Delhi District Court
State vs Lalit @Neeraj on 20 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS -05 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
Digitally signed by
State Vs.
FIR No
: Lalit @ Neeraj
: 495/17
RISHABH RISHABH KAPOOR
U/s : 356/379/411 IPC KAPOOR Date: 2024.12.20
15:11:19 +0100
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 13023/19 2. Date of commission of offence : 04.10.2017 3. Date of institution of the case : 01.07.2019 4. Name of the complainant : State 5. Name of accused, parentage & : Lalit @ Neeraj s/o Sh. Mam Chand 6. Offense complained or proved : U/s 356/379/411/34 IPC 7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 8. Date on which order was reserved: 05.12.2024 9. Final order : Acquitted 10. Date of final order : 20.12.2024
1. The accused is facing trial for offences 356/379/411/34 IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 04.10.2017, at about 2:30 PM in front of Panchdeep Apartments, Vikas Puri within jurisdiction of PS Vikas Puri the accused Neeraj @ Lalit along with his associate (since not traced) in furtherance of your State Vs: Lalit @ Neeraj FIR No : 495/17 U/s : 356/379/411 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 1 common intention of each other snatched a mobile phone of complainant Ms. Neelam without her consent and same was recovered from the possession of accused Neeraj @ Lalit nearby spot and thereby he committed offence u/s 356/379/411/34 IPC. The version of the complainant is that on the same day at around 2:30 PM, at Panchdeep Apartments, the accused tried to flee away after snatching the mobile phone of complainant and he was apprehended near the spot by the complainant and public persons. Pursuant to statement of complainant Smt. Neelam, the criminal law was set into motion vide registration of the present case FIR against accused and the investigation of the case began. After completion of investigation, the present charge-sheet for trial of accused Lalit @ Neeraj for the alleged offences was submitted in the Court.
2. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offences was taken by the Court and on the basis of material available on record, charges for offences u/s 356/379/411/34 IPC were framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined six witnesses in all. The accused also admitted certain formal documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C. After prosecution evidence, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
4. Ld. APP for State has contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts with the help of coherent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the alleged offences.
5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant and police agency has acted in connivance with the complainant. It is also contended that the fact the police has failed to join in any public person during investigation of the case is self- explanatory that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. With these submissions, prayer has been made for acquittal of accused in the present State Vs: Lalit @ Neeraj FIR No : 495/17 U/s : 356/379/411 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 2 case.
6. Prior to delving into the merits of contentions advanced on behalf of parties, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of the material witnesses in brief. PW-1 Smt. Neelam is the complainant in the present case. She deposed that in the year 2017, she was working as a house maid at Vikas Puri, Delhi. She further deposed that on 04.10.20217, when she was returning from her work at about 2:30 PM at near Panchdeep Apartments, Vikas Puri, suddenly two boys coming from back side on scooty snatched mobile phone from her hand and ran away to Lok Vihar Apartment side. She deposed that at that time she shouted for help and suddenly one person in a car chased the accused persons and at the corner of Lok Vihar Apartment they fell down from the scooty and tried to run away from the spot but public persons who are present at the spot apprehended one person. Thereafter, police reached at the spot and during his personal search, her mobile phone was recovered from his possession. She deposed that IO recorded her statement at the spot which is Ex. PW 1/A. She also deposed that IO also prepared site plan at her instance which is Ex. PW 1/B. During her, cross examination the complainant has failed to identify accused Lalit @ Neeraj in Court as the person who snatched her mobile phone. She denied that she has already settled the matter with the accused outside the court PW-2 Sh. Manoj Rana deposed that on 04.10.2017 he was going in his car for some work and at about 2:30 PM, when he reached near Panchdeep Apartments, Vikas Puri, he saw one scooty on which two persons were riding. He saw that the pillion rider of the scooty snatched one mobile phone from a passerby and ran away on the scooty. Thereafter, he chased the scooty from his car. He deposed that the scooty got dis-balanced at the corner of Lok Vihar Apartments, Vikas Puri and the scooty and its rider fell down. The rider of the scooty ran away from the spot and he went out of his car and apprehended the pillion rider who snatched the mobile phone of passerby. He deposed that the said pillion rider disclosed his name as Lalit and in the meanwhile, he recovered the stolen mobile phone from his pocket. He deposed that complainant had also arrived at the spot. This witness correctly identified the accused Lalit @ Neeraj in the Court. He deposed that he called at 100 number. Thereafter police came and handed over the State Vs: Lalit @ Neeraj FIR No : 495/17 U/s : 356/379/411 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 3 apprehended person to the police and the recovered mobile phone. He deposed that thereafter IO recorded the statement of complainant already Ex. PW 1/A and IO prepared the Tehrir and sent Ct. Monu for registration of FIR. He deposed that IO prepared the site plan, seized the scooty and mobile phone vide memos Ex. PW 2/A & Ex,PW2/B respectively. He further deposed that accused was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW 2/C and personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW 2/D. He also identified the case property as Ex. P-1. During cross-examination, he stated that he remained at the spot for about 15 minutes. He deposed that he chased the scooty from his car for about 500 to 600 meters. He admitted that he took the mobile phone from the accused. He deposed that he called the PCR at around 2:30 PM and police came at the spot at within ten minutes thereafter. He deposed that IO sent Ct Monu to the PS with tehrir at about 2:45 PM and be came back along with FIR after 10 to 15 minutes. He denied that he had not apprehended the accused or that the mobile phone was recovered from the accused.
PW-3 HC Monu has deposed that on 04.02.2017, while he was on emergency duty with the IO namely ASI Satywan Singh from 8:00 am to 8:00 PM, then at about 2:45 PM, he along with the IO were coming after attending one PCR call. He deposed that when they reached near Lok Vihar Apartments, Vikas Puri, they noticed one scooty bearing no. DL-4SBY-1401 and public had gathered there and the complainant namely Neelam who had apprehended the accused with the help of public persons was also present there. He deposed that IO inquired from the complainant who told that accused along with his another associate had snatched her mobile phone and while they were trying to escape, they fell down from the scooty and one of the associate had escaped from the spot and one was apprehended with the help of public person. This witness correctly identified the accused Lalit @ Neeraj in the court. He deposed that IO recorded the statement of complainant and he prepared the tehrir and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He deposed that upon inquiry the scooty use by the accused was found to be stolen in another FIR and same was also seized by the IO. He deposed that the accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted.
State Vs: Lalit @ Neeraj FIR No : 495/17 U/s : 356/379/411 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 4 He further deposed that IO also seized the mobile phone of Samsung Galaxy J-2 belonging to the complainant from the possession of accused vide seizure memo vide Ex. PW 3/A and IO also seized another mobile phone of OPPO which was recovered from the accused. He deposed that IO also prepared the site plan in his presence, recorded the disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW 3/B and upon the disclosure of the accused another scooty bearing no. DL-4SPS-4333 was got recovered (which was found to be stolen in another FIR) was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 3/C. he deposed that IO prepared the site plan of the place from where the scooty bearing no. DL-4SPS-4333 was found. The site plan is Ex. PW 3/D. he deposed that the accused also showed the place from where he had stolen the OPPO Mobile phone from Najafgarh Road Dhauli Piyau Vikas Puri, which was found from his possession in his cursory search, vide pointing out memo which is Ex. PW 3/F. During cross-examination, he stated that the accident did not take place in his presence. He admitted that no PCR call was made regarding the above said case. He admitted that complainant's phone was handed over by complainant to the IO.
PW-4 SI Satyawan deposed on same lines as that of PW-3 and hence, his entire testimony is not being reproduced to avoid any repetition. During his cross- examination, he admitted that he had not inquired any public persons about any capturing of any photo or video of the alleged incident. He could not state what attire was worn by the accused on that day. He could not state the position of the accused whether he had attained any injury or not. He denied that complainant did not recognize the accused in her complaint. He stated that there were no CCTV Cameras installed at the spot. He denied that all the proceedings were conducted in the PS. PW-5 Retired SI Sumer Singh deposed that after completion of investigation, has filed the charge sheet before the court.
PW-6 HC Makhan Lal has proved the entry no. 2152 dated 04.10.2017 vide Ex. PW 6/A ( OSR) and RC no. 117/21/17 dated 13.10.2017 vide Ex. PW 6/B.
7. The accused also admitted FIR as Ex.A-1 and certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act as Ex.A-2, vide his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
State Vs: Lalit @ Neeraj FIR No : 495/17 U/s : 356/379/411 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 5 This is the entire evidence on the case record.
8. The allegations against accused are that on 04.10.2017 at around 02:30 PM in front of Panchdeep Apartment Vikas Puri the accused along with his associate (since not traced) in furtherance of common intention of each other snatched a mobile phone of complainant Ms. Neelam without her consent. It is also in the allegations that the accused was apprehended at the spot by the complainant and the recovery of mobile phone of complainant was effected from him.
9. It is pertinent to mention that during the course of her deposition as PW-1, the complainant has failed to identify the accused Neeraj @ Lalit as the person who allegedly snatched her mobile phone or as a person from whom the mobile phone belonging to her was recovered. In nutshell, the testimony of complainant/ PW-1 Neelam is off no avail for establishing the prosecution story in any manner. The version of the prosecution as mentioned in the chargesheet is that after the alleged incident, when the complainant raised hue and cry for help, the offenders, who had snatched the mobile phone of complainant were chased down by a car driver and at near the place of incident, the scooty of the offenders got dis-balanced due to which they fell down and the accused Lalit @ Neeraj was caught hold off by the public persons along with the mobile phone of complainant while his associate successfully escaped from the spot. The prosecution is relying upon the testimony of PW-2 Manoj Rana, who is cited as an alleged eye witness to the incident. PW-2 has stated that he saw that a pillion rider of the motorcycle had snatched the mobile phone of a passerby and the scooty on which the offenders were riding was chased by him leading to the apprehension of accused Lalit @ Neeraj. The careful analysis of testimony of PW-2 suggests that the police arrived at the spot pursuant to the PCR call made by him but as per the version of PW-3 HC Monu as well as PW-4 IO SI Satyawan, they reached at the spot as they saw a crowd of public which already gathered there. More specifically, as per PW-3 and PW-4, they reached the spot when they witnessed the crowd of public already gathered there with the accused already apprehended by the said crowd. It is pertinent to point out that the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 nowhere states that they had reached the spot pursuant to any PCR Call made by PW-2 or complainant/PW-1. Besides, there is nothing in the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 with respect to the presence of PW-2 at State Vs: Lalit @ Neeraj FIR No : 495/17 U/s : 356/379/411 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 6 the spot when they reached there nor their testimony speaks about the recording of statement of PW-2 during the course of investigation. These material contradictions and inconsistencies in the version narrated by the afore named PWs makes that presence of PW-2 at spot highly doubtful. There is no reasonable justification offered by the prosecution with respect to the aforesaid inconsistencies in the version of the above-named witnesses. The testimony of all the material PWs including complainant reflects that the place of alleged occurrence is a public place and there were several public persons present there at the time of arrival of police but no such person was associated in the investigation of the case for the reasons unexplained. It also perceives that the IO had remained present on the spot for a considerable time period but surprisingly during aforesaid period, no substantial efforts seem to have been made by the IO for associating the public persons in the investigation of the case. The above discrepancies pointed out in the version of prosecution witnesses coupled with the omissions on the part of IO, casts doubts on the fairness of the investigation conducted by the police and gives strength to the version of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The inability of prosecution to establish the presence of the so-called eye witness/ PW-2 at the spot of alleged incident also makes the version of prosecution quite improbable. Even, it also perceives from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the recovery of alleged stolen mobile phone was also not affected from the possession of accused by the police as same was admittedly, given by the complainant to the police at the time when the latter reached the spot.
10. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place accused Neeraj @ Lalit along with his associate ( since not traced ) in furtherance of common intention of each other used criminal force upon complainant Neelam while committing the theft of her mobile phone and also that the accused had dishonestly snatched the said mobile phone from the possession of complainant without her consent, therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted for the alleged offences u/s 356/379/34 IPC. The prosecution has also failed to establish the recovery of the alleged stolen mobile phone of complainant from possession of accused through any cogent and convincing evidences, State Vs: Lalit @ Neeraj FIR No : 495/17 U/s : 356/379/411 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 7 therefore, the accused also deserves to be acquitted for offence u/s 411 IPC. Accordingly, accused Neeraj @ Lalit is hereby acquitted for the offences u/s 356/379/411/34 IPC.
11. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court on 20.12.2024 (Rishabh Kapoor) JMFC-05 South West Dwarka New Delhi 20.12.2024 State Vs: Lalit @ Neeraj FIR No : 495/17 U/s : 356/379/411 IPC P.S. Vikas Puri 8