Delhi District Court
State vs Vishal Kumar on 27 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PADMA LADOL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04,
NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 18/2024
PS Inderpuri
U/S : 356/379/34 IPC, 1860
State V/s Vishal Kumar & Anr.
Cr.C No. 1541/2024
CNR No. DLND020128912024
Date of Institution 29.02.2024
Complainant Laxmi Narayan
S/o Sh. Kamal Singh
R/o WZ-102, GF, Dasghara Village,
Inderpuri, New Delhi
Name, parentage and address of the 1. Vishal Kumar
accused S/o Sh. Ajay Kumar
R/o C-211, JJ Colony, Inderpuri,
New Delhi
2. Adarsh
S/o Sh. Suresh
R/o C-253, Budh Nagar, JJ Colony,
Inderpuri, New Delhi
Offence complained off Section 356/379/34 Indian Penal
Code
Plea of Accused Not Guilty
Final Order Both the accused are convicted.
Date of Judgment 27.09.2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argued by: Ms. Shruti Singhal, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Sandeep Verma, Ld. LAC for both the accused.
Digitally
signed by
PADMA
FIR No.18/2024 PADMA LANDOL
State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27 Page 1 of 21
16:06:48
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The SHO, Police Station Inderpuri has presented this charge-
sheet against above named accused persons for initiation of trial U/s. 356/379/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.01.2014 the complainant was travelling in an e-rickshaw. At around 10.00 PM, when he reached near NPL Colony gate, two persons came on a bike and the pillion rider snatched his mobile phone make Redmi 11 Pro Navy Blue colour from his hand. Both the persons were not wearing any helmet and they fled away towards Ratanpuri Chowk. In case e-FIR No. 80006029/24 dated 17.01.2024 PS Inderpuri, accused Adarsh was arrested wherein he gave his disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the present case. Thereafter, after permission from Court, accused Adarsh was interrogated and formally arrested in the present case. Thereafter, at the instance of secret informer, accused Vishal Kumar was apprehended from Railway Line, C-Block Inderpuri who disclosed about his involvement in the present case and further disclosed that he gave the mobile phone of complainant to one boy who resides in B-Block Inderpuri. TIP of both the accused was successfully conducted on 22.01.2024. However, case property could not be recovered despite sufficient efforts. Based on the complaint of the complainant, present FIR was registered and investigation ensued. During further investigation, witnesses were FIR No.18/2024 Digitally State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr.
signed by
PADMA Page 2 of 21
PADMA LANDOL
LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27
16:06:54
+0530
examined and their statement u/s. 161 CrPC were recorded. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, final report was presented for trial against accused Vishal Kumar and Adarsh.
COGNIZANCE, COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 207 CRPC AND PLEA OF ACCUSED
3. After presentation of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken.
Copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to accused persons u/s. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"). Thereafter, charge u/s. 356/379/34 IPC was framed against both the accused on 26.03.2024 to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses and relied upon following evidence -
Witness exhibiting Identification Description
PW-1 Laxmi Narayan Ex. PW-1/A Written complaint/tehrir
PW-2 HC Suresh - -
PW-3 HC Arvind Ex. PW-3/A Arrest Memo of
accused Vishal Kumar
Ex. PW-3/B Personal Search Memo
of accused Vishal
Kumar
Ex. PW-3/C Disclosure Statement of
accused Vishal Kumar
Ex. PW-3/D Pointing out memo of
accused Vishal Kumar
PW-4 HC Kuldeep Ex. PW-4/A Arrest Memo of
accused Adarsh
Digitally
FIR No.18/2024 signed by
PADMA
State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. PADMA LANDOL Page 3 of 21
LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27
16:07:08
+0530
Ex. PW-4/B Disclosure Statement
of accused Adarsh
PW-5: HC Jai Bhagwan - -
PW-6: ASI Narender Ex. PW-6/A Rukka
Kumar
Ex. PW-6/B Site Plan
Ex. P1 (colly) Documents of case e-
FIR No. 80006029/24
Admitted document Ex. P2 TIP Proceedings
5. PW-1 Sh. Laxmi Naryan deposed that on 15.01.2024 at about 10:00 P.M he was going to his home after his duty in an e-rickshaw and he was going towards Dr. K.S.Krishan Marg. In front of NPL Colony Gate two persons came from side on scooty and the pillion rider snatched his mobile phone and ran away from the spot. He further deposed that both the persons were riding the scooty without helmet and they snatched his mobile phone make Redmi 11 Pro Navy Blue Colour having a SIM of JIO Dual Sim Mobile phone and the number was 9355149234 & 8860425433. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the PCR after reaching his home, he made the call from his wife's mobile phone. He further deposed that on next day, he gave his statement in the PS Inderpuri, the same is at Ex-PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A. Witness has also deposed that he was also shown the CCTV footages of the said incident by the police officials. PW-1 correctly identified both the accused persons in the court.
Digitally
signed by
PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
LANDOL Date:
FIR No.18/2024 2024.09.27
16:07:15
State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. +0530
Page 4 of 21
In his cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that he is working in Pitam Pura, Delhi. On the date of incident he was coming from his work place. That he commute by bus. On that day, after de-boarding the bus, he boarded the e- rickshaw from Pusa gate. He deposed that both the persons came on a scooty and committed the crime. That he cannot tell the colour and the registration number of the said scooty. PW-1 deposed that the incident occurred at about 10:00 P.M. He had left his office at about 08:00 PM. That the pillion rider was wearing white colour hood sweat shirt. PW-1 further deposed that accused who is sitting in white shirt in the court was the pillion rider and the other accused who is wearing cream colour printed shirt was driving the scooty. That he did not complain about the incident immediately as nobody helped him and when he reached his home, he filed the complaint at about 10:30 to 10:45 P.M. PW-1 admitted that he does not know the name of the accused persons. However, he deposed that he can identify them by their faces. He denied the suggestion that he had not correctly identified the accused persons and that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter.
6. PW-2: HC Suresh deposed that on 15.01.2024 he was posted at PS Inderpuri as HC. On that day, he along with ASI Narender went to NPL gate, Dr. Radha Krishan Marg, Delhi at about 10:00 P.M on receiving of DD no. 70A. Nobody was present at the spot. Thereafter, the call was made to the caller who had dialled PCR. Caller did not answer the call and they left for PS. On 16.01.2024 the complainant was FIR No.18/2024 Digitally signed by State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. PADMA Page 5 of 21 PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27 16:07:27 +0530 called at PS by the IO. He gave his statement which is at Ex- PW1/A. On his statement rukka was prepared by the IO and the present case was registered. IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC.
In his cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that call was received at about 09:30 PM and the intimation was received at the same time. That they left the PS within 5 minutes after the call. That he had no role in the investigation apart from the above mentioned statement.
7. PW-3: HC Arvind deposed that on 18.01.2024 he was posted at PS Inderpuri as HC. On that day, he was on patrolling duty pertaining to the present case along with ASI Narender. Through secret informer the information was received with regard to the whereabouts of the accused, namely Vishal. They came to know that accused was there in Railway Line Area. Thereafter, he along with ASI Narender went to C Block Railway Line. There accused namely Vishal was present. The accused was informed about the case and interrogated. The arrest of the accused was made vide arrest memo Ex-PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A along with personal search vide memo Ex-PW3/B bearing his signatures at point A. The disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded by the IO. The same is at Ex-PW3/C bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the place of occurrence. There the pointing out memo was prepared by the IO and the same is at Ex-PW3/D bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, accused namely Vishal was taken for FIR No.18/2024 Digitally signed by State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. PADMA PADMA LANDOL Page 6 of 21 LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27 16:07:48 +0530 the medical examination at RML hospital. Then they returned to the PS after the medical examination and the accused was kept in lockup. PW-3 correctly identified the accused in Court. He further stated that IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC.
In his cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that on that day he was on 24 hours emergency duty. The information was received at about 09:20 P.M. At that time, he was present in C block along with ASI Narender. That they reached the spot from where the accused was arrested within 15 minutes of the call. The distance between the PS and the area of arrest of the accused is around 500 metres. At the time of arrest accused was consuming intoxicated substance along with companion. The accused was apprehended from back. His companion fled away from the spot immediately after their arrival. Witness failed to remember what accused was wearing at that time. He further deposed that the accused was apprehended by him and he did not try to escape. Witness also deposed that place is a public place / Railway line and no request was made by the public person to join the investigation. The accused was taken for medical examination at about 11:00 P.M and returned to the PS after 20 minutes. The distance between the spot & RML hospital is around 10 km. PW-3 further deposed that the documents prepared in his presence were arrest memo, personal search memo & disclosure statement.
Digitally
signed by
PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27
16:08:01
FIR No.18/2024 +0530
State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. Page 7 of 21
8. PW-4: HC Kuldeep deposed that on 17.01.2024 he was posted as HC at PS Inderpuri and on that day, he arrested accused Adarsh in case E-FIR No. 80006029/2024, PS Inderpuri, who disclosed about his involvement in the present case i.e. case FIR No. 18/24 PS Inderpuri. He intimated IO/ASI Narender Kumar (IO of the case bearing No. 18/24) regarding the same and handed over the relevant documents of case e-FIR no. 80006029/2024 to him. The documents pertaining to case e-FIR no.
80006029/24 are at Ex-P1(colly). PW-4 further deposed that on 18.01.2024, IO/ASI Narender Kumar moved an application before the concerned court to interrogate and arrest accused Adarsh and after obtaining necessary permission arrested him vide arrest memo at Ex. PW-4/A bearing his signatures at point A. IO also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Adarsh at Ex. PW-4/B bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, the accused was sent to JC. That his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by the IO. PW-4 correctly identified the accused Adarsh in Court.
In his cross-examination, PW-4 deposed that he arrested accused Adarsh in case e-FIR No. 80006029/2024 on 17.01.2024 at about 11:00 P.M from Kaccha Raasta D Block, Inderpuri, New Delhi. That he cannot give description of the cloth being worn by the accused at that time as he does not remember. That the accused was travelling on a scooty alone and tried to escape when he signalled him to stop. Witness deposed that he does not remember the registration number of the said scooty, FIR No.18/2024 Digitally signed by State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. PADMA PADMA LANDOL Page 8 of 21 LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27 16:08:09 +0530 however, it was of dark red colour. That he managed to apprehend the accused after covering about 8-10 steps. The spot from where the accused was apprehended is not a public place. He voluntarily deposed that very few people used that road. Witness admitted that no public person was made a witness in the arrest proceedings of the accused. That he informed IO ASI Narender Kumar about the accused on 18.01.2024.
9. PW-5: HC Jai Bhagwan deposed that on 17.01.2024, he was posted as HC at PS Inderpuri. On that day, HC Kuldeep met with IO/ASI Narender Kumar and informed him that he had arrested accused Adarsh in case e-FIR No. 80006029/2024 and that the accused had disclosed about his involvement in the present matter. That on 18.01.2024, IO/ASI Narender Kumar moved an application before the concerned court to interrogate and arrest accused Adarsh and after obtaining necessary permission formally arrested him vide arrest memo at Ex-PW4/A. Thereafter, the accused was sent to JC. That his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC was recorded by the IO. PW-5 correctly identified the accused Adarsh in Court.
In his cross-examination, PW-5 admitted that the arrest memo of accused Ex-PW4/A does not bear his signatures. He denied the suggestion that the said arrest memo does not bear his signatures because he never joined investigation of the present case and he is deposing falsely in order to falsely implicate the accused in the present case.
Digitally
signed by
PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
FIR No.18/2024 LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27
State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. 16:08:15
+0530
Page 9 of 21
10. PW-6: ASI Narender Kumar deposed that on 15.01.2024 he was posted as ASI at PS Inderpuri and on that day, the PCR call was received with regard to the snatching of the mobile phone. Thereafter, he along with HC Suresh went to near NPL colony gate, but nobody was present at the spot. The said DD entry was kept pending. On 16.01.2024, the complainant came to PS in person and he recorded his statement. The same is at Ex-PW1/A bearing his signatures at point B. He prepared the rukka on the statement of the complainant. Same is at Ex-PW6/A, bearing his signatures at point A. The site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant. The same is at Ex-PW6/B, bearing his signatures at point B and the present FIR was registered. PW-6 further deposed that HC Kuldeep arrested accused Adarsh in case E-FIR No. 80006029/2024, PS Inderpuri, who disclosed about his involvement in the present case i.e. case FIR No. 18/24 PS Inderpuri. He intimated regarding the same and handed over the relevant documents of case e-FIR no. 80006029/2024 to him. The documents pertaining to case e-FIR no. 80006029/24 are at Ex- P1(colly). Witness further deposed that on 18.01.2024, he moved an application before the concerned court to interrogate and arrest accused Adarsh and after obtaining necessary permission arrested him vide arrest memo at Ex. PW-4/A bearing his signatures at point B. He also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Adarsh. Same is at Ex. PW-4/B bearing his signatures at point B. PW-6 further deposed that on 18.01.2024, on the information given by FIR No.18/2024 State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. Digitally signed by Page 10 of 21 PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27 16:08:21 +0530 secret informer with regard to the whereabouts of the accused, namely Vishal, they came to know that accused was there in Railway Line Area. Thereafter, he along with HC Arvind went to C Block Railway Line. There accused Vishal was present. The accused was informed about the case and interrogated. The arrest of the accused was made vide arrest memo at Ex-PW3/A bearing his signatures at point B along with personal search vide memo Ex-PW3/B bearing hid signatures at point B. The disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded and same is at Ex-PW3/C bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the place of occurrence. There the pointing out memo was prepared and the same is at Ex-PW3/D bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, accused namely Vishal was taken for the medical examination at RML hospital. They returned to the PS after the medical examination and the accused was kept in lockup. On 22.01.2024, the TIP of both the accused, namely Vishal & Adarsh got conducted by Ld. MM Sh. Yashdeep Chahal and the accused were correctly identified in the TIP by the complainant. The CDR of the mobile phone of the complainant was also obtained and one day PC was taken of the accused, namely Vishal. PW-6 correctly identified accused persons in the court. He lastly deposed that he recorded the statement of all the PWs U/s 161 Cr.PC.
In his cross-examination, PW-6 deposed that the information was received at about 10:00 P.M on dated 15.01.2024. They reached the spot of occurrence but no body was found there, neither the complainant, nor the Digitally FIR No.18/2024 signed by PADMA State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. PADMA LANDOL Page 11 of 21 LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27 16:08:28 +0530 accused. That the complainant was taken to the spot of occurrence at about 06:00 P.M and the site plan was prepared. The information was received on 18.01.2024 at about 10:00 A.M and the arrest of the accused was made at about 03:30 P.M with due permission of the Court. The arrest of the accused Vishal was made on the disclosure of accused Adarsh as well as the disclosure in e-FIR. He further deposed that on 18.01.2024, the accused, namely Vishal was arrested at about 10:30 P.M and they left the PS at about 09:05 P.M. That they reached the spot at about 10:00 P.M. That he does not remember what the accused was wearing. Witness further deposed that at the time of arrest accused was consuming intoxicated substance along with companion. The accused was apprehended from the back. His companion fled away from the spot immediately after their arrival. PW-6 further deposed that the accused was apprehended by him and he did not try to escape. That place is a public place / Railway line but no request was made by the public person to join the investigation and no notice was served to them. Then the accused was taken for medical examination at about 11:00 P.M and returned to the PS after 20 minutes. The distance between the spot & RML hospital is around 10 KM. The documents prepared by him were arrest memo, personal search memo & disclosure statement. He lastly deposed that no recovery was made from the possession of the accused. Witness denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
Digitally
signed by
PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
FIR No.18/2024 LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27
State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. 16:08:34
+0530
Page 12 of 21
11. The statement of both the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded on 20.08.2024 and they were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. The accused persons submitted that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
They further pleaded innocent, however, chose not to lead DE.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
12. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts by examining all the material witnesses who have supported the prosecution version in material aspects. Prosecution has relied on the testimony of complainant/victim who has successfully stood the test of cross-examination and his testimony is coherent in nature. All the PWs have successfully proved the ingredients of the provisions and to show that there is nothing to suggest otherwise in the present case than the commission of the offence u/s. 356/379/34 IPC by the accused. Accordingly, conviction of both the accused was prayed.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to examine any other eye-witness despite their availability at the spot as per the versions of all the PWs, hence, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts. Defence further FIR No.18/2024 Digitally signed by State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. PADMA PADMA LANDOL Page 13 of 21 LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27 16:08:53 +0530 argued that PW-1 could not tell the details (colour and registration number) of scooty on which the accused persons allegedly came and snatched his mobile phone. It is further argued that PW-3 has deposed that information about accused Vishal secret informer was received at around 09.20 PM however, PW-6 has deposed the time to be around 10 PM. He has lastly argued that PW-5 has admitted that his signature is not present on the Arrest Memo of accused Adarsh, hence, his role in the investigation or he being a part of investigating team is highly suspicious. Hence, case is liable to be dismissed and both the accused deserves to be acquitted of the present offence.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
14. After giving anxious consideration to the rival contentions and perusing the case file meticulously, this court is of the opinion that at the heart of the matter is a determination as to:
i) whether the accused Vishal Kumar and Adarsh in furtherance of their common intention used criminal force on the complainant Laxmi Narayan on 15.01.2024 at around 10.00 PM near NPL Colony Gate Inderpuri;
ii) whether the accused persons used the aforementioned criminal force against the complainant in order to commit theft of his mobile phone make Redmi 11 Pro navy blue colour carrying by the complainant in his hand on the said date, time and place; and
iii) whether the accused Vishal Kumar and Adarsh in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of Digitally FIR No.18/2024 signed by PADMA State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. PADMA LANDOL Page 14 of 21 LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27 16:09:00 +0530 above mentioned mobile phone belonging to complainant Laxmi Narayan on 15.01.2024 at around 10.00 PM near NPL Colony Gate Inderpuri.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
15. At the outset, it would be beneficial to peruse Sections 356 of IPC which defines 'Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person'. The provision read as follows:
"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."
Further Section 350 defines "Criminal Force" as:
"Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other."
Further Section 351 defines "Assault" as:
"Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who Digitally signed by FIR No.18/2024 PADMA PADMA LANDOL State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27 Page 15 of 21 16:09:13 +0530 makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault."
Further Sec. 378 IPC defines "Theft" as:
Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable 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.
16. The ocular testimony in support of prosecution is by way of PW-1/complainant. Complainant has been categorical in his deposition as to the incident happened with him on the date of incident. He has stated that on the date of incident i.e. 15.01.2024, he was returning from his office on an e- rickshaw and when at around 10 PM, he reached near NPL Colony Gate, two persons came adjacent to the e-rickshaw on a scooty and the pillion rider snatched his mobile phone from his hand. Both the accused were not wearing any helmets. Both the persons then fled away towards Ratanpuri chowk. After reaching home, he made PCR call from his wife's mobile phone and then investigation ensued. The important point to note is complainant/PW-1 has correctly identified both the accused in Court which is further supported by the factum of successful Test Identification Proceedings (TIP) of both the accused conducted during the course of investigation.
17. It is trite law that testimony of eye-witness/victim is the best evidence and conviction can be based solely on the FIR No.18/2024 Digitally signed by State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. PADMA Page 16 of 21 PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27 16:09:23 +0530 testimony of such witness if it is of sterling quality and inspires confidence. In Bhimappa Chandappa v. State of Karnataka (2006) 11 SCC 323, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "testimony of a solitary witness can be made the basis of conviction. The credibility of the witness requires to be tested with reference to the quality of his evidence which must be free from blemish or suspicion and must impress the Court as natural, wholly truthful and so convincing that the Court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither the Legislature (Section 134, Evidence Act, 1872) nor the judiciary mandates that there must be particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused. Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction."
Further, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mahesh vs State Of (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi (2007 SCC OnLine Del 633) held that: "Undoubtedly, he is a neighbour of the Appellants as well as the deceased. It is a well settled principle of law that it is quality of the evidence which is material for deciding the criminal trial. Emphasis has always been put on the quality of evidence under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, which makes it clear that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact."
Digitally
FIR No.18/2024 signed by
PADMA
State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. PADMA LANDOL Page 17 of 21
LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27
16:09:30
+0530
18. It is clear from the above that the conviction can be based solely on the basis of the testimony of eyewitness if such a testimony is coherent, of sterling quality and inspires confidence. In the present case, there is nothing adverse coming out in the cross-examination of PW-1/complainant.
Defence has not been able to raise any doubt in the case of prosecution in any manner or impeach the credibility of complainant. Complainant has successfully stood the test of cross-examination. With respect to the argument raised by defence that complainant did not remember the colour and registration number of the scooty, this Court is of the considered opinion that same is not a material fact which can go to the root of the prosecution case. When the complainant has correctly identified both the accused persons (whom he did not know from before) in Court as well as during the TIP proceedings, not remembering the details of scooty is definitely not fatal to the case of prosecution. In fact, complainant has been categorical during his cross- examination with respect to the identity of the accused persons and in this regard, he has deposed that the pillion colour was wearing white colour hood (sweat shirt) and he further correctly pointed out in Court that, "accused who is sitting in white shirt was the pillion rider and the other accused who is wearing cream colour printed shirt was driving the scooty". A person who has been snatched with his mobile phone on a road in the night at around 10 PM, the duration of snatching would have been of few seconds, he cannot be expected to remember each and every detail.
FIR No.18/2024 Digitally
State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. signed by
PADMA
Page 18 of 21
PADMA LANDOL
LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27
16:09:40
+0530
However, in this case, complainant distinctly remembers both the accused and has correctly identified both of them. There is absolutely no reason, why the complainant/victim will wrongly identify the accused persons as suggested by defence during his cross-examination, specially when they are absolutely strangers to him and further, there is no reason, whatsoever why the complainant will allow the actual culprits to go free. Not only the deposition of PW-1/complainant inspires confidence, it is supported by successful TIP proceedings of the accused persons. There is not a single reason why deposition of PW-1 should not be believed.
19. Remaining prosecution witness (PW-2 to PW-6) are police officials who were part of investigation team. Nothing adverse is coming out in their cross-examination which has the tendency to uproot the case of prosecution or disbelieve the version of complainant/PW-1 in any manner.
20. Ld. LAC for accused persons has raised an objection that no public witness has been examined by prosecution. As already discussed, our criminal justice system does not mandate plurality of witnesses, rather focus is on the quality of witness, even if it is a sole witness. When the testimony of complainant/PW-1 is coherent, caliber and it not only instil confidence in the court but the version is also unassailable. In such circumstances, this Court does not see the requirement of examining any public witnesses.
Digitally
signed by
PADMA
FIR No.18/2024 PADMA LANDOL
LANDOL Date:
State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. 2024.09.27 Page 19 of 21
16:09:50
+0530
21. Ld. LAC for accused persons has raised another objection with respect to contradiction in timing of information received by police officials. He has stated that PW-3 has mentioned the time as 09.20 PM, however, PW-6/IO has mentioned the time as 10 PM. Upon perusal of the testimony of both the said prosecution witnesses, it is observed that the objection of Ld. LAC is factually incorrect/misplaced. Reason being, PW-3 has mentioned about 9 PM on 18.01.2024 with respect to information received from secret informer about the whereabouts of accused Vishal. However, PW-6 has mentioned 10 PM as the time of receiving of information about the incident in question on 15.01.2024. Hence, the objection is liable to be dismissed.
Findings
22. Having ratiocinated that, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution thus has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Vishal Kumar and Adarsh in furtherance of their common intention used criminal force (by snatching) on the complainant Laxmi Narayan on 15.01.2024 at around 10.00 PM near NPL Colony Gate Inderpuri in order to commit theft of his mobile phone and thus, committed theft of his mobile phone make Redmi 11 Pro Navy blue colour. Ingredients of Section 356/379/34 IPC thus stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all the three points of determination as mentioned in paragraph 14 stands answered in positive.
Digitally signed by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27 16:11:07 FIR No.18/2024 +0530 State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. Page 20 of 21 FINAL ORDER
23. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Vishal Kumar S/o Sh. Ajay Kumar and Adarsh S/o Sh. Suresh are hereby convicted of offence punishable u/s.Digitally signed
356/379/34 IPC. PADMA by PADMA LANDOL Date: LANDOL 2024.09.27 16:06:33 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (PADMA LADOL) on this 27th September, 2024 JMFC-04: New Delhi: PHC
Certified that this judgment contains 21 pages and each page Digitally signed bears my signatures.
by PADMA PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.09.27 16:06:39 +0530 (PADMA LADOL) JMFC-04: New Delhi: PHC FIR No.18/2024 State Vs. Vishal Kumar & Anr. Page 21 of 21