Delhi District Court
State vs Laxmi Narain @Sonu on 29 November, 2023
IN THE COURT SH. TUSHAR GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 04
NORTH: ROHINI COURT: NEW DELHI
Cr. Case 834/2021
STATE Vs. Laxmi Narayan @ Sonu
FIR No. 23040/2017
PS Prashant Vihar
U/s 379/411 IPC
JUDGMENT
A Registration Number 834/2021 B Name of the State complainant
C Name of the accused & Laxmi Narayan @ Sonu his parentage and S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Yadav @ Khanna address R/o H. No.23, Gali No.15, Near Shiv Mandir Village Libaspur, Delhi.
D Offence Complained of 379/411 IPC E Date of commission of 22.07.2017 offence.
F Date of Institution 04.01.2021 G Offence Charged 411 IPC H Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty. person I Order Reserved on Not reserved. J Date of Pronouncement 29.11.2023 K Final Order ACQUITTED
Vide this judgment, accused is being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") in this case FIR No.23040/2017 Police Station Prashant Vihar for the reasons mentioned below:
1. PROSECUTION'S CASE:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.07.2017 at unknown time at 66 foota road, opposite Masjid near Avantika Cr. Case 834/2021 STATE Vs. Laxmi Narayan @ Sonu FIR No. 23040 /2017 Page 1/7 Dharam Kaanta, Samaypur, Delhi accused Laxmi Narayan @ Sonu was found in possession of one stolen motorcycle i.e. Hero HF Deluxe Black Color Bearing No. DL 4S CD 3792 which was believed to be stolen on 22.07.2017 between 1:00 - 03:00 pm, from gate No. 4, Rohini Court, belonging to the complainant Om Kawar.
That based on these facts, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused person is stated to have committed an offence u/s. 379/411 IPC which led to registration of FIR No. 23040/2017 at PS Prashant Vihar.
2. CHARGE:
In compliance of the procedural mandate u/s. 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC"), charge-sheet against the accused was filed in the present matter, upon completion of investigation.
Accused person was summoned to face trial and was supplied with the copy of the charge-sheet as per s. 207 CrPC.
Based on the charge-sheet, a charge for the offence punishable u/s. 411 IPC was framed against the accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to lay bare the relevant legal principle pertaining to the alleged offence.
• Section 411 IPC: In every case under section 411 IPC two facts viz. that a theft was committed, and certain articles were stolen, and that the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the accused must be established by direct evidence. If it is proved that a theft was committed and that soon after it was committed, the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused, Cr. Case 834/2021 STATE Vs. Laxmi Narayan @ Sonu FIR No. 23040 /2017 Page 2/7 presumption can be raised under section 114, Illustration
(a) of the Indian Evidence Act that the accused is either the thief or the receiver of the property knowing it to be stolen. • Illustration (a) of section 114, Evidence Act runs as follows:
➢ The Court may presume:
(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods, soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.
Thus, to make out an offence under section 411 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the property in question is a stolen property.
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 "property" defined under section 410 IPC.
Thus, the prime ingredient, which need to be satisfied, to bring home a charge u/s.411 IPC is that the property must be of nature defined u/s. 410 IPC. The duty cast upon the prosecution was to show that the case property, found in possession of the accused, was obtained by way of theft/extortion etc. In the present case, owing to the nonappearance of complainant and the owner of the case property, the said fact could not be established.
4. It is pertinent to mentioned that PW/complainant Om Kanwar and superdar Om Prakash are not examined in the present matter as despite the multiple efforts their presence could not be secured, and they were dropped vide order dated 03.11.2023. Further, the complainant and superdar were the sole witnesses to the incident and no other eyewitness is cited by the Cr. Case 834/2021 STATE Vs. Laxmi Narayan @ Sonu FIR No. 23040 /2017 Page 3/7 prosecution.
5. The case is at the stage of PE, however, in absence of testimony of star witnesses regarding offence against the accused person, the charges against accused person cannot be proved. The other witnesses have come into picture only after the commission of offence. Hence, recording the statement of remaining formal witnesses would be a futile exercise and wastage of judicial time, resources, and money.
6. The statement of accused person U/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.
7. There is no other public witness is on record except complainant and superdar who may prove the offence against accused.
8. In the opinion of the court, this is a fit case to close PE and acquit accused to protect his right of speedy justice as incorporated in Article 21 of Indian Constitution. In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 (Coram : 7 S. P. BHARUCHA, C.J.I., S. S. M. QUADRI, R. C. LAHOTI, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, DORAISWAMY RAJU, Mrs. RUMA PAL, A. PASAYAT, JJ.) the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
"22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. .................. The Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay's case referred to such power, vesting in the High Court Cr. Case 834/2021 STATE Vs. Laxmi Narayan @ Sonu FIR No. 23040 /2017 Page 4/7 (vide paras 62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it was clear that even apart from Article 21, the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting to an end, by making appropriate orders, to further proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted." (emphasis supplied) "30........................................ In conclusion we hold: -
(1) ....................
(2) ......................
(3) ....................
(4) .....................
(5) The Criminal Courts should exercise their available powers, such as those under Sections 309, 311 and 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure to effectuate the right "But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the court should be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date." to speedy trial. A watchful and diligent trial Judge can prove to be better protector of such right than any guidelines. In appropriate cases jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
and Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions".
Furthermore, in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr. (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 766, it was observed:
"But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the court should be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date."
9. Accordingly, in compliance of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the evidence of the prosecution was closed. As remaining prosecution witnesses were merely formal witnesses and examining them in evidence would have been a futile exercise. Accordingly, PE stands closed, SA dispensed with.
10. Accordingly, the case against the accused person has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The star witness of the prosecution i.e., the complainant and superdar could not be Cr. Case 834/2021 STATE Vs. Laxmi Narayan @ Sonu FIR No. 23040 /2017 Page 5/7 examined. The deposition of the other witness is only in the nature of hearsay and accordingly inadmissible in the eyes of the law. Nothing incriminating has come on record which would implicate the accused person under the said provisions for which accused person has been charged. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the foundational ingredient of s. 410 IPC i.e., having possession of stolen article, to commit offence by the accused persons. It would be futile exercise to deal with the other ingredients of the offence as the foundational fact for conviction u/s. 410 IPC have not been proved by the prosecution.
The accused was arrested by the police. Search was conducted by the police and the case property was recovered vide seizure memo in presence of the police officials. There is no independent witness to the search memo as the police officials are the witnesses to the seizure memo. Prosecution has failed to clarify as to why no public person was made witness in the seizure memo. In absence of any public witness it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that the case property has been recovered from the possession of the accused. The non-joining of the public witness at the time of alleged recovery of the article creates doubt in the story of the prosecution as was held in Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration 1987 CC 585 Delhi High Court. In these circumstances, as despite the presence of public persons at/around the place of alleged recovery the investigating officer failed to join independent public persons as witness to the proceedings of the present matter, warrants an adverse inference to be drawn under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act that the evidence if produced would have been unfavorable to the Cr. Case 834/2021 STATE Vs. Laxmi Narayan @ Sonu FIR No. 23040 /2017 Page 6/7 case of the investigating agency/prosecution and thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery from the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the ingredients of section 411 IPC has been duly made out.
11. CONCLUSION:
The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused person is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Considering the above discussion, the unequivocal conclusion that comes forth is that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused on the touchstone of "beyond reasonable doubt". To bring home the charge under s. 410 IPC, the onus was on the prosecution to establish the foundational ingredient of the conspiracy, trespass, and theft. Nothing incriminating has come on record which would implicate the accused person under the said provisions for which accused person has been charged. Therefore, the accused person Laxmi Narayan @ Sonu is acquitted of offences charged against him.
Announced in open TUSHAR Digitally signed by TUSHAR GUPTA court on 29.11.2023 GUPTA Date: 2023.11.29 16:48:04 +0530 (TUSHAR GUPTA) MM-04 (North) Rohini Courts Delhi/29.11.2023 Certified that this judgment contains 07 pages, and each page bears my signature. TUSHAR Digitally signed by TUSHAR GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2023.11.29 16:48:10 +0530 (TUSHAR GUPTA) MM-04 (North) Rohini Courts Delhi/29.11.2023 Cr. Case 834/2021 STATE Vs. Laxmi Narayan @ Sonu FIR No. 23040 /2017 Page 7/7