Delhi District Court
State vs Konark on 25 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIJAYSHREE RATHORE, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, WEST DISTRICT, THC, DELHI
STATE VS. Konark
FIR No. : 330/2024
PS : Nangloi
U/s : 356/379/411 IPC
JUDGMENT
A. Date of Commission of offence 05.04.2024 B. Date of FIR 14.04.2024 C. Date of charge-sheet 07.05.2024 D. Name of the complainant Ashwani
E. Name of the accused persons, their parentage Konark S/o Loknath R/o H.no. 45/26, Kila
and residence Mohalla Bahdur Garh HR.
F. Offence complained of or proved 356/379/411 IPC
G. Date of framing of charges 08.01.2025
H. Date of commencement of evidence 20.08.2025
I. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
J. Date on which judgment is reserved 25.08.2025
K. Final Order Acquitted
L. Date of Judgment 25.08.2025
State Vs. Konark FIR No. : 330/24 PS Nangloi
Page no.1 of 6
Brief facts of the present case
1. The case of the prosecution arises out of the complaint dated 14.04.2024 of complainant Ashwani that on 05.04.2024 at about 11:15 p.m. he was having walk near railway station Nangloi, a person came on scooty and snatched his mobile phone POCO M-6 Pro 5-G Black colour bearing IMEI no. 860400069915446 and 860400069915453. The said boy was wearing t-shirt and gray colourd pant. He made a PCR call. On the basis of complaint, FIR was registered in the case. Site plan was prepared. At the instance of complainant, accused was apprehended. On his cursory search case property was recovered from the right side of his pant and the same was seized vide seizure memo. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded and he was arrested vide arrest memo. A Statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused. Cognizance of the same was taken.
Framing of charge
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 08.01.2025 charge was framed against accused for the offence u/s 356/379 IPC and Section 411 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Vide order dated 20.08.2025 offence U/s 379/411 IPC was compounded on the basis of settlement between the parties. The accused was acquitted from the said offences. The judgment is passed in respect of offence U/s 356 IPC only.
State Vs. Konark FIR No. : 330/24 PS Nangloi
Page no.2 of 6
Prosecution Evidence
4. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined one witness.
5. Vide proceedings U/s 294 Cr.P.C. the accused had admitted the factum of FIR, Endorsement on rukka, Certificate u/s 65B, GD No. 75A dt. 16.02.2023 and GD No. 10A dt. 17.02.2023.
6. PW1 Ashwani deposed that on 05.04.2025 at about 11:15 p.m. while he was on walk near Railway Station Nangloi after having dinner, one person came from the side of Nangloi station on scooty and snatched his phone make POCO M6 PRO 5G colour black and fled towards Nangloi Metro Station. He made a PCR call from someone else phone. On the next day he went to PS where his complaint was recorded which is Ex.PW1/A. He had further deposed that after few days of the incident his phone was recovered from one person and the same was seized by seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that one scooty bearing no. HR 13S 1927 was also seized by the police by seizure memo Ex.PW1/C and accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D. He had shown the exact spot of incident to the police. Witness had failed to identify the accused before the court.
Statement of accused
7. The examination of accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he stated that he is innocent and is falsely implicated in the case.
8. Accused did not lead defence evidence. Thereafter matter was State Vs. Konark FIR No. : 330/24 PS Nangloi Page no.3 of 6 fixed for final arguments.
9. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused were heard and case file was perused.
10. It is argued on behalf of the Ld. APP for the State that there is sufficient material on record that accused had snatched the mobile of the complainant and he was arrested at the pointing out of complainant. The prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the case is fit for conviction.
11. It is argued on behalf of accused that complainant had turned hostile and did not identify the accused as the one who had snatched the mobile. Accused is falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove their case.
12. "For proving the charge under Section 356 IPC, prosecution had to prove that the assault or criminal force was used by any person, in attempt to commit theft on any property which that person was then wearing or carrying."
13. It is the case of prosecution that on 05.04.2024 when complainant was walking near Railway Stantion Nangloi after dinner, accused came from behind from the side of Nangloi Station on scooty and he snatched his mobile phone make Poco M-6 PRO 5-G. In this regard complainant had reiterated his version in the testimony and had deposed that on the date of incident one person came from behind and snatched his phone and fled towards Nangloi State Vs. Konark FIR No. : 330/24 PS Nangloi Page no.4 of 6 Metro Station. He had further deposed that he made PCR call from someone else's phone. He had also deposed that after few dates of incident his phone was recovered from one person and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He had identified the accused as the one from whom his mobile was recovered. However complainant had failed to recall if the accused is the same person who has snatched his phone. On cross examination by Ld. APP the witness had stated that he cannot identify the accused as he did not see the face of the culprit clearly and also due to long lapse of time. The witness had also failed to identify the accused as the one who had snatched mobile. Thus, the identity of accused is not clear from the testimony of complainant. Thus, the complainant had not deposed anything incriminating against the accused.
14. Apart from complainant no other testimony is available on record how had seen the incident happening. The eye account of incident is not available on record. Though complainant had identified the accused from whom mobile was recovered, however, this is not sufficient to draw the presumption U/s 114 (a) IEA that accused himself had stolen the mobile phone as there is no immediate recovery in the case.
15. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. There is no material on record to assume that accused had snatched the mobile make Poco M-6 PRO 5-
State Vs. Konark FIR No. : 330/24 PS Nangloi
Page no.5 of 6
G belonging to the complainant. There is material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of the complainant. The identity of accused is doubtful in the case. It is apparent from the above discussion that the allegations against the accused have not been proved and therefore benefit of doubt goes in favor of accused.
Conclusion & Decision
16. Thus, considering the entire material on record I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case u/s 356 IPC against the accused Konark beyond reasonable doubt. Keeping in mind the above-mentioned discussion, accused is acquitted for the commission of the offence U/s 356 IPC.
Digitally signed VIJAYSHREE by VIJAYSHREE RATHORE RATHORE Date: 2025.08.25 16:57:05 +0530 Announced in the open court (VIJAYSHREE RATHORE) In Delhi on 25.08.2025 JMFC-10,WEST/THC DELHI 25.08.2025 State Vs. Konark FIR No. : 330/24 PS Nangloi Page no.6 of 6