Delhi District Court
State vs Satya Prakash on 3 April, 2025
IN COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS- 07,
(NORTH-WEST DISTRICT) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Presided over by: Sh. Gaurav Katariya, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 157/2013
Case ID No. : DLNW020018792013
FIR no. : 157/2013
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh
Section(s) : U/s 407/174 A IPC
DLNW020018792013
MORE THAN TWELVE YEARS OLD
CASE.
In The Matter of :
STATE
Vs
Name of Complainant Narender Bothru
Name of Accused Satya Prakash
Offence complained of S. 407/174A of Indian Penal Code,
1860
Date of Incident 17.4.2013
Date of Institution of case 16.11.2013
Plea of Accused Not Guilty
Date of Reserving Order 03.04.2025
Date of Pronouncement 03.04.2025
Final Order Acquittal
1.Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present matter filed at instance of complainant Narender Bothru who got FIR registered against the accused for taking of the property anddisposing of property ie. Aluminium scrap value of Rs.8,27.400/- Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date:
2025.04.03 17:01:05 +0530 Page 1 of 5 FACTUAL MATRIX
2. On 17.4.2013 complainant Narender Bothra (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") received one canter no. DL-1M-2653 loaded with aluminium scrap Threafer, he sent his driver along with bill and billty and loaded aluminium scrap to Kalaamb Himachal who has not reached till 21.4.2013. On 19.04.2013 complainant himself had tried to find the whereabouts of accused from his village, however his brother did not gave any information. On 20.4.2013 he called at number 100 and got the FIR registered. Further on 21.4.2013 he got rcorded his statement. He further requested to trace out his material and to take action against the driver Satya Prakash. IO SI Krishan Kumar prepared the tehrir and got the case registered. During investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesss and obtained the photocopies of the documents. Thereafter, Canter was recovered from the possession of brother of accused who stated that his brother is missing since 19.4.2023 and a missing DD no 23 PP Metro Vihar has also been lodged. From the inqiry it was revealed that accused is evading his arrest. Hence, the proceedings U/s 82/83 Cr. PC were initiated and after declaring PO from the court, challan was prepared after putting him in column no 12.
3. After completing the investigation, the IO filed final report u/section 173 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."). DURING TRIAL
4. Cognizance of the offences was taken by Sh. Sushil Kumar, the then Ld. MM vide order dt. 16.11.2013 and the accused was stated to be PO. In the absence of accused one PW 1 ASI Jitender Singh was examined.Thereafter, when the witnesses remained unserved through DCP, the file was consigned to record Room on 07.12.2018. Thereafter, accused has appeared with his counsel on 10.2.2020. On his appearance, he was supplied with the copy of the charge-sheet. On basis of record, vide order dt. 18.1.2024, charges were framed against the accused u/section 407/174A of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and hence the trial commenced.
Digitally signed by GAURAV Page 2 of 5 GAURAV KATARIYADate:
KATARIYA 2025.04.03 17:01:16 +0530
5. Prosecution cited as many as 7 witnesses and relied upon various documents.
However, not all the cited witnesses could be examined. The complainant along with witness Lajja Ram remained untraceable despite various efforts. Hence vide order dt. 21.1.2025, their names were dropped from the list of the witnesses. Further on the same date, accused has separately pleaded guilty to the offence u/s 174A IPC and sentenced accordingly.
6. After examining the witnesses mentioned below, hearing rival submissions of the parties and clarification from IO, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dt. 21.1.2025.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
7. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to refer to relevant provisions, which are reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:
Section 407 IPC:- Whoever being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse keeper commits criminal breach of trust, in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
EVALUATION
8. The word "whoever" used in the afore-mentioned provisions implies that first and foremost, the identity of culprit has to be established.
9. According to prosecution, the complainant is the only eye-witness to the incident. As already mentioned above, PW Narender could not be examined as prosecution failed to secure his presence despite opportunities. There is no other eye-witness of the incident. There is no mention of any CCTV camera being installed at or near the alleged scene of crime. The other public witness is also untraceable. Thus, in absence of testimony of the complainant, the identity of the Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV KATARIYA Page 3 of 5 KATARIYA Date: 2025.04.03 17:01:32 +0530 accused as culprit cannot be proved by the prosecution. Even if remaining witnesses were examined, their testimonies would be insufficient to establish the accused's identity as the one responsible for the crime. Thus, there is no cogent material against the accused to record conviction of accused for the offences punishable u/section 407 of IPC.
10. Dealing with ingredients of offence punishable u/section 407 of IPC, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove two essential elements: the identification of the stolen property and the establishment of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. To put it in other words, prosecution bears the initial burden prove that the case property in question was belonging to the complainant which was stolen by the accused.
11. Besides proving the recovery, prosecution is also required to demonstrate that the case property belonged to complainant and was taken without his consent. Prosecution has not cited any other witness to prove the alleged factum than the complainant himself. As already mentioned above, that complainant had remained unserved and never appeared during trial. There is no mention of any CCTV camera being installed at or near the alleged scene of crime. Thus, in absence of testimony of complainant, the prosecution case cannot be accepted to hold that complainant actually had in his possession the property in question or that it was taken out from his possession without his consent. Reliance is placed upon observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case (titled as CHANDMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, AIR 1976 SC 917) wherein a middle-aged female went missing and two years after her disappearance, a human Skelton and certain ornaments were recovered from the house of accused/appellant. He was acquitted for the offence punishable u/section Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date: 2025.04.03 17:01:40 +0530 Page 4 of 5 411 IPC. The relevant portion of observation is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:
"It is elementary that there can be no offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property unless the property which is alleged to be the subject of such receiving, answers the description of "stolen property " given in Section 410, Penal Code. Only such property possession where of has been transferred by theft, or extortion or criminal misappropriation or other offences allied to them as mentioned in Section 410, falls within the definition of "stolen property"."
12. Needless to mention, under criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. It is to be borne in mind that criminality cannot be presumed. Same has to be proved by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused.
CONLUSION
14. In nutshell, in absence of testimony of material witnesses, there is insufficient material on record to convict the accused of the offences charged against him. Resultantly, the accused Satya Prakash is entitled for benefit of reasonable doubt and is hereby found not guilty. He is ACQUITTED of the offences punishable under Section 407 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Pronounced in the open Court and dictated on the court's computer Court on this 3rd day of April, 2025 It is certified that this judgement contains total 05 each page is digitally signed by me. GAURAV Digitally signed by GAURAV KATARIYA KATARIYA Date: 2025.04.03 (Gaurav Katariya) 17:01:47 +0530 JMFC-7(NW)/RC/Delhi 03.4.2025 Page 5 of 5