded on 09.09.2016 u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") wherein he denied the allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the preset case. However he did not choose to lead the defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
12. The Ld. APP urged that the complainant PW-1 has completely supported the case of the prosecution and the same can also be corroborated in material terms from the testimonies of the police officials. The testimony of the complainant and other police officials have remained unchallenged in the cross-examination and there is no reason to doubt their testimonies.
13. Per Contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, argued that no public witness of recovery proceedings were 6 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:14:56 +0530 examined by the prosecution. Thus, the factum of recovery could not established beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution. Hence, benefit of doubts must be extended to the accused. Also, since, the testimony of the complainant could not corroborated from any material witness, therefore, the accused cannot be convicted in the present case solely on the basis of the testimony of the complainant.
14. I have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. defence counsel and have perused the case file.
15. Section 390 IPC provides for the offence of robbery. It defines robbery in the following manner:
"390. Robbery.--In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery.--Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint When extortion is robbery.--Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person, or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.7 Digitally signed by
ANIMESH ANIMESH
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08
18:15:03 +0530
Explanation.--The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint."
16. Bare reading of the above provision will clearly show that robbery is an aggravated form of theft or extortion which is committed when the person interalia voluntarily causes or attempt to cause death or hurt or wrongful restraint to the victim either while committing the theft or while carrying away the stolen property.
17. "Theft" is defined u/s 378 IPC in the following manner:
" 3 7 8 . T h e f t . -- W h o e v e r, i n t e n d i n g t o t a k e dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Explanation 1.--A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2.--A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft. Explanation 3.--A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
Explanation 4.--A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.8 Digitally signed by
ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:15:08 +0530 Explanation 5.--The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied."
18. Having discussed the legal provisions involved in the present case, I shall now be examining the culpability of the accused Vikas @ Neta for having committed the offence punishable u/s 392/411/34 IPC.
19. Section 411 IPC deals with the offence of dishonestly receiving stolen properties. In the case of Rajender Kumar Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1983) 23 Del LT 42, it was held that in order to bring home the guilt of the person under this provision, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the following;
(i)That the stolen property was in the possession of the accused;
(ii)That some person, other than the accused had the possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and
(iii) That the accused had knowledge that the property was the stolen property.
20. Further, in every case u/s 411 IPC, the prosecution must establish two facts by the direct evidences i.e. (i) That a theft was committed and certain articles were stolen and (ii)That the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the accused. If these two facts are established by the prosecution through direct evidences and if the recovery has been made from the accused recently, then the court may raise a presumption u/s 114 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (herein after referred as 'Evidence Act') regarding the fact that the accused 9 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:15:14 +0530 is either a thief or a receiver of the stolen property. Reference can be taken from illustration (a) to section 114 of Evidence Act.
21. This has to be read in the backdrop of section 4 of Evidence Act which gives rise to a legal fiction. All the presumptions provided therein are rebuttable and unless rebutted, unless contrary is established, a fictitious state of affairs is presumed to exist as if it is an actual reality. Reference can be taken from the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ambala Vallabh Bhai vs. Mangal Bhai Dula Bhai AIR 1978 Guj 208 (213).
22. It should be noted that in order to raise presumption u/s 114 (a) Evidence Act the interval between the theft and recovery of the stolen articles from the possession of the accused should be short. Although there is no strait jacket formula to decide the length of such intervening period, however, the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If the possession vis-a-vis stolen articles recovered from the accused does not seem to be natural one then the accused can be convicted even if this intervening period is a bit longer than usual. Reference can be taken from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ali Sher vs. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 1830.
23. Hence, in view of the above discussions, it becomes clear that in order to raise presumption u/s 114(a) Evidence Act, the prosecution needs to establish the following:
i. Theft / Robbery was committed and certain articles were stolen;10 Digitally signed by ANIMESH
ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08
18:15:20 +0530
ii. Stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the
accused persons; and
iii. Interval between the theft and recovery of stolen articles from the possession of accused should be short.
24. I shall be dealing with these aspects separately in the backdrop of evidences adduced by the prosecution on record.
Theft / Robbery was committed and certain article was stolen
25. In order to establish the fact that the robbery/theft was committed in the present case and certain articles were stolen, the prosecution had primarily relied upon the testimony of the complainant PW-1. PW-1 in his testimony had categorically deposed that on the day of incident, he was robbed and his mobile phone was snatched from his hand. Theft was committed in such a manner that the complainant was wrongfully restrained during the commission of the offence. He had categorically stated in his testimony that at the time of the commission of the offence, one of the accused caught hold of him and the other accused snatched his mobile phone.
26. The testimony of PW-1 on this aspect could also be corroborated from the testimonies of the police officials I.e. PW-2 & PW-3 who met the complainant at the spot after the incident when they reached there after receiving the information about the incident vide DD No. 81A Ex. PW-3/A. 11 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:15:25 +0530 Stolen mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused
27. In order the establish the fact that the stolen mobile phone of the complainant I.e. mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused, the prosecution had primarily relied upon the testimonies of PW-1 and the IO PW-3. PW-1 who was the complainant of the present case had categorically deposed the manner in which he was robbed by the accused and also the manner in which the mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused. He had stated that after the incident, the accused was caught by him with the assistance of the public persons. He further stated that when the police officials reached at the spot and searched the accused then his his mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused. This could also be corroborated from the testimony of the IO PW-3 who reached at the spot after the incident. He had stated that the mobile phone robbed from the complainant was recovered from the the possession of the accused. The fact of recovery of case property from the accused could also be corroborated from the seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C which was also signed by the complainant.
28. During the final arguments, it was argued by Ld. LADC that the factum of the recovery of the mobile phone from the accused could not be properly established by the prosecution in as much as the alleged recovered mobile phone was not even produced before the Court during the course of the trial. Thus, identity of the case property could not be established by the prosecution.
12 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08
18:15:31 +0530
29. It should be noted that case property involved in the present case was never produced before the Court during the course of the trial. As per the complainant PW-1, he had misplaced the said mobile phone after getting it released on superdari. Also, as per the complainant, he also did not have any photographs of the said mobile phone. Further, even the IO or MHM(M) did not take the photographs of the mobile phone before releasing the same to the complainant on superdari.
30. While it is indeed correct that the case property involved in the present case was never produced before the Court, however, the non-production of the same during the trial would not automatically prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. The production of the case property in a criminal trial is only a corroborative piece of evidence and its non-production during the trial would not by itself vitiate the entire case of the prosecution and would not discard the substantive evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab CRA-S-979- SB-2004 dated 07.12.2015. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
"It is settled principle of law that the case property is only a corroborative evidence. Mere non-production of the part or whole of the case property would not itself vitiate the conviction. To support this view reference can be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court titled as Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1983 PLR 373. Thus, the defects in the case property produced by the prosecution during the examination of PW4 Inspector Pritam Singh by learned counsel for the appellants is no 13 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:15:36 +0530 ground to discard the substantive evidence brought on record by the prosecution."
31. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Sudhir Sinku vs. State of Jharkhand Cr. Revision No. 1107 of 2014 dated 09.12.2020. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
"This Court is in complete agreement with the aforesaid view expressed by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and is also of the considered view that mere non-production of the seized articles is ipso facto not fatal to the trial and that the production of the case property in the court is only a corroborative piece of evidence. If the direct testimony is credible and unimpeachable, the same is sufficient to establish the charge. It cannot be said that the whole of it would lose all its value by mere non-production of the case property which is merely corroborative and that it always be borne in mind that the trial of the offence and punishment is a matter of substance which turns on the weight and the credibility of the direct evidence and not merely on the technicalities of the procedure."
32. In the instant case, it cannot be ignored that the prosecution has brought substantive piece of evidence by examining the eye-witness PW-1 and the IO PW-3 in order to establish the recovery of the mobile phone from the possession of the accused. No material contradictions could be seen in the testimonies of these eye- witnesses. Also, the case property i.e. mobile phone was indeed recovered during the course of the investigation as the complainant had got the same released on superdari. The prosecution has explained the reason behind the non-production of the case property 14 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:15:41 +0530 during the trial. Thus, I find that the non-production of the case property during the trial would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
33. Therefore, in view of the above, I am of the considered view that the fact of recovery of case property from the possession of the accused has been duly established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Short interval between theft and recovery of stolen articles from the accused
34. As per the PWs, the complainant PW-1 was robbed on 06.01.2016 at around 9:15 AM. Further, the accused was caught red handed at the spot by the complainant himself with the assistance of the public persons when he was trying to run away after robbing the complainant. This could be corroborated from DD No. 81A dated 06.01.2016 as per which the information regarding the apprehension of the accused was received at the police station at around 9:26 PM. Thereafter, the IO PW-3 reached at the spot along with PW-2 and mobile phone of the complainant was recovered from the possession of the accused at the spot only. Hence, it would clearly appear that the interval between the robbery and recovery of stolen phone from the possession of accused was very short i.e. within few minutes. Therefore, in view of the above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has remained successful in proving the following facts involved in the present case:
15 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.10.08
18:15:46 +0530
i. The complainant PW-1 was robbed on 06.01.2016 at around
9:15 PM and mobile phone was stolen.
ii. Stolen phone of the complainant was recovered from the possession of the accused on 06.01.2016 shortly after the incident.
35. Since, the prosecution has successfully established the fact of theft and recovery of stolen article from the possession of accused through direct evidence, therefore, a presumption (although rebuttable) can be drawn under section 114(a) Evidence Act regarding the fact that the accused is either thief or receiver of the stolen property.
36. Presumption u/s 114(a) Evidence Act is a rebuttable presumption which can be rebutted by the defence by leading cogent evidences. However, in the instant case, the accused did not lead any evidence. When his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, he merely stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case and case property was falsely implanted upon him. Merely making a bald and evasive statement would not be of any help to the accused.
37. Therefore, in view of the above, the prosecution has successfully established a presumption against the accused in the instant case that he had either stolen the mobile phone from the complainant or he had received the stolen mobile phone despite knowing the same to be stolen property.
38. In the instant case, perusal of the testimony of the complainant PW-1 would show that it was the accused who had in fact robbed the complainant on the day of incident. Complainant PW-1 who was the 16 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:15:52 +0530 star witness had categorically deposed against the accused. He had also identified him during his testimony. He had given a detailed account of the manner in which he was wrongfully restrained by the accused during the commission of the offence. He had duly identified the accused during the trial. The testimony of the complainant could also be corroborated from the testimony of IO PW-3 who had recovered the stolen case property from the spot. He had also correctly identified the accused in the Court.
39. During the final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the accused had contended that the accused could not be convicted solely on the basis of testimony of complainant. It was also submitted that the complainant being interested witness could not be relied upon.
40. In so far as the argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused for the accused regarding conviction of the accused based on sole testimony of complainant is concerned, it should be noted that the said argument does not hold any ground.
41. It is a settled proposition of law that an accused can be convicted based on the testimony of solitary witness if the same is unblemished and gains the confidence of the Court. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly provides that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish a case. It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity which is to be seen.
42. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 Crl. LJ 1023 , wherein the Apex 17 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:15:58 +0530 Court had upheld a conviction under Section 302 IPC based on the sole testimony of a witness. The Hon'ble Court has held that "on the basis of solitary evidence conviction can be maintained. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained."
43. The above discussed principle was reiterated (albeit with certain qualifications) recently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh vs. State (NCT OF Delhi) Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2015 decided on 12th October 2020 wherein it was held that conviction can be based on sole eye witness testimony only if he is wholly reliable. But if there are doubts about the testimony then the Courts will insist on corroboration. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
"16. Thus, the finding of guilt of the two accused appellants recorded by the two Courts below is based on sole testimony of eye witness PW-1. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony Courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the 18 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:16:03 +0530 Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise"
44. Hence, in view of the above discussions, it becomes very clear that an accused can be convicted based on the sole testimony of witness/ complainant. However, the said testimony must be unblemished and wins the confidence of the Court. If there is any contradiction or doubt over the reliability of the witness, then the Courts can insist on corroboration.
45. In the instant case, perusal of the testimony of PW-1 would show that the same did not suffer from any material contradiction. The complainant had correctly identified the accused during the trial. His testimony could also be corroborated from the testimony of the IO PW-3 over the fact that the stolen case property was recovered from the possession of the accused.
46. It is true that the Investigating Agency did not join any other public witness during the course of investigation in the present case even when their presence at the spot during the time of incident had not been disputed. However, the failure of the investigating agency to join the public witness in the investigation would not automatically prove fatal to the case of prosecution. Complainant had deposed in favour of the prosecution. No material contradictions could be seen in his testimony. Also, the testimony of complainant could also be corroborated from the testimonies of other police witnesses.
47. Therefore, in view of the above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused 19 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:16:09 +0530 Raghvender @ Golu beyond reasonable doubts for the offence punishable u/s 392 r/w 34 IPC.
48. It should be noted that the accused has been alternatively charged for the offence punishable u/s 411 r/w 34 IPC. However, since, the accused has already been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 392 r/w 34 IPC, he cannot be convicted for the offence punishable I/s 411 r/w 34 IPC as he can either be a thief or receiver of the stolen property.
49. Hence, the accused Raghvender @ Golu stands convicted for the offence punishable u/s 392 r/w 34 IPC.
50. Let copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
Digitally signed byANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR Announced in the open court on 08.10.2024 KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:16:15 +0530 (Animesh Kumar) MM-08, South West, New Delhi/05.10.2024 It is certified that this judgment contains 20 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.08 18:16:21 +0530 (Animesh Kumar) MM-08, South West, New Delhi/08.10.2024 20