Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/66126/2016 on 15 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUBY NEERAJ KUMAR, ACMM (WEST), WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI State v. Maninderjeet Singh FIR No. 102/14 u/s 392/411 IPC PS Patel Nagar Unique Case I.D No. DLWT02002886/2014 JUDGMENT
Serial No. of the case 66126/2016
Date of commission of offence 22.02.2014
Date of institution of case 04.04.2014
Name of the complainant Ms. Asha Sidana
Name of Accused, parentage Maninderjeet Singh S/o Sh. Rattan Singh
& Address R/o H.No. 2108, Gali No. 13,
Prem Nagar, Delhi
Offence complained Section 392 IPC
Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of Argument 22.08.2022
Final Order Convicted for offence u/s. 379/356 IPC
Date of Judgment 15.09.2022
BRIEF FACTS
1. Concise facts of the case as enunciated by the prosecution are that on 22.02.2014 at about 08:50 pm in front of Block No.11, Muskan Dental, West Patel Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS-Patel FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 1 of 21 Nagar, accused voluntarily caused hurt to Complainant/PW-1 Asha Sidana by twisting her hand and forcefully snatched her purse from her hand containing Rs. 615/-(500x1, 100x1 & coins of Rs 5), Voter Card and one Ganesha sticker. It is alleged that while running away with the said purse, accused collided with a tree and fell down. Allegedly, on alarm being raised by the Complainant/PW-1, public persons apprehended the accused and call was made at 100 no. Information regarding the alleged incident was recorded by PW-2 ASI Raj Kumar vide DD no. 62-B dated 22.02.2014, which is Ex. PW-2/A and the same was handed over to PW-4 IO/SI Vinay. It is the case of the prosecution that after receiving DD no. 62-B, PW-4/IO alongwith PW-3 Constable Pramod reached at the spot. The stolen purse was recovered from the possession of the accused and the same was seized by PW-4/IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C. PW-4/IO recorded the statement of the Complainant / PW-1 i.e. Ex. PW-1/A, prepared rukka on the basis of the same and handed it over to PW-3 for registration of FIR. On the basis of the rukka, PW-2 ASI Raj Kumar registered the present case FIR i.e. Ex.PW-2/B against the accused under section 392/411 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC')and made an endorsement on the rukka, which is Ex.PW- 2/C. Certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW-2/D. Allegedly, PW-4/IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/D, conducted his personal search vide personal FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 2 of 21 search memo Ex. PW-3/A and recorded his disclosure statement, which is Ex. PW-3/B. PW-4/IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the Complainant/PW-1, which is Ex. PW-1/B and conducted further investigation
2. Investigation was concluded and chargesheet was filed in the court.
Cognizance of the offence was taken and copy of chargesheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C').
3. Arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 11.09.2014, charge for offence under section 392 IPC was framed against the accused. The accusation was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE RECORDED DURING TRIAL
4. The prosecution has examined four witnesses to substantiate the allegations leveled against the accused.
5. PW-1 Asha Sidana is the Complainant. She has deposed that on the date of incident at about 08:30 pm while, she was coming from the market, accused came from her back side and forcibly snatched her purse containing Rs. 615/- & ID proof from her hand. She has further deposed that while, running away from the spot, accused collided with a tree and fell down on the ground. She has further FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 3 of 21 deposed that on alarm being raised by her, public persons apprehended the accused and called at 100 no. She has deposed that the police officials reached at the spot and she narrated the entire incident to them. Her statement is stated to have been recorded by the police official, which is Ex. PW-1/A. She has further deposed that the police official prepared the site plan at her instance i.e. Ex. PW-1/ B. She has further deposed that her purse containing Rs. 615 & ID proof was recovered from the possession of the accused, it was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C and the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/D. She has further identified the case property.
6. In her cross-examination, PW-1/complainant deposed that she had seen the face of the accused when he was running away with her purse and collided with the tree & fell down on the ground. She further admitted that her purse was handed over to her by the public persons, who had apprehended the accused.
7. PW-2 ASI Raj Kumar is the Duty Officer. He has proved recording of DD no. 62-B dated 22.02.2014, which is Ex. PW-2/A & registration of present case FIR i.e. Ex. PW-2/B.
8. PW-3 Constable Pramod had accompanied PW-4/IO to the spot and joined the investigation of the present case.
9. PW-4 SI Vinay is the Investigating officer of the present case. He has deposed that on the date of incident, on receiving DD no. 62-B FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 4 of 21 dated 22.02.2014, he along with PW-3 reached at the spot. He has deposed that at the spot, Complainant/PW-1 handed over the accused to him and narrated the entire incident. He has deposed that the stolen purse was recovered from the possession of the accused and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C. He has further deposed that he recorded the statement of the Complainant/PW-1 i.e. Ex. PW-1/A and handed over the same to PW-3 for the registration of FIR. He has stated that PW-3 came back at the spot alongwith the copy of FIR & original rukka and handed over the same to him. He has deposed that he prepared the site plan at the instance of the Complainant/PW-1, which is Ex. PW-1/B. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/D, conducted his personal search vide personal search memo, which is Ex. PW-3/A and recorded his disclosure statement, which is Ex. PW-3/B. He has deposed that he also recorded the statement of one public person/eye witness Devinder Kumar, who had called at the 100 no.
10. It is pertinent to mention herein that during the course of trial, public witness Devinder Kumar remained untraceable and therefore, he was dropped from the list of witnesses by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 17.02.2020.
11. PE was closed on 17.02.2020. Statement of accused under section 313 r/w 281 Cr. P.C was recorded on 06.03.2020 wherein, all the FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 5 of 21 incriminating evidence were put to the accused. In his statement recorded under section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C, accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
12. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the accused as well as Ld. APP for the State and perused the record carefully.
13. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that despite the place of apprehension being a public place not a single public person has been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the testimony of PW-1/complainant and recovery of the stolen purse from the possession of accused or to prove case of the prosecution. He has further argued that there are material discrepancies in the testimony of PW-1/ Complainant which strikes at the veracity and credibility of the witness. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted of the alleged offence.
14. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the Complainant/PW-1 has correctly identified the accused and her testimony stands corroborated by testimony of PW-4/IO & PW-3. He has argued that combined reading of the testimony of PW-1, PW-3 & PW- 4/IO unmistakably points towards the guilt of the accused. Ld. APP for the State has contended that all the prosecution witnesses FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 6 of 21 have supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted and sentenced as per law. He has further argued that the discrepancies pointed out by the defence counsel in the testimony of PW-1/complainant are minor in nature having occurred due to lapse of time and does not strike at the root of the prosecution's case.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
15. In the instant case accused has been charged for offence punishable under section 392 IPC. Section 392 IPC specifically provides punishment for the offence of 'robbery' defined under section 390 IPC. Section 390 IPC defines robbery as under:-
"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 theft, the offender, for the end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt 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 FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 7 of 21 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.
Explanation.-The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint."
16. Bare perusal of the said provision would show that either theft is robbery or extortion is robbery. In the facts & circumstances of the instant case, we are only concerned with when the theft is robbery. An analysis of section 390 IPC would show that in order that theft may constitute robbery, prosecution has to establish:-
(a) if in order to the committing of theft; or
(b) in committing the theft; or
(c) in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft;
(d) the offender for that end i.e. any of the ends contemplated by
(a) to (c)
(e) 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 instant wrongful restraint.FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 8 of 21
17. In other words, theft would only be robbery if for any of the ends mentioned in (a) to (c) the offender 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 instant wrongful restraint. Reliance in this regard could be place upon State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli; (1997) 2 Crimes 228 (Bom).
18. In the instant case, perusal of the testimony of the Complainant clearly shows that there is no evidence that either in order to the committing of theft or in committing theft or in carrying away or in attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, the accused for that end voluntarily caused or attempted 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. The Complainant/PW- 1 has merely stated in her testimony that the accused forcibly snatched her purse from her hand.
19. Thus, the essential ingredients required to bring the offence committed by the accused within the purview of section 390 IPC are lacking in the case at hand. However, the prosecution has successfully established that the accused committed theft of the purse belonging to the Complainant and he used criminal force while doing so. The ingredients of the offence under section 379/356 IPC have been duly proved by the prosecution against the accused.
FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 9 of 2120. Section 379 IPC specifically provides punishment for the offence of theft defined under section 378 IPC as:
"Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moved that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft."
21. Thus, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for committing offence punishable under section 379 IPC, prosecution is required to prove that the accused dishonestly removed the stolen articles from the possession of PW-1/Complainant without her consent.
22. Further, Section 356 IPC provides punishment for using criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person, enunciating therein, "Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting to commit theft on any property which that person is then wearing or carrying shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both".
23. As per Section 349 IPC, a person is said to use force on another when he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, if he causes to any substance such motion, change of motion or cessation of motion as brings it in the contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything, which that other is FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 10 of 21 wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact which affects the other's sense of feeling. This should be done by his own bodily power or by use of some substance or by inducing any animal to change the motion.
24. Section 350 IPC further enunciates that the use of force will become criminal when it is done against the consent of any person with the intention of committing an offence, or to cause injury, fear or annoyance.
25. The question that arises for consideration at this juncture is whether the accused can be convicted for an offence for which he has not been charged with. The answer to this in affirmative emanates from the provision laid down under section 222 Cr.P.C. Section 222 Cr.P.C provides as under:-
"(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence though he was not charged with it.
(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 11 of 21 the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied."
26. In Shamnsaheb M.Multtani v. State Of Karnataka; AIR 2001 SC 921, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :-
"Section 222(1) of the Code deals with a case when a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars. The Section permits the court to convict the accused of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it. Sub-section (2) deals with a similar but slightly different situation. When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence although he is not charged with it.
What is meant by a minor offence for the purpose of Section 222 of the Code. Although the said expression is not defined in the Code it can be discerned from the context that the test of minor offence is not merely that the prescribed punishment is less than the major offence. The two illustrations provided in the section would bring the above point home well. Only if the two offences are cognate offences, wherein the main ingredients are common, the one punishable among them with a lesser sentence can be regarded as minor offence vis-à-vis the other offence."
27. Adverting to the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimony of Complainant/PW-1 Asha Sidana. Testimony of the Complainant/PW-1 is paramount for proving the prosecution's case. Complainant/PW-1 has categorically deposed that on the date of incident, while she was coming from the market, accused FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 12 of 21 forcibly snatched her purse and ran away. She has further deposed that the accused while running away with her purse bumped into a tree and fell down. On alarm being raised by the Complainant/PW- 1, public persons apprehended the accused and the purse of the Complainant/PW-1 was recovered from his possession. She has deposed that some public person called at 100 no. and PW-3 & PW-4/IO came at the spot. Her statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded and site plan Ex.PW-1/B was prepared by PW-4/IO. PW-1 had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property during the trial. Moreover, the testimony of Complainant/PW-1 has been corroborated in material particulars by the testimony of PW-3 & PW-4/IO.
28. As regards the argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for the accused that in the absence of any other eyewitness, sole testimony of the Complainant/PW-1 can not be relied upon, it is well settled principle of law that conviction can be based on the solitary testimony of the Complainant, if it's reliable, trustworthy and free from blemishes. Further, it is well settled position of law that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence that is necessary for the prosecution to prove its case. The principle as enunciated under section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. Reliance in this regard could FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 13 of 21 be placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases titled as Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras; AIR 1957 SC 614 & Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra; (2007) 14 SCC 150. Further, it is pertinent to mention that public witness/eye-witness Devinder was arrayed as a prosecution witness but he could not be traced and therefore, dropped from the list of witnesses by the Ld. Predecessor. Furthermore, non-joining of the public witness is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported as Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 1 SCC 240:-
"As regards the examination of independent persons or witnesses, we would do well to note a decision of this Court in Ambika Prasad and Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.) (2002) 2 SCC 646, wherein this Court in paragraph 12 observed:
"12. It is next contended that despite the fact that 20 to 25 persons collected at the spot at the time of the incident as deposed by the prosecution witnesses, not a single independent witness has been examined and, therefore, no reliance should be placed on the evidence of PW5 and PW7. This submission also deserves to be rejected. It is known fact that independent persons are reluctant to be witnesses or to assist the investigation. Reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, in cases where injured witnesses or the close relative of the deceased are under constant threat and they dare not depose the truth before the court, independent witnesses believe that their safety is not guaranteed. That belief cannot be said to be without any substance. Another reason may be the delay in recording the evidence of independent witnesses and repeated adjournment in the court. In any case, if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, the prosecution cannot be blamed and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence ...."FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 14 of 21
29. Also, in State of U.P v. Anil Singh, 1988 Supp SCC 686, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with similar contention observed as under:
"In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable.
The test of creditworthiness and acceptability in our view, ought to be the guiding factors and if so the requirements as above, stand answered in the affirmative, question of raising an eyebrow on reliability of witness would be futile. The test is the credibility and acceptability of the witnesses available - if they are so, the prosecution should be able to prove the case with their assistance."
30. From the afore-noted judicial decisions, the legal position which can be culled out is that the factum of non-examination of public/independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution in every case. It depends upon the additional factor whether the evidence led by the prosecution inspires confidence or not. If the evidence led by the prosecution is otherwise credible and trustworthy, the non-examination of independent/public witness is of no consequence. There is no mandatory rule or law FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 15 of 21 that non examination of public witness in all circumstances would vitiate the trial.
31. In the instant case Complainant/PW-1 was cross examined at length but nothing material could be elicited therefrom which could cast a doubt on her veracity and thus, there is no reason to discard the testimony of the Complainant/PW-1 Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid authorities, it can safely be stated that in the case at hand there is no reason to hold that non- examination of the independent witnesses affect the prosecution's case.
32. Another argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for the accused is that there are material discrepancies in the testimony of Complainant/ PW-1 in as much as PW-1 has categorically stated in her complaint Ex. PW-1/A that the accused had twisted her arm and forcibly snatched her purse while, her testimony is totally silent on the said aspect. He has further stated that the Complainant/PW-1 has stated in her complaint that the alleged purse contained Rs. 600/- while as, in her testimony, she has deposed that it contained Rs. 615/-.
33. Before dealing with the said argument of Ld. Defence Counsel, it would be apropos to refer to the following observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr., (1981) 2 SCC 752:
"In the depositions of witnesses there are always some normal discrepancies however honest and FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 16 of 21 truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. As indicated above we have not found any material discrepancies in the evidence of the P. W
1."
34. Further, in Rammi Alias Rameshwar v. State Of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 1999 SC 3544, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
" When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
It is a common practice in trial courts to make out contradictions from previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross-examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness."FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 17 of 21
35. Also, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State Of Gujarat; 1983 SCR (3) 280:
"We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by learned counsel for the appellant. Over much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:
(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an inci-
dent. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) ordinarily it so happens that a witness is over- taken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be at- tuned to absorb the details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from person to per- son. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversa- tion and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the con- versation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a hu- man tape recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time dura- tion of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment 1.1 at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it de- pends on the time- sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accu- rately the sequence of events which take place in rapid FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 18 of 21 succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. (7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be over- awed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross ex- amination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbe- lieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him-Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.
Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore can- not be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important "probabilities-factor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses."
36. In view of the above mentioned dictums, it cannot be said that the said discrepancy in the testimony of Complainant/PW-1 has created a doubt on her credibility and veracity of her evidence. The discrepancy/ contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused is, in my opinion, minor, insignificant, natural & does not have any bearing on the merits of the case and can be safely ignored. It is well settled legal position that the discrepancy, which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity. Meaning thereby, minor contradictions which do not hit at the root of the case of the prosecution are to be ignored by the courts.
FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 19 of 2137. Having dealt with the objections raised by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and reverting back to the testimony of Complainant/PW-1, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, Complainant/ PW-1 is a material as well as the only eye witness to the alleged offence of theft by use of criminal force and therefore, her testimony cannot be discarded unless it is inconsistent and doubtful. Further, bare perusal of the testimony of PW-1 shows that the accused forcibly snatched the purse of the complainant/PW-1 from her possession without her consent. The Complainant/PW-1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused but nothing material could be elicited therefrom which could cast a doubt on the veracity of her statement. Moreover, cumulative and harmonious reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses manifestly, point towards the guilt of the accused.
38. The arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused i.e. Ex.PW-1/D and Ex PW-3/A respectively, have been duly proved by PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 and the accused has been duly identified in the court by the Complainant/ PW-1 as well as the other witnesses. Furthermore, the stolen purse & articles therein were recovered from the possession of the accused and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C. The seizure memo bears signature of the Complainant/ PW-1, PW-3 & PW-4. The site plan of the place of occurrence i.e. Ex.PW-1/B has been duly FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 20 of 21 proved by the prosecution through testimony of PW-1 & PW-4. Further, DD No. 62-B dated 22.02.2014 i.e. Ex.PW-2/A, vide which information of the alleged offence was recorded, has also been duly proved by the prosecution. Consequently, the explicit and unequivocal testimony of Complainant/ PW-1 and evidence brought on record by the prosecution unmistakably points towards the guilt of the accused.
39. Keeping in view the above discussed facts, circumstances and evidence adduced in the instant case, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved all the ingredients of the offence under section 379/356 IPC against the accused. In view thereof, accused Maninderjeet Singh S/o Rattan Singh is convicted for offence under section 379/356 IPC.
40. Accused be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed by RUBYRUBY NEERAJ KUMAR NEERAJ Date: KUMAR 2022.09.15 16:40:33 +0530 Announced in open court (Ruby Neeraj Kumar) on this 15th day of September, 2022 ACMM/West/THC FIR No. 102/2014 State v. Maninderjeet Singh PS - Patel Nagar Page 21 of 21