Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh @ Matka on 22 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKSHAY SHARMA, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, SOUTH EAST, SAKET
COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No.116/2011
PS. OIA
U/s. 392/411/34 IPC
STATE VS SATISH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 429/2/11
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 27.08.2011
C. NAME OF THE : Avdesh Kumar
COMPLAINANT S/o Sh. Ram Lakhan
D. NAME OF THE : Satish Kumar s/o Lt. Sh. Dayanand.
ACCUSED Rajesh @ Matka
S/o Sh.Pooranchand
(proceedings abated on
26.04.2018)
E. OFFENCE COMPLAINED
OF : U/s 392/411/34 IPC
F. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
G. FINAL ORDER : Convicted u/s 392/34 IPC
H. DATE OF COMMISSION
OF OFFENCE : 19.04.2011
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 22.04.2025
BRIEF FACTS
1. Brief facts of the instant case as per the complaint on the basis of which the present FIR was registered are that on 19.04.2011 at around 03:10 AM, when complainant Avdesh Kumar, who worked as a driver at Buddy's Broaster at 217A, OIA-III, was returning from his duty, when he reached near Govindpuri Metro Station, near metro pillar no.168, 03 boys came on a motorcycle and asked him as to where they can find "parathas" , the complainant replied "at Govindpuri red light".
Digitally signed by AKSHAYAKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22 16:12:46 +0530 :2: The said boys left and stopped after 08-10 metro pillars. When the complainant reached near those boys on his bicycle, the said boys stopped him and started beating him up. One of the boys (of around 5'8 height and 19-20 years old) asked the complainant to give them whatever he has, the complainant had surrendered to their demands and requested them to not beat him, in the meanwhile, another boy (of around 5'2 height and 19-20 years old) took out the wallet of the complainant from the back pocket of his trouser which contained Rs.250/- cash, driving license of the complainant, 02 CNG receipts of Rs.425/- each, 01 sim card and 01 toll receipt of Rs.35/-, the 3rd boy also took out the Nokia 1616 mobile phone of the complainant from the pocket of the shirt of the complainant. Thereafter, the said boys threatened the complainant to kill him if he reports the offence, the complainant was beaten with kicks and fist blows and the boys had run away in the motorcycle.
2. The complainant had stated that the motorcycle was Bajaj Pulsar, Silver Colour having 120 as last digits of the registration no. the complainant also stated that he can also identify the accused persons. On the basis of the abovesaid facts, the present FIR was registered and the investigation was undertaken. Medical examination of the complainant was conducted and the site plan was prepared. Thereafter, on 20.04.2011, information was received vide DD no.43A, PS Lajpat Nagar that 02 accused persons namely, Rajesh @ Matka and Satish Kumar have been arrested and the stolen mobile phone of the present case FIR has been recovered from them. Thereafter, both the accused persons were arrested, Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22 16:12:50 +0530 :3: the case property was brought to the malkhana of PS OIA from PS Lajpat Nagar. Application for conducting TIP of the accused persons was filed by the IO, however, the accused persons refused to get their TIP conducted. Police custody of the accused persons was also obtained and search of the 3rd co-accused was made, however, the 03rd accused was not found. Thereafter, the remaining aspects of the investigation were completed and the present charge-sheet was filed against both the accused persons.
3. On 26.04.2018, during the course of proceedings, the death verification report of accused Rajesh @ Matka was filed and proceedings against accused Rajesh @ Matka were abated. Therefore, the present judgment is being passed qua accused Satish Kumar only.
CHARGE
4. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, charge u/s 392/411/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC) was framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution in support of its case examined the following witnesses:
5.1. PW Avdhesh Kumar, was examined as PW1, his Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22 16:12:54 +0530 :4: examination in chief is herein reproduced as under:
"In the intervening night of 18-19.04.2011, I was on night duty from 7.00 pm to 4.00 am at company namely M/s Buddy broaster having its office at 217A, OIA Phase III. Due to no work in the company I left the company at around 3.00 am (night). I was proceeding towards my home i.e house of Indraj, Mata Mohalla, village Tehkhand, New Delhi on my bicycle via Maa Anand Mai Marg. When I reached at Govindpuri metro station at around 3.10 am (night), three persons came from Kalkaji side on a motorcycle and they asked me " Parathe kaha milte hai". I replied them that the same was available at Govindpuri red light. They were proceedings towards Govindpuri red light side and they were standing on service road near Govindpuri red light. I reached there. The said three persons firstly gave beating to me with fist and leg blows. They said me what were you were carrying. I replied them " Jo sb kuch mere pas le lo, maro mat". The tallest boy who was wearing green baniyan snatched my purse from my back pocket of my pant. My purse containing an amount of Rs. 250/- and two slips of Rs. 425/- each of CNG and one slip of Rs. 35/- of toll. Smallest boy snatched my mobile make Nokia 1600 having no. 8800273085, from my shirt pocket. The third person caught hold my hands. Thereafter, the said three persons again gave beating to me with fist and leg blows. The tallest boy told me " agar police me report karvayega to jan se mar dunga". Thereafter, the said three persons fled away from the spot on the said motorcycle make Pulsar Silver colour and last digit of registration no. of said motorcycle was 120. I sustained injuries on my stomach, back and various parts of body. Thereafter, I went to my house i.e the above mentioned address on my bicycle.
On same day, I came on my duty at around 7.00 pm. I narrated the incident to my company colleague and they advised me to give complaint to the police. Thereafter, I went to PS OIA and I narrated the incident to the police and police recorded my statement which is Ex. PW1/A, bears my signature at point A. IO prepared the site plan at my instance at the spot. Later on the said mobile phone was recovered and I got released the said mobile on superdari vide superdaginama which is Ex. PW1/B, bear my signature at point A. My purse containing DL and Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22 16:12:58 +0530 :5: SIM card. Till date my purse containing the said articles are not recovered. I was medically examined vide MLC. I can identify the said motorcycle if shown to me. The identity of the said motorcycle is not disputed as the same has been released on superdari.
I identify both the accused persons present in the court today.
At this stage, the witness pointed out towards the accused Rajesh who had snatched his purse from his back pocket of his pant and he is the same person as narrated earlier as tallest boy.
At this stage the witness pointed out towards the accused Satish who caught hold the hands of witness and his role is already explain earlier.
I can identify the third person if shown to me.
Further examination in chief is deferred for want of case property i.e said mobile phone.
Today I have brought the mobile phone make Nokia 1616 which was snatched by the accused person ( not arrested). The case property i.e the said mobile phone is Ex. P1."
5.2. PW Ct. Tulsi Ram was examined as PW2, his examination in chief is herein reproduced as under:
"On 19.04.2011, I was posted as Ct. at PS-OIA. On that day, I joined the investigation with IO/ASI Nassu Ahmed. I alongwith the IO went to Govind Puri Metro Station at Maa Anand Mai Marg. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Avdesh.
On 20.04.2011, I alongwith the IO went to PS-Lajpat Nagar where accused persons namely Rajesh and Satish who are present in the court today were in custody. IO interrogated both the accused persons. Thereafter, we went to Saket District Court. IO had formally arrested both the accused persons namely Satish and Rajesh vide Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B, both bearing my signature at point A"
Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22 16:13:02 +0530 :6: 5.3. PW HC Rajesh, was examined as PW3, his examination in chief is herein reproduced as under:
On 19.04.2011, I was posted as HC at PS-Lajpat Nagar. On that day, I alongwith ASI Bengali Babu was checking the vehicles at Firoz Gandhi Marg, picket Lajpat Nagar. At around 09:00 pm, we saw a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-3SBV-0102 make Pulsur, silver colour came from Central Market side. There were two persons on the motorcycle. The person who was driving the motorcycle revealed his name as Rajesh @ Matka, who is present in the court today, (correctly identified by the witness) and the person who was pillion rider revealed his name as Satish is who is in the court today, (correctly identified by the witness). Accused Rajesh could not produce documents of his motorcycle. Both the accused persons were inquired. Both the accused persons disclosed that they had snatched a mobile phone and purse of a person from Kalkaji metro station alongwith their associate namely Chotta Don vide Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B, bearing my signatures at point 'A'. From the formal search of accused Satish a mobile phone make Nokia 1616, black and blue colour was recovered from his possession. ASI Bengali Babu inquired from PS-OIA and it was found that abovesaid mobile phone was of the case property in case FIR no.116/11, PS-OIA. IO had seized the motorcycle and the mobile phone vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D, both bearing my signatures at point 'A'. Both the accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted. Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G and Ex.PW3/H, all bearing my signatures at point 'A'. The information of arrest and recovery of mobile phone was given to PS-OIA. Today, I have brought DD register containing original DD no.30A dated 19.04.2011, PS-Lajpat Nagar regarding arrest of accused persons and recovery of case property. The copy of DD no.30A is exhibited as Ex.PW3/I. (OSR). My statement was recorded by the IO. I can identify the case property, if shown to me. The identity of the mobile phone is already established in the testimony of PW-1 and this is already exhibited as Ex.P1.
5.4. PW HC Sonu, was examined as PW4, his examination in Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22 16:13:06 +0530 :7: chief is herein reproduced as under:
On 19.04.2011, I was posted as constable at PS-OIA. On that day, I alongwith IO/SI Rishi Om Bhardawaj went to AIIMS hospital and got conducted the medical examination of complainant Avdesh Kumar. Doctor opined that patient was fit to give statement. I handed over the MLC to the IO."
5.5. PW HC Indraj was examined as PW5, his examination in chief is herein reproduced as under:
"On 29.04.2011 I was posted as constable at PS-OIA. On that day I alongwith IO / ASI Nassu Ahmed joined the investigation. On that day both the accused persons namely Rajesh and Satish who are present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) made their disclosure statements vide Ex. PW-5/A and PW-5/B bearing my signature at point 'A'. Both the accused persons took us to Service Road, Govindpuri Metro station and disclosed that in the intervening night of 18-19.04.2011 they had committed robbery of mobile phone vide pointing out memos Ex. PW-5/C and PW-5/D bearing my signature at point 'A'. Complainant Avdhesh Kumar was also called at the spot. The complainant had identified both the accused persons that they had committed theft of his mobile and wallet with the help of their third associate. Thereafter we made efforts to search the third associate namely Chota Don but of no avail. Both the accused persons were got medically examined and sent to the lockup."
5.6. PW SI Bijender, was examined as PW6, his examination in chief is herein reproduced as under:
"On 19.04.2011, I was working as DO in PS-OIA, and my duty hours were from 4.00 pm to 12.00 night. On that day at about 5.00 pm, SI Rishi Om Bhardwaj handed over a rukka/tehrir to me. I put my endorsement on the Tehrir vide Ex.PW6/A and registered the FIR and its copy is Ex.PW6B, both bearing my signatures at point A (OSR). Today, I Digitally signed by AKSHAY SHARMA AKSHAY Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.22
16:13:10
+0530
:8:
have brought the original FIR register, containing the abovesaid FIR in original. (OSR). I also prepared certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW6/C bearing my signature at point 'A'."
5.7. PW Sh. Rajesh Goel was examined as PW7, his examination in chief is herein reproduced as under:
"In the year 2011 I was running a shop of mobile namely Goel Communication at OIA Phase-1. On 23.02.2011 complainant Avdhesh purchased a mobile phone make Nokia 1616 from our shop and I issued an invoice bill for the same."
5.8. PW Retd. SI Rishi Om Bhardwaj, was examined as PW8, his examination in chief is herein reproduced as under:
"On 19.04.2011 I was posted as SI at PS-OIA. On that day I was on emergency duty and my duty hours were from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. At about 5.00 pm complainant Avdhesh Kumar reached at PS and told about the incident. Thereafter I recorded the statement of complainant which is already Ex. PW1/A bearing my signature at point 'B' and I put my endorsement on the statement of complainant vide Ex. PW-8/A bearing my signature at point 'A' and prepared the rukka and handed over the same to DO for registration of FIR. Thereafter I alongwith complainant and Ct. Sonu went to AIIMS to conduct medical examination of complainant and we returned back at PS alongwith MLC of complainant and handed over the same to IO/ ASI Nasu Ahmed who was the investigation officer of the present case. IO recorded my statement u/s 161 CrPC."
5.9. PW Retd. SI Bangali Babu was examined as PW9, his examination in chief is herein reproduced as under:
"On 19.04.2011 I was posted as SI at PS-Lajpat Nagar. On Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22 16:13:14 +0530 :9: that day I alongwith HC Rajesh Kumar were on picket duty at Firoz Gandhi Road. We were checking the vehicles and we signalled to stop a silver colour motorcycle bearing no. DL3SBV0102 on which two boys were sitting and during enquiry they revealed their name as Rajesh @ Matka and Satish. Thereafter they disclosed that they snatched mobile phone and purse from a person at OIA near Kalkaji Depot. Thereafter I recorded the disclosure statement of both accused persons already Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B bearing my signatures at point-B. Thereafter I seized the motorcycle bearing no. DL3SBV0102 and Nokia Mobile vide seizure memos already Ex. PW3/C & PW3/D bearing my signatures at point-B. Thereafter I conducted personal search and arrested them vide memos already Ex. PW3/E to PW3/H bearing my signatures at point-B. After medical examination of accused, he was sent to lockup and case property was deposited in Malkhana. Thereafter I made DD entry No. 30A regarding the same which is already Ex. PW3/I (OS&R). Thereafter I prepared kalandra u/s 41.1(d) CrPC and submitted before the court. The copy of same is Ex. PW9/A bearing my signatures at point-A. Accused Satish is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness). I can identify the case property if shown to me.
Further examination in chief is deferred for want of case property.
Case property is already Ex. P1."
5.10. PW Sh. Rajender Singh, was examined as PW10, his examination in chief is herein reproduced as under:
"Today, I came here on behalf of Dr. Zafar Ismail who has left the hospital and his whereabouts are not known to the hospital. I can identify the signature of said doctor as I have seen him signing and writing during the course of my duty in the said hospital as I have been working in the said hospital since 1986. As per record, MLC no. 254547 of injured Avdhesh Kumar dated 19.04.2011 was prepared by Dr. Zafar Ismail. The said MLC is Ex. PW10/A bearing the signatures of said doctor at point-A."Digitally signed by AKSHAY
AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22 16:13:20 +0530 :10: 5.11. PW Retired SI Nassu Ahmad was examined as PW11, his examination in chief is herein reproduced as under:
"On 19.04.2011 upon the orders of SHO further investigation of the present case was marked to me and DO had given me the endorsed tehrir and copy of FIR and along with DD entry pertaining to apprehension of accused persons at PS Lajpat Nagar. I was informed that they shall be produced before the court on the next day. I came to the court no. 514 Saket wherein the accused persons were to be produced. When they were produced, I after permission from the concerned Ld. MM, interrogated the accused. Thereafter I formally arrested the accused on 20.04.2011 vide arrest memo already Ex. PW2/A signed by me at point B and personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW11/A, signed by me at point A. On 22.04.2011 the case property which was kept in the PS Lajpat Nagar which was recovered from accused was collected and brought to PS OIA vide certificate number 3/21/11. I applied for TIP proceedings of the accused persons which was fixed for 26.04.11. The accused persons refused to get the TIP conducted. On 29.04.2011 I got one day PC of the accused persons. I recorded the disclosure statement of the accused persons at the PS already Ex. PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B, both signed by me at point B. I prepared the pointing out memo already Ex. PW5/D signed by me at point B. On the next day I produced the accused persons before the court from where they were sent to JC. On 19.04.2011 I prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. I was transferred from PS OIA on 25.05.2011. I gave the case file to MHC(R). Accused Satish Kumar present in the court today, correctly identified by the witness. I can identify the case property if shown to me. (Let the same be proved by the final IO who is yet to be examined)."
5.12. PW Inspector Sanjeev Kumar, was examined as PW12, his examination in chief is herein reproduced as under:
"On 30.05.2011 I was posted as SI at PS OIA. MHC(R) had Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22 16:13:24 +0530 :11: given me the file of the present case for further investigation upon the order of the SHO. Since the investigation was already concluded by the previous IO, I compiled the documents of the investigation and sent the chargesheet for scrutiny. After the scrutiny, I filed the chargesheet before the court. I cannot identify the accused present in the court today as I never seen him. All the documents pertaining to the arrest of the accused were prepared by the previous IO. I had never seen the case property, same was already deposited by the previous IO with the MHC(M)."
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED
6. After examination of all the material prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused Satish was recorded. In the statement recorded u/s 281 r/w Section 313 CrPC, accused Satish stated that he has not done anything and he was only accompanying co-accused persons. He had gone to eat parathas with the co-accused persons and the co-accused persons have only committed the offences, rather he was stopping the co-accused persons. Accused Satish also stated that he wants to apologize and he will not commit the mistake again. Accused preferred to not lead any defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. Despite several opportunities, final arguments were not led on behalf of accused Satish and therefore, the right to lead final arguments was closed on 25.03.2025 considering the age of the matter and the opportunities granted.
Digitally signed by AKSHAY SHARMA AKSHAY Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.22
16:13:28
+0530
:12:
8. Ld. APP for the state had contended that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses corroborate in material particulars and the accused is liable to be convicted.
DISCUSSION OF LAW, EVIDENCE AND DECISION THEREON:
9. The basic principle of criminal law is that prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence. Weakness of the defence cannot be taken by the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs, this burden of proof is based on the principle that hundred guilty may go unpunished but one innocent must not be wrongfully convicted.
10. In the present case, there are 02 fold allegations/ charges framed against the accused, firstly, is that the accused committed robbery of the mobile phone make Nokia & the purse of the complainant on 19.04.2011 at around 03:15 AM, while the complainant was returning to his home after completion of his duty. Secondly, is the allegation of retention of this robbed mobile phone, which was recovered from the accused, when he was apprehended at the police picket by the police officials of PS Lajpat Nagar. Charges u/s 392/34 IPC and Section 411/34 IPC have been framed against the accused and for establishing these charges, the prosecution examined a total of 12 prosecution witnesses.
Digitally signed by AKSHAYAKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22 16:13:32 +0530 :13: ALLEGATION OF ROBBERY
11. Section 392 IPC provides punishment for robbery, as per Section 390 IPC, theft is robbery when the offender in order to commit theft, or in committing theft or in order to carry away the property obtained by theft voluntarily causes or attempts to cause any person death, hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of death, instant hurt or wrongful restraint.
12. Robbery in a way is an aggravated form of theft having the additional elements of causation, or fear of causation, of death or instant hurt or wrongful restraint. In the instant case, the complainant/PW1 Avdesh Kumar, who is the victim of the offence is the only witness of the offence of robbery. The complainant PW1 has explained in detail the description of the robbers and the role of each robber. The complainant has correctly identified accused Satish in the court and has stated in the examination with respect to accused Satish that accused Satish was the person who caught hold his hands, while the other 02 robbers took out the mobile phone and the purse of the complainant. It is categorically stated by the complainant that the said 03 persons gave beating to the complainant by fist and leg blows. The recovered case property which was a Nokia 1616 mobile phone has also been proved by the complainant as Ex.P1.Digitally signed by AKSHAY
AKSHAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22
16:13:36 +0530
:14:
13. The complainant has also proved his statement/ complaint recorded by the police officials as Ex.PW1/A. The testimony of the complainant recorded in the court on 18.11.2014 corroborates in material particulars with the contents of PW1/A. The complainant is consistent in his versions deposed before the police as well as the court.
14. It is noted that accused Satish refused to participate in the TIP proceedings during investigation and has been correctly identified by the complainant in the court. The TIP proceedings were also admitted by accused Satish on 10.04.2019 vide statement recorded u/s 294CrPC. The testimony of the complainant indicates that accused Satish was an active participant in the commission of offence against the complainant, in furtherance of his common intention shared with co-accused Rajesh (expired) & co-accused Chotta Don (not arrested).
15. It is further stated that accused Satish along with co-accused Rajesh (expired) were arrested during vehicle checking at a police picket at Firoz Gandhi Marg, when the accused persons were apprehended they were on a pulsar silver colour motrocycle, the complainant has also stated in his examination that "the said 03 persons fled away from the spot on the said motorcycle make Pulsar Silver Colour". Thus, the testimony of PW9 Retd. SI Bangali Babu as to apprehension of the accused on a Silver colour Bajaj Pulsor motorcycle corroborates the testimony of the Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22 16:13:41 +0530 :15: complainant and strengthens the case of the prosecution against accused Satish. The complainant was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons and thus the testimony of the complainant stands unimpeached.
16. It is further stated that upon apprehension of the accused Satish by the police officials of PS Lajpat Nagar on 19.04.2011, the stolen Nokia Mobile phone of the complainant was also recovered from the accused Satish, the seizure memo of the mobile phone has been proved by the prosecution as Ex.PW3/D. The accused subsequent to his arrest disclosed his involvement in the present FIR and a pointing out memo was also prepared at the instance of the accused, this pointing out memo has been proved by the prosecution as Ex.PW5/D.
17. The offence in the present case has been committed in the early morning hours of 19.04.2011 & the robbed mobile phone has also been recovered from the accused Satish at 09:00 pm on 19.04.2011.
Attention is drawn to the presumption u/s 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that it may be presumed that a person found in possession of stolen goods soon after the commission of theft, is either a thief or has retained the goods knowing them to be stolen. Considering the time of robbery and the time of recovery, both being on the same day, the presumption u/s114 Indian Evidence Act can certainly be raised against the accused.
Digitally signed by AKSHAYAKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22 16:13:45 +0530 :16:
18. It is further stated that the complainant was also medically examined in the present case, when he reported the case to the police, the MLC of the complainant is proved as Ex.PW10/A by the prosecution and the nature of injuries are opined to be simple in the MLC of the complainant.
19. It is also noted that the accused in his statement u/s 313CrPC has admitted his presence on the spot, and his defence is that he was not involved in the commission of offence, rather it was the co accused persons who committed the offence. The version of the accused recorded u/s 313CrPC can be used to lend aid/ credence to the case of the prosecution, hence the factum of the presence of the accused at the place of robbery stands proved by virtue of the admission of the accused.
20. In light of the above discussion, the correct identification by the complainant of accused Satish in the court, the role attributed by the complainant to accused Satish, the recovery of the robbed mobile phone from accused Satish on the same day of commission of offence and the MLC of the complainant, this court is of the view that the essential ingredients of the offence u/s 392/34 IPC which are commission of theft and causation of injuries for committing the theft, have been duly proved by the prosecution.
Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22 16:13:49 +0530 :17: ALLEGATION OF SECTION 411 IPC
21. Proceeding further, it is noted that a charge u/s 411 IPC is also framed against the accused Satish as the robbed mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused.
22. In light of the above-discussion qua the allegation of robbery, this court has already adjudicated that accused Satish has committed robbery along with his associates.
23. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in ' Sunil Mashi@ Silly vs State Nct Of Delhi' (Criminal appeal no.610/2013 decided on 14.10.2014) held., "As such, the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 379 IPC, however, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 411 IPC as well. Keeping in view the fact that he has been convicted under Section 379 IPC, there was no justification for convicting him for offence under Section 411 IPC.
As such, his conviction under Section 411 IPC is set aside."
24. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in 'Gopi Jaiswal vs State Of U.P.' (Criminal appeal Digitally signed by AKSHAY SHARMA AKSHAY Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.22 16:13:56 +0530 :18: no.1899/2009 decided on 8 November, 2011) held, "In view of the fact that the appellant Gopi Jaiswal was the real thief, his conviction could only be made under Section 379 IPC. His conviction under Section 411 IPC, in such situation, was not proper. A real thief cannot be a receiver of a stolen property. If a person is the real thief and the stolen property is also recovered from his possession, he should be convicted and sentenced for the offence of theft and as such he cannot be convicted and sentenced under Section 411 IPC. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 411 IPC cannot be upheld."
25. In light of the law discussed in the above-mentioned respected judgments, since this court has already arrived at a conclusion that offence u/s 392/34 IPC is duly proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused Satish, therefore, this court does not deem fit to convict the accused Satish for offence u/s 411 IPC as the real thief/ robber cannot be considered a receiver/ retainer of stolen property. Hence, no discussion regarding the aspect of recovery of stolen mobile phone from accused Satish is herein made.
Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22 16:14:01 +0530 :19:
26. In light of the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused Satish convicted for offence u/s 392 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC.
Pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2025. Judgment contains total 19 pages, each signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.22
16:14:05 +0530
(AKSHAY SHARMA)
JMFC-02/SE/Saket/ND
22.04.2025