Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit on 1 December, 2025
Cr. Case 8463/2022
STATE Vs. ROHIT
FIR No.183/2022
P.S.Nabi Karim
U/s:380 IPC
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case 8463/2022
STATE Vs. ROHIT
FIR No.183/2022
P.S.Nabi Karim
U/s:380/411/506 IPC
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 8463/2022
(b) Date of offence 08.04.2022
c) Complainant Mohd. Amjad s/o. Mohd.
Anwar Ali
(d) Accused Rohit s/o. Kishan Lal
(e) Offence 380/411/506 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
(g) Final Order Convicted
(h) Date of Institution 01.06.2022
(i) Date when judgment was Not reserved
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 01.12.2025
1. The present case arises out of FIR No. 183/2022 registered at PS Nabi Karim on the complaint of Mohd. Amjad, who alleged that his mobile phone Poco M3 was stolen from the counter of his grocery shop at Chinot Basti, Nabi Karim, Delhi, and that the accused Rohit was apprehended immediately thereafter at the spot with the stolen phone.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 380/411/506 IPC. Cognizance was Cr. Case 8463/2022 STATE Vs. ROHIT FIR No.183/2022 P.S.Nabi Karim U/s:380 IPC 2 taken. Copies were supplied to the accused under Section 207 CrPC. Upon hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge was framed for offences under Section 380 IPC and, in the alternative, under Section 411 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined three witnesses. Certain documents were also admitted under Section 294 CrPC, in view of which some formal witnesses from the police were dropped from the list of witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC read with Sections 316 and 351 BNSS and he chose not to lead any defence evidence. Prosecution Evidence
4. PW1 ASI Arun Kumar deposed that on 08.04.2022 he was on duty when DD No. 39A was received regarding theft of mobile phone. He, along with Ct. Rakesh, went to the spot at C-364, Chinot Basti, Nabi Karim. There they met the complainant Mohd. Amjad and the accused Rohit. The complainant handed over the accused along with the mobile phone, stated to be the stolen Poco M3. PW1 stated that he requested 6-7 public persons to join investigation but they declined due to personal reasons. Due to paucity of time, no written notice was served upon them.
5. PW1 further stated that he recorded the statement of the complainant, which is Ex. PW1/A, prepared rukka Ex. PW1/B, and sent Ct. Rakesh to the police station for registration of FIR. After registration, Ct. Rakesh returned to the spot and handed Cr. Case 8463/2022 STATE Vs. ROHIT FIR No.183/2022 P.S.Nabi Karim U/s:380 IPC 3 over the original rukka and copy of FIR to him. PW1 prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, Ex. PW1/C. He seized the mobile phone vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D, arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/E, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/F, and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW1/G. He also got the accused medically examined and produced him before Court for judicial custody. After recording necessary statements and completing investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. The photographs of the mobile phone are Ex. P1, which he identified.
6. In cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the complaint Ex. PW1/A does not bear his signature, but denied the suggestion that he had falsely recorded it. He stated that they reached the spot at about 7:00 pm and left around 10:30 pm. He stated that when they reached the spot, the mobile phone was in the complainant's possession. He denied the suggestions that he never visited the spot, that investigation was conducted mechanically, or that the accused was falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant.
7. PW2 Mohd. Amjad is the complainant and the owner of the general store. He stated that he resides at A-696, Amarpuri, Nabi Karim, and runs a general store at H. No. C-364, Chinot Basti, Nabi Karim. On 08.04.2022, at about 6:30 pm, he was present at his shop, which is open from two sides. He was attending customers on one side and his mobile phone Poco M3 was lying on the counter on the other side. At that time, the Cr. Case 8463/2022 STATE Vs. ROHIT FIR No.183/2022 P.S.Nabi Karim U/s:380 IPC 4 accused Rohit came and lifted his mobile phone from the counter and ran away.
8. PW2 deposed that he raised an alarm, upon which public persons present there chased the accused and apprehended him with the mobile phone. He also stated that the accused threatened him. Thereafter, he made a PCR call. Police reached the spot. His statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded and bears his signature at point B. The site plan was prepared at his instance, Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point B. The mobile phone was seized vide Ex. PW1/D, his signatures at point B. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/E and his personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW1/F, both bearing his signatures at point B. PW2 identified the accused in Court and correctly identified the mobile phone through photographs Ex. P1.
9. In cross-examination, PW2 stated that he had seen the accused at the time of commission of the offence and also volunteered that the accused resides in his locality. He stated that 3-4 persons of his locality were present at his shop at the time of the incident. He made the PCR call from his friend's mobile phone. He did not remember whether IO examined any public person. He stated that IO prepared all documents at the police station and he signed them there. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit the offence or that some other person had done so. He denied suggestions of false implication or of any prior quarrel or enmity.
10. PW3 HC Rakesh Kumar deposed that on 08.04.2022 he was Cr. Case 8463/2022 STATE Vs. ROHIT FIR No.183/2022 P.S.Nabi Karim U/s:380 IPC 5 posted at PS Nabi Karim and accompanied ASI Arun Kumar to the spot on receiving DD No. 39A. At the spot, the complainant handed over the accused Rohit and the mobile phone to the IO. PW3 corroborated PW1 regarding preparation of rukka Ex. PW1/B, his taking the rukka to the police station for registration of FIR, his return with the FIR and rukka, preparation of site plan Ex. PW1/C, seizure of mobile phone Ex. PW1/D, arrest memo Ex. PW1/E, personal search memo Ex. PW1/F, and disclosure statement Ex. PW1/G. He identified the accused in Court and confirmed that the photographs Ex. P1 relate to the case property.
11. In cross-examination, PW3 stated that they reached the spot around 7:00 pm and left around 10:30 pm. He went for registration of FIR around 7:30 pm and returned within about one hour. He admitted that no notice was served to public persons who had refused to join the investigation and that no videography or photography was conducted at the time of recovery from the accused. He corroborated that when they reached the spot, the mobile phone was in the complainant's possession. He denied the suggestions that he never visited the spot, that the investigation was mechanical, or that the accused was falsely implicated.
12. Apart from the oral evidence, the accused, through his statement under Section 294 CrPC dated 20.05.2024, admitted the genuineness of certain documents such as the FIR, endorsement on rukka and other formal documents, while expressly not admitting the truth of the allegations contained Cr. Case 8463/2022 STATE Vs. ROHIT FIR No.183/2022 P.S.Nabi Karim U/s:380 IPC 6 therein. In view of this, formal witnesses were dropped. Statement of Accused and Defence
13. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC read with Sections 316 and 351 BNSS. In answer to all incriminating circumstances, he stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He denied that he committed theft or that any mobile phone was recovered from his possession. He did not dispute that some documents were admitted for genuineness under Section 294 CrPC, but maintained that he had not admitted their contents. He did not offer any explanation as to why the complainant and the police officials would depose against him. He declined to lead any defence evidence.
Point(s) for Determination
14. The question before the Court is whether on 08.04.2022 at about 6:30 pm at H. No. C-364, Chinot Basti, Nabi Karim, Delhi, the accused Rohit committed theft of mobile phone Poco M3 from the shop and possession of complainant Mohd. Amjad, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 380 IPC. If not, whether on the same date, time and place, he was merely found in possession of the said stolen mobile phone and retained it dishonestly knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property, thereby committing an offence under Section 411 IPC.
Relevant Legal Position
15. Section 380 IPC punishes theft in a building, tent or vessel used for custody of property. To bring home a charge under Cr. Case 8463/2022 STATE Vs. ROHIT FIR No.183/2022 P.S.Nabi Karim U/s:380 IPC 7 Section 380 IPC, the prosecution must establish that movable property was in the possession of another person, that the accused moved that property without that person's consent, and that such moving was done dishonestly in order to take the property out of the other's possession.
16. Section 411 IPC deals with dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property. It is well settled that to convict a person under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove, among other ingredients, that the property was stolen, that it was found in possession of the accused, and that before the accused got possession, some other person had possession of that property. The Supreme Court in Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 39 explained that one of the essential ingredients of Section 411 IPC is that a person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused.
17. It is equally settled that a person who is the actual thief of the property cannot, for the same act and same property, be simultaneously treated as a receiver of stolen property under Section 411 IPC. The Delhi High Court in Sunil Mashi @ Silly Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal No. 6101/2023 decided on 14.10.2014, reiterated that once an accused is found to be the real thief and is convicted under Section 379 IPC, there is no justification in convicting him also under Section 411 IPC in respect of the same property, since a real thief cannot be the receiver of the stolen property.
18. It is also a settled principle that the quality of evidence and its intrinsic reliability is more important than the number of Cr. Case 8463/2022 STATE Vs. ROHIT FIR No.183/2022 P.S.Nabi Karim U/s:380 IPC 8 witnesses. Conviction can safely rest on the testimony of a single truthful and reliable witness, and the prosecution is not required to multiply witnesses when one cogent witness suffices.
Appreciation of Evidence
19. PW2 is the complainant and victim whose mobile phone was stolen. He has given a natural and consistent account of the incident. He stated that the accused came to his shop at about 6:30 pm, lifted the mobile phone from the counter, and ran away. He raised an alarm and public persons chased and apprehended the accused with the phone. Immediately thereafter, the police were informed and reached the spot. The sequence of events is clear and is not shaken in cross- examination.
20. Importantly, PW2 categorically identified the accused in Court as the same person who committed the theft. He also stated that the accused resides in his locality, which further strengthens the identification as he was not a stranger seen only fleetingly. There is no suggestion on record that PW2 had any prior enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused.
21. The recovery of the case property is also proved. According to PW2, the mobile phone was recovered from the pant pocket of the accused when he was apprehended by the public and was then handed back to him. PW1 and PW3 corroborate the fact that when they reached the spot, the complainant handed over the accused along with the mobile phone and that the phone was seized by PW1 vide Ex. PW1/D. Both officials are Cr. Case 8463/2022 STATE Vs. ROHIT FIR No.183/2022 P.S.Nabi Karim U/s:380 IPC 9 consistent that efforts were made to join public witnesses but they refused. The fact that, by the time the police reached, the phone was in complainant's possession rather than physically in the accused's hand is fully consistent with PW2's version that the public had already apprehended the accused and retrieved the phone from him.
22. The photographs of the mobile phone Ex. P1 stand proved and PW2 has correctly identified the phone from the photographs. The seizure memo Ex. PW1/D, site plan Ex. PW1/C and arrest and personal search memos Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F provide documentary support to the oral testimonies. Their genuineness has not been seriously challenged during cross-examination.
23. It is true that no independent public witness has been examined, despite the complainant's statement that 3-4 persons of his locality were present at the spot, and despite PW1 and PW3 stating that they attempted to join 6-7 public persons and none agreed. However, the law does not mandate that conviction must fail merely because no public witness was examined. If the testimony of the complainant and official witnesses is found trustworthy, absence of independent witnesses is not fatal.
24. In the present case, nothing substantial could be elicited in the cross-examination of PW2 to doubt his credibility. The suggestions put to him regarding false implication were bald and without any supporting circumstance. PW2 consistently denied that the accused was innocent or that any other person had committed the theft. The defence did not put forth any Cr. Case 8463/2022 STATE Vs. ROHIT FIR No.183/2022 P.S.Nabi Karim U/s:380 IPC 10 positive case as to how or why PW2 and the police would conspire to falsely implicate the accused.
25. PW1 and PW3 are police officials performing their official duties. Their evidence is consistent inter se and with PW2 on all material particulars i.e. receipt of DD No. 39A, reaching the spot, presence of the accused and complainant, handing over of the phone, recording of statement, preparation of rukka and site plan, seizure of phone, arrest and personal search of accused, and subsequent steps in investigation. Minor deviations regarding exact time or the sequence of preparation of documents do not go to the root of the matter and are expected in natural human testimony. There is no material contradiction that would discredit the substance of their evidence.
26. The defence has only been of simple denial. The accused has not explained why the complainant would falsely name him as the thief of his mobile phone, nor has he suggested any prior dispute or motive. No defence witness has been examined. In these circumstances, the consistent and cogent testimony of PW2, duly corroborated by PW1 and PW3 and supported by documentary material, inspires confidence and is sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved that it was the accused who committed theft of the mobile phone from the complainant's shop.
27. On the basis of the evidence discussed above, the ingredients of Section 380 IPC stand satisfactorily established beyond reasonable doubt. The mobile phone Poco M3 is a movable property. It was in the possession of the complainant, lying on Cr. Case 8463/2022 STATE Vs. ROHIT FIR No.183/2022 P.S.Nabi Karim U/s:380 IPC 11 the counter of his shop at the relevant time. The accused took the phone without the complainant's consent by lifting it from the counter and running away. The act of taking was dishonest, as the accused intended to cause wrongful loss to the complainant by taking the phone and moving away with it. The property was moved out of the complainant's possession, and the accused was apprehended only when he was fleeing after committing the theft.
28. There is also prompt reporting. PW2 stated that he immediately made a PCR call after apprehending the accused. PW1 and PW3 support that the DD entry regarding the incident was made and they reached the spot soon thereafter. This promptness reduces the possibility of concoction or false implication.
29. In light of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused Rohit committed theft of the mobile phone Poco M3 from the shop of the complainant as alleged. The charge under Section 380 IPC is therefore established. On the Alternative Charge under Section 411 IPC
30. The charge under Section 411 IPC was framed in the alternative, in case the prosecution failed to prove that the accused himself committed the theft but was only found in possession of stolen property. In the present case, as discussed above, the evidence clearly establishes that the accused himself took the phone from the complainant's shop counter and fled with it, and was apprehended almost immediately thereafter.
Cr. Case 8463/2022STATE Vs. ROHIT FIR No.183/2022 P.S.Nabi Karim U/s:380 IPC 12
31. Once it is found that the accused is the actual thief, he cannot, in respect of the same property and the same transaction, be treated as a receiver who dishonestly receives or retains stolen property from another. One of the essential ingredients of Section 411 IPC is that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it. In the facts of the present case, there is no such intervening hand. The possession of the mobile phone moved directly from the complainant to the accused in the course of theft and was immediately recovered upon his apprehension.
32. The Delhi High Court in Sunil Mashi @ Silly (supra) has reiterated that where an accused is found to be the real thief and is convicted for theft, his simultaneous conviction under Section 411 IPC in respect of the same property is not justified, since a real thief cannot be the receiver of his own stolen property. The same principle squarely applies here. In view of the categorical finding that the accused is guilty of theft under Section 380 IPC, a separate conviction under Section 411 IPC would be legally impermissible.
33. Accordingly, the alternative charge under Section 411 IPC does not survive and the accused is not being convicted for that offence.
Conclusion
34. On a holistic appreciation of the evidence and materials on record, the Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that on 08.04.2022 at about 6:30 pm, at H. No. C-364, Chinot Basti, Cr. Case 8463/2022 STATE Vs. ROHIT FIR No.183/2022 P.S.Nabi Karim U/s:380 IPC 13 Nabi Karim, Delhi, the accused Rohit committed theft of the mobile phone Poco M3 from the possession of the complainant and was apprehended soon thereafter. The testimony of PW2, duly corroborated by PW1 and PW3, is trustworthy and free from material infirmities. The non-examination of independent public witnesses, in the face of such credible evidence, does not create a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused.
35. Accordingly, the accused Rohit S/o Kishan Lal is held guilty and is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC.
36. In view of the above conviction for theft itself, no separate conviction is recorded under Section 411 IPC, in line with the settled legal position noticed above.
37. Let the accused be heard separately on the question of sentence.
Announced in open court on 01.12.2025 (Dr. Raj Kumar Singh) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/01.12.2025 Note: This judgment contains thirteen (13) pages and having my signature on each page.
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/01.12.2025