Delhi District Court
State vs Santosh @ Lucky on 21 September, 2024
State vs. Santosh @ Lucky & Ors
FIR No. 37/2014
PS South Rohini
IN COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07,
(NORTH-WEST DISTRICT) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Presided over by: Ms. Ritika Kansal, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 539425/2016
Case ID No. : DLNW02-004679-2014
FIR no. : 37/2014
Police Station : South Rohini
Section(s) : 411/435/201/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860
In The Matter of :
STATE
Vs
1. SANTOSH @ LUCKY
S/o Ashok Sahni
R/o House No. E-5/10,
Shahbad Dairy,
Delhi
&
2. ANIL @ TUNDA
S/o Tirpurayan Chaudhary
R/o Village Murli, PS Bargaon
Distt. Shehsha,
Bihar
...Accused Persons
1. Name of Complainant Sanjay Gulati
2. Name of Accused 1. Santosh @ Lucky
2. Anil @ Tunda
RITIKA Digitally signed by
RITIKA KANSAL
Page 1 of 14 KANSAL 16:57:49 +0530
Date: 2024.09.21
State vs. Santosh @ Lucky & Ors
FIR No. 37/2014
PS South Rohini
3. Offence complained of S. 379/411/435/201/34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860
4. Offence charged with S. 411/435/201/34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860
5. Date of Incident 12/13.01.2014
6. Date of Institution of case 24.03.2014
7. Plea of Accused Not Guilty
8. Date of Reserving Order 24.08.2024
9. Date of Pronouncement 21.09.2024
10.Final Order Acquittal
1. The prosecution's version in revolves around the theft and destruction of a
Maruti Eco car belonging to the complainant, Sanjay Gulati, on the night of 12-
13 January 2014.
2. On the night of 12th January 2014, Sanjay Gulati parked his white Maruti
Eco car bearing registration No. HR-55-LT-0723 (hereinafter as the "car in
question") in front of his residence i.e. A-705, First Floor, Sector-2, Rohini. The
next morning, on 13th January 2014, he found the car missing and subsequently
lodged a complaint with the police resulting in FIR No. 37/14.
3. At around 6:45 AM, SI Naresh received a PCR call regarding DD No. 7A,
after which he, along with Constable Chetan Kumar, reached the scene of the car
theft, which occurred at A-705 Sector-2 Rohini. He recorded the statement of the
complainant/Ex.PW1/A, and then prepared the rukka (Ex.PW8/A) based on his
statement. After registering the FIR, Constable Chetan Kumar returned to the
scene with the copy of the FIR and the original rukka. Further investigation was
then conducted by SI Joginder Singh, who arrived at the scene thereafter.
4. SI Joginder prepared the site plan (Ex. PW-1/B) at the instance of the
complainant. He searched for CCTV footage with the complainant but found no
Page 2 of 14 RITIKA Digitally signed by
RITIKA KANSAL
KANSAL Date: 2024.09.21
16:57:55 +0530
State vs. Santosh @ Lucky & Ors
FIR No. 37/2014
PS South Rohini
cameras installed at or near the scene of the theft. He seized photocopies of the
vehicle's permit, insurance papers, and the ownership transfer forms (Forms 28,
29, 30) from the complainant.
5. On 16th January 2014, Head Constable Ashok Kumar (PW-5) from the
Special Staff Outer District received information from a secret informer. The
informer revealed that individuals involved in a recent shooting incident in
Samaypur Badli and habitual offenders would arrive near Shamshan Ghat,
Begumpur, in a stolen Santro car. Based on this information, a raiding team was
formed, including HC Surendra, HC Naresh, HC Rajkumar, HC Balkishan and
HC Yogesh. The team reached the spot in civil dress and conducted a barricading
operation to stop the suspects. The raid was conducted near Shamshan Ghat,
Begumpur, in Delhi around 12:30 AM on 16th January 2014.
6. At around 12:30 AM, a red Santro car bearing registration number
DLACS3667 arrived at the spot, and it was identified by the secret informer as
the stolen vehicle. The police stopped the car by placing barricades, and Anil @
Tunda, who was sitting in the passenger seat, was apprehended by HC Yogesh
and HC Rajkumar. The person driving the car, identified as Rakesh @ Gajni, was
also apprehended.
7. Following his arrest, Anil @ Tunda made a disclosure statement in which
he confessed to having stolen the Maruti Eco car in question along with his co-
accused Santosh @ Lucky and other associates and that the car is in possession
of the co-accused Santosh. He also revealed that the stolen vehicle had been taken
to Badli area, Surajpark, where they planned to commit another offense (cutting
the shutter of a shop), but an altercation took place with three individuals on a
motorcycle. During the altercation, both they fired shots. The accused Anil @
Tunda was arrested on 16th January 2014 and his personal search was conducted.
The stolen Santro car was also seized, and further investigation into its connection
with other thefts and offenses was conducted.
Page 3 of 14 Digitally signed
RITIKA by RITIKA
KANSAL
KANSAL Date: 2024.09.21
16:58:27 +0530
State vs. Santosh @ Lucky & Ors
FIR No. 37/2014
PS South Rohini
8. On 17th January, 2014, SI Joginder received information regarding
apprehension of accused Anil @ Tunda and about his disclosure given in relation
to the present FIR. He moved application for production warrants of accused and
upon his production formally arrested him and interrogated him.
9. On 23rd January 2014, ASI Anil Kumar (PW-3) from the Special Staff
Outer District received information from a secret informer. The informer tipped
off that Santosh @ Lucky, who, along with his co-accused, had been involved in
a shooting incident in Badli Industrial Area 10 to 12 days earlier, would be passing
through the Shahabad Dairy area.
10. After receiving the information, ASI Anil Kumar informed his senior
officers and formed a raiding team, which included Constables Ram Niwas,
Parminder (PW-4), and Sunil. The team positioned themselves near Sector 25,
Rohini, and Prahlad Vihar, taking strategic positions along the road leading to
Shahabad Dairy to apprehend the suspect.
11. At around 1:20 PM on 23rd January 2014, Santosh @ Lucky was spotted
by the secret informer as he was passing by the area. Based on the informer's
signal, the raiding team, including ASI Anil Kumar, moved in and apprehended
Santosh. Upon a cursory search, a country-made pistol loaded with one live
cartridge was recovered from Santosh's possession. Another live cartridge was
found in the left pocket of his pants. ASI Anil Kumar prepared a sketch of the
recovered pistol and cartridges, which is Ex. PW3/A. The seized items were sealed
and a rukka was prepared, leading to the registration of an FIR (No. 76/14) under
the Arms Act at PS Shahbad Dairy investigated by ASI Raj Kumar (PW-7).
12. During interrogation following his arrest, Santosh @ Lucky made a
disclosure statement in which he confessed to his involvement in the theft of the
Maruti Eco car in question. He revealed that he, along with his co-accused Anil
@ Tunda, Rahul, and others, had stolen the vehicle and later used it for a planned
Page 4 of 14
Digitally signed
RITIKA by RITIKA
KANSAL
KANSAL Date: 2024.09.21
16:58:34 +0530
State vs. Santosh @ Lucky & Ors
FIR No. 37/2014
PS South Rohini
robbery at Badli area, Suraj Park. According to his confession, when they were
stopped by three individuals on a motorcycle, an altercation occurred, and both
he and Anil @ Tunda fired shots at them. Afterward, they drove the stolen vehicle
to Brahm Shakti Hospital, Budh Vihar, and set it on fire to destroy evidence before
fleeing the scene.
13. Based on Santosh @ Lucky's disclosure, the stolen Maruti Eco car was
recovered in a burnt condition from Brahm Shakti Hospital, Budh Vihar. The car
was seized vide the seizure memo/Ex. PW4/D. The recovery was witnessed by
Constable Parminder (PW-4), ASI Raj Kumar (PW-7). Following his
apprehension, Santosh @ Lucky was arrested, and his personal search was
conducted. He was arrested under sections of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC)
and the Arms Act,1959.
14. The burnt number plate of the vehicle was also recovered, and the vehicle
was later identified by the complainant through its chassis number.
15. Both the accused were formally interrogated and arrested the present case
based on their confession and recovery of car in question.
16. On culmination of the investigation, accused persons were charge-sheeted
for having committed offences punishable u/section 379/411/201/435/34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
DURING TRIAL
17. Cognizance of the offences was taken. On their appearance, both the
accused were supplied with the copy of the charge-sheet. On basis of record, vide
order dt. 17.01.2018, they were charged for committing offences punishable
u/sections 411/201/435/34 of IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and
hence the trial commenced.
Digitally signed
by RITIKA
RITIKA KANSAL
KANSAL Date:
2024.09.21
16:58:40 +0530
Page 5 of 14
State vs. Santosh @ Lucky & Ors
FIR No. 37/2014
PS South Rohini
18. Prosecution cited as many as 16 witnesses and relied upon various
documents which are mentioned below in tabular chart in paragraph no. 6.
However, not all the cited witnesses could be examined. Both the accused
admitted various documents at the time of recording of their joint statement under
section 294 of Cr.P.C. and hence corresponding witnesses have been dropped
from the list of witnesses. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dt.
02.09.2023.
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW-1 Sanjay Gulati (Complainant)
PW-2 Retd. ASI Devender Kumar (Mechanical Inspection)
PW-3 ASI Anil Kumar (Member of Raiding Team Arrested Santosh @
Lucky)
PW-4 Ct. Parminder (Member of Raiding Team and Witness to Recovery of
Car in question)
PW-5 ASI Ashok Kumar (Arrested Accused Anil @ Tunda)
PW-6 Ct. Chetan Kumar (Member of Raiding Team and Witness to Recovery
of Car in question)
PW-7 ASI Raj Kumar (Witness to Recovery of Car in question)
PW-8 SI Naresh Kumar (First Investigating Officer in Present case)
PW-9 SI Joginder Singh (Second Investigating Officer in Present case)
PW-10 Raj Kumar (Mauza Clerk)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW-1/A :- Statement of complainant
Ex. PW-1/B :- Site Plan
Ex. PW-1/C :- Seizure Memo of Documents of Car in question
Mark X1-4 :- Sale letter and transfer form of Car in Question
Mark P-1 & 2 :- Permit and Insurance of Car in Question
Page 6 of 14
Digitally signed
by RITIKA
RITIKA KANSAL
KANSAL Date:
State vs. Santosh @ Lucky & Ors
FIR No. 37/2014
PS South Rohini
Ex. PW-1/D :- Seizure Memo of Permit and Insurance Paper
Ex.P1 to 8 :- Photographs of Burnt car in question
Ex. PW-2/A :- Mechanical Inspection Report of Burnt Car in Question
Ex. PW-3/A :- Sketch of Country Made Pistol and Cartridges
Ex. PW-3/B :- Seizure memo of the country-made pistol and cartridges
Ex. PW-3/C :- Rukka in FIR No. 76/2014 PS Shahbad Dairy
Ex. PW-4/A :- Arrest Memo of accused Santosh in FIR No. 76/2014 PS
Shahbad Dairy
Ex. PW-4/B:- Personal Search Memo of accused Santosh in FIR No. 76/2014
PS Shahbad Dairy
Ex. PW-4/C :- Disclosure of accused Santosh in FIR No. 76/2014 PS Shahbad
Dairy
Ex. PW-4/D :- Seizure Memo of Burnt Car in Question
Mark Y :- Site Plan of FIR No. 76/2014 PS Shahbad Dairy
Ex. PW-5/A :- Arrest Memo of accused Anil in DD no. 3B dt. 17.01.2014 PS
Begumpur
Ex. PW-5/B :- Arrest Memo of Rakesh @ Gajni DD no. 3B dt. 17.01.2014 PS
Begumpur
Ex. PW-5/C :- Personal Search Memo of accused Anil in DD no. 3B dt.
17.01.2014 PS Begumpur
Ex. PW-5/D :- Personal Search of Rakesh @ Gajni in DD no. 3B dt.
17.01.2014 PS Begumpur
Mark A :- Disclosure Statement of Rakesh @ Gajni in DD no. 3B dt.
17.01.2014 PS Begumpur
Mark B :- Seizure Memo of Santro Car in DD no. 3B dt. 17.01.2014 PS
Begumpur
Mark C :- Disclosure Statement of accused Anil in DD no. 3B dt.
17.01.2014 PS Begumpur
Page 7 of 14
Digitally signed
by RITIKA
RITIKA KANSAL
KANSAL Date:
2024.09.21
State vs. Santosh @ Lucky & Ors
FIR No. 37/2014
PS South Rohini
Ex. PW-6/A:- Arrest Memo of Accused Santosh in Present FIR
Ex. PW-6/B :- Personal Search Memo of Accused Santosh in Present FIR
Ex. PW-6/C :- Disclosure of Accused Santosh in Present FIR
Ex. PW-6/D :- Pointing Out Memo
Ex. PW-6/F :- Disclosure of Accused Anil in Present FIR
Ex. PW-8/A :- Rukka in present FIR
Ex. PW-9/A :- Message form intimating Police of Delhi about theft of car in
question
Ex. PW-9/B :- Message form intimating NCRB about theft of car in question
19. Accused persons did not lead any positive evidence. They denied all
incriminating facts during their statements recorded u/section 313 Cr.P.C. Upon
recording their statements to the effect that they do not wish to lead defence
evidence; the defence evidence was closed vide order dt. 14.02.2024. Final
arguments have been addressed by Ld. APP for the state. No arguments were
addressed on behalf of accused persons.
TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES
20. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to briefly glance through
testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
21. PW-1/ Sanjay Gulati is the complainant. He testified that on 12th January
2014, he parked his car in front of his house. On 13th January 2014, the car was
found missing. He lodged a complaint with the police (Ex. PW-1/A). Later, he
handed over several documents related to the car to the police, including sale
letters and insurance papers, which were seized (Ex. PW-1/C, PW-1/D). On 24th
January 2014, he identified his burnt car based on the chassis number. He also
identified photographs of the car during the trial
Digitally signed
RITIKA by RITIKA
KANSAL
KANSAL Date: 2024.09.21
16:59:03 +0530
Page 8 of 14
State vs. Santosh @ Lucky & Ors
FIR No. 37/2014
PS South Rohini
22. PW-2/Devender Kumar mechanically inspected the burnt Maruti Eco car
on 27.01.2014.
23. PW-3/ASI Anil Kumar he testified that on 23rd January 2014, after
receiving information from a secret informer, he led a raid and apprehended
Santosh @ Lucky. During a cursory search, a country-made pistol and two live
cartridges were recovered. He prepared the sketch of the pistol (Ex. PW-3/A) and
seizure memo (Ex. PW-3/B). He also prepared the Rukka (Ex. PW-3/C) for the
registration of FIR No. 76/14 under the Arms Act.
24. PW-4/Ct. Parminder is the part of the raiding team that apprehended
Santosh @ Lucky. He corroborated the testimony of PW-3 regarding the
apprehension of Santosh @ Lucky and the recovery of a country-made pistol. He
also witnessed the recovery of the stolen and burnt Eco car (Ex. PW-4/D).
25. PW-5/ASI Ashok Kumar testified that on 16th January 2014, he received
information from a secret informer about the whereabouts of certain habitual
offenders. A raid was conducted, leading to the apprehension of Anil @ Tunda,
who made a disclosure statement about the car theft.
26. PW-6/Ct. Chetan Kumar testified that on 13th January 2014, he, along
with SI Naresh Kumar, reached the complainant's house and registered the FIR
based on the rukka prepared by SI Naresh Kumar. He later participated in the
arrest and search of Santosh @ Lucky on 24th January 2014, and witnessed his
disclosure statement and the arrest of Anil @ Tunda on 30th January 2014.
27. PW-7/ASI Raj Kumar testified that on 23rd January 2014, ASI Raj Kumar
received custody of Santosh @ Lucky along with a country-made pistol and two
live cartridges from ASI Anil Kumar. He prepared the site plan at the instance of
ASI Anil Kumar and recorded his statement under Section 161 CrPC. He also
recorded the disclosure statement of Santosh @ Lucky where Santosh revealed
Digitally signed
Page 9 of 14 RITIKA by RITIKA
KANSAL
KANSAL Date: 2024.09.21
16:59:10 +0530
State vs. Santosh @ Lucky & Ors
FIR No. 37/2014
PS South Rohini
details about the stolen Eco car and the involvement of his co-accused. After the
disclosure, he recovered the burnt Maruti Eco car (HR 55 LT 0723) near Braham
Shakti Hospital, Budh Vihar, at instance of accused Santosh. The number plate of
the car was partially burnt but was still identifiable as HR 55. The vehicle was
seized through a seizure memo. He called the crime team to the spot and deposited
the case property in the Malkhana.
28. PW-8/SI Naresh Kumar testified that on 13th January 2014, he received
a PCR call regarding the theft. He reached the spot, recorded the statement of
Sanjay Gulati and prepared the rukka for FIR registration. He handed over the
investigation to ASI Joginder Singh.
29. PW-9/ASI Joginder Singh led the investigation after the FIR was
registered. He testified that he coordinated with Special Staff and arranged for the
production warrant of Anil @ Tunda after receiving information on 17th January
2014. He also arrested Santosh @ Lucky, seized the burnt car, and arranged for
its mechanical inspection. He prepared several key documents, including the
pointing-out memo and the disclosure statements of the accused
30. PW-10/Raj Kumar (Mauza Clerk, Record Room Rohini Courts) produced
the case file related to FIR No. 76/14 registered against Santosh @ Lucky under
the Arms Act.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
31. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to refer to relevant provisions. The
language of the provisions is reproduced herein after for ready reference:
"410. Stolen property.-Property, the possession whereof has
been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and
property which has been criminally misappropriated or in
respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is
Page 10 of 14 Digitally signed
by RITIKA
RITIKA KANSAL
KANSAL Date:
2024.09.21
16:59:18 +0530
State vs. Santosh @ Lucky & Ors
FIR No. 37/2014
PS South Rohini
designated as "stolen property", whether the transfer has been
made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been
committed, within or without India. But, if such property
subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally
entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen
property."
"411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.--Whoever
dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or
having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both"
425. Mischief.--Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that
he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to
any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such
change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or
diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits
"mischief".
"435. Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to
cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of
agricultural produce) ten rupees.--Whoever commits mischief
by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or
knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, damage to any
property to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards 1[or
(where the property is agricultural produce) ten rupees or
upwards], shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall
also be liable to fine."
Digitally signed
Page 11 of 14 by RITIKA
RITIKA KANSAL
KANSAL Date:
2024.09.21
16:59:25 +0530
State vs. Santosh @ Lucky & Ors
FIR No. 37/2014
PS South Rohini
"201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving
false information to screen offender.--Whoever, knowing or
having reason to believe that an offence has been committed,
causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to
disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from
legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information
respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false,
...
...
if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.--and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both."
ARGUMENTS & CONTENTIONS
32. It has been argued by Ld. APP that all the ingredients of the offences mentioned above are fulfilled, that the accused persons have been identified PWs. Case property has been duly identified. It is further argued that recovery of car in question cannot be doubted only because of absence of public persons. As such it has been prayed that accused persons be punished for the offences mentioned above.
EVALUATION & CONCLUSION
33. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments. I have carefully gone through the material on record before me.
Digitally signed by RITIKARITIKA KANSAL Page 12 of 14 KANSAL Date: 2024.09.21 16:59:45 +0530 State vs. Santosh @ Lucky & Ors FIR No. 37/2014 PS South Rohini
34. From the perusal of the record it is evident that there is no admissible piece of evidence to link the car in question with the alleged shooting incident of Badli. The prosecution's entire case is built upon recovery of car in question in burnt condition at instance of accused Santosh @ Lucky.
35. Without delving into the reliability of the recovery proceedings and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, this court is of the firm view that, even if the prosecution's version is accepted as true at face value, the evidence presented are insufficient to establish the guilt of both the accused
36. The burnt car was recovered from a location near a hospital wall, which is easily accessible to the general public and hospital staff. This raises two crucial questions: First, whether the accused, Santosh @ Lucky, had exclusive knowledge of the location of the car; and second, whether this knowledge necessarily implicates both the accused in the destruction of the car.
37. Knowledge of the location of the evidence and participation in the destruction of that evidence are distinct concepts. While the knowledge might create suspicion or a presumption of involvement, it does not directly prove the that accused persons were involved in the act of setting the car on fire. Simply having knowledge of the car's location can imply various things: accused Santosh may have been involved in the alleged shooting incident or theft but not in destruction of evidence or he may have learned about the burnt car after the offence from someone else.
38. Furthermore, the prosecution has not established that only the accused, Santosh, had control over the car in question. Therefore, the mere fact that the vehicle was recovered at his instance does not prove that he received or retained the car with the knowledge that it was stolen. Without evidence of exclusive control or possession by the accused, the essential elements of Section 411 IPC Digitally signed by RITIKA Page 13 of 14 RITIKA KANSAL KANSAL Date:
2024.09.21 16:59:51 +0530 State vs. Santosh @ Lucky & Ors FIR No. 37/2014 PS South Rohini are not fulfilled. Reliance is placed upon TRIMBAK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1954 AIR SC 39.
39. In light of discussion above, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed miserably to discharge it burden of proof. Resultantly, the accused Santosh @ Lucky S/o Sh. Ashok Sahni and Anil @ Tunda S/o Sh. Tirpurayna Chaudhary are entitled for benefit of reasonable doubt and are hereby found not guilty. They are ACQUITTED of the offences punishable under Section 411/201/435/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Pronounced in the open Digitally signed by RITIKA RITIKA KANSAL Date: KANSAL 2024.09.21 Court on this 21.09.2024 16:59:59 +0530 (Ritika Kansal) JMFC-07 (North West) Rohini Courts, New Delhi
It is certified that this judgement contains total 14 pages, each page is signed by me. Digitally signed by RITIKA RITIKA KANSAL KANSAL Date:
2024.09.21 17:00:04 +0530 (Ritika Kansal) JMFC-07 (North West) Rohini Courts, New Delhi 21.09.2024 Page 14 of 14