Delhi District Court
State vs Rakesh @ Bablu@ Gyan Chand on 28 March, 2026
Cr. Case 10320/2023
STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND
FIR No.615/2000
PS : DARYA GANJ
Sections: 379/411/34 IPC
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case 10320/2023
STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND
FIR No.615/2000
PS : DARYA GANJ
Sections: 379/411/34 IPC
DLCT020212992023
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 10320/2023
(b) Date of offence 17.12.2000
c) Complainant Amanullah Khan s/o.
Shafiullah
(d) Accused Rakesh @ Gyan Chand @
Babbu s/o. Babu Lal r/o.
C-67/17, Block No.4, Minto
Road, Kamla Market, New
Delhi
(e) Offence 379/411/34 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Not pleaded guilty
(g) Final Order Acquitted
(h) Date of Institution 24.01.2001
(i) Date when judgment was 27.03.2026
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 28.03.2026
1. The present judgment decides the case arising out of FIR No. 615/2000, PS Darya Ganj, in which accused Rakesh @ Bablu Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 10320/2023 STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND FIR No.615/2000 PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 2 @ Gyan Chand has been tried for offences punishable under Sections 379/34 IPC, alternatively Section 411 IPC, and Section 174A IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution, as reflected from the charge sheet and the material placed on record, is that on 17.12.2000 at about 9:15 AM, near Golcha Cinema, N.S. Marg, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Darya Ganj, the complainant Amanullah Khan was allegedly deprived of his purse containing Rs. 215 and one photograph. According to the prosecution, when the complainant raised alarm and chased the culprits, police officials who were on patrol apprehended three persons, including the present accused. It is further the case of the prosecution that the purse was recovered and seized. During the earlier proceedings, co-accused Zahid expired and proceedings qua him stood abated. Co-accused Nadeem was acquitted vide judgment dated 30.11.2012. The present accused was declared a proclaimed offender on 31.03.2009 and, after his arrest in the year 2023, the file was restored qua him and he was put to trial.
3. The record shows that after the accused was produced upon fresh arrest, the case was restored to its original number. Copies of charge sheet and documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. After hearing arguments on the point of charge and considering the material then available on record, charge dated 05.02.2024 was framed against the accused for offences under Sections 379/34 IPC, alternatively Section 411 IPC, and Section 174A RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 10320/2023 STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND FIR No.615/2000 PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 3 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. On 27.02.2024, the accused made a statement under Section 294 CrPC admitting only the genuineness of the endorsement on rukka, registration of FIR, and the factum of deposit and release of case property from malkhana. In view of that admission, formal witnesses qua those documents were dropped. It needs to be noticed that this admission was confined to the genuineness of the documents and was not an admission of the prosecution story, the alleged theft, the recovery, or the role of the accused.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses.
6. PW1 ACP Dharmendra Kumar Singh was the material witness regarding the original occurrence. He deposed that on 17.12.2000 he was posted as SI at PS Special Staff, Kamla Market, and was on beat patrolling duty along with Ct. Kumar Rajesh and Ct. Rajesh Kumar. He stated that when they reached near Pratap Street, near Golcha Cinema, they saw three persons, including accused Rakesh @ Bablu @ Gyan Chand, running from the side of the main road into Pratap Street while the complainant was chasing them. He further stated that all three were apprehended and, in the meantime, the complainant reached there and told him that they had snatched his purse. He deposed that he recorded the complainant's statement Ex. PW1/A, prepared rukka Ex. PW1/B, seized the purse containing Rs. 215 and one photograph vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C, prepared site Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 10320/2023 STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND FIR No.615/2000 PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 4 plan Ex. PW1/D, conducted personal search of the accused vide memo Ex. PW1/E, and recorded disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex. PW1/F. He identified the accused in Court.
7. In his cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he did not remember the number of the DD entry regarding departure. He admitted that public persons were available at the spot, but none was joined in the investigation. He further admitted that no notice was served to any public person who allegedly refused to join. He stated that the complainant had not disclosed the number of the bus from which he had alighted and that he had not checked the buses passing at that time. He also admitted that he had not recorded the denominations and serial numbers of the currency notes, had not sealed the case property, and had not put any identification mark on the alleged currency notes.
8. PW2 HC Sumit Kumar deposed about the fresh arrest of the accused on 24.08.2023. He stated that on secret information he verified that the accused had been declared a proclaimed offender in the present FIR and thereafter apprehended him near Mori Gate petrol pump, Delhi. He proved arrest memo Ex. PW2/A, personal search memo Ex. PW2/B, and GD entry Ex. PW2/C. In cross-examination, he admitted that public persons were present at the place of arrest, but none was joined. He also admitted that no written notice was served to any public person who allegedly refused to join the proceedings.
Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 10320/2023 STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND FIR No.615/2000 PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 5
9. PW3 HC Puneet Malik corroborated PW2 with regard to the apprehension of the accused on 24.08.2023. He also admitted in cross-examination that public persons were present at the place of apprehension, but no public person was joined and no written notice was served upon any refusing person.
10. The complainant Amanullah Khan could not be served despite process through higher police authorities. The record shows that summons issued to him were received back unserved with the report of incomplete address. He was ultimately dropped from the list of witnesses. No other witness to the actual occurrence was available for examination. Prosecution evidence was then closed.
11. The statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC read with Section 281 CrPC and the corresponding provisions of BNSS was thereafter recorded. The accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication. He stated that he had been wrongly declared a proclaimed offender, as the address available on record pertained to jhuggies which had been demolished and he had not received summons, notices, or any process from the Court. He did not opt to lead defence evidence.
12. Final arguments were heard. Learned APP submitted that PW1 had identified the accused and proved the complaint, rukka, seizure memo, site plan, personal search memo, and disclosure statement, and that PW2 and PW3 had proved the arrest of the accused after he had been declared a proclaimed offender. Learned defence counsel, on the other hand, argued Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 10320/2023 STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND FIR No.615/2000 PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 6 that the complainant, being the sole eyewitness and owner of the alleged case property, had not been examined, that no public witness had been joined despite admitted availability, that the alleged recovery was doubtful, that the case property had neither been sealed nor properly identified, and that the ingredients of Section 174A IPC also remained unproved.
13. I have carefully gone through the entire record and considered the rival submissions.
14. The accused has been charged for the offence under Section 379/34 IPC, alternatively Section 411 IPC, and Section 174A IPC. Before examining the evidence, it would be appropriate to note the legal ingredients.
15. To prove an offence under Section 379 IPC, the prosecution must establish that movable property was dishonestly moved out of the possession of a person without that person's consent. Where Section 34 IPC is invoked, the prosecution must further show that the act was done in furtherance of common intention.
16. To prove an offence under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the property in question was stolen property, that it was found in the possession of the accused, and that the accused knew or had reason to believe that it was stolen property.
17. At this stage, the definition contained in Section 410 IPC assumes significance. Section 411 IPC can come into play only when the property first answers the description of "stolen property" within the meaning of Section 410 IPC. Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 10320/2023 STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND FIR No.615/2000 PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 7 Therefore, before a conviction under Section 411 IPC can be recorded, the prosecution must first prove that the property in question had the legal character of stolen property, namely, that it had been transferred by theft, or by extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriation, or criminal breach of trust, and that it continued to retain that character. Unless this basic requirement is satisfied, Section 411 IPC has no application.
18. To prove an offence under Section 174A IPC, the prosecution must establish that a valid proclamation under Section 82 CrPC had been issued and duly executed in accordance with law, and that despite such proclamation the accused failed to appear as required.
19. I now proceed to examine whether these ingredients stand proved from the evidence on record.
20. In so far as the charge under Section 379/34 IPC is concerned, the prosecution case suffers from a basic and serious infirmity. The complainant Amanullah Khan, who was the most important witness, has not been examined. He alone could have stated that the purse belonged to him, that it was in his possession immediately before the incident, that it was removed without his consent, and whether he could identify the person responsible. He was also the best person to identify the purse, the photograph, and the currency allegedly recovered. In his absence, the core of the prosecution case remains unproved.
21. PW1 did not witness the actual act of theft from the complainant's person. At best, his testimony shows that he Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 10320/2023 STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND FIR No.615/2000 PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 8 saw three persons running and the complainant chasing them. The crucial allegation that the apprehended persons had snatched or stolen the purse came from the complainant. Since the complainant has not entered the witness box, the foundational fact of theft remains unproved by direct evidence.
22. It is true that PW1 has supported the prosecution version to the extent noticed above. However, his testimony, standing by itself, does not inspire enough confidence to sustain a conviction in the absence of corroboration from the complainant or any independent witness. In cross- examination, he admitted that public persons were available at the spot but none was joined. No notice was served to any public person who allegedly refused to join the investigation. The place of occurrence is stated to be near Golcha Cinema and Pratap Street, which can hardly be described as an isolated place. In such circumstances, the complete absence of independent public corroboration assumes importance.
23. The alleged recovery is also not free from doubt. PW1 admitted that he had not recorded the denominations and serial numbers of the currency notes, had not put any identification mark on them, and had not sealed the case property. In the absence of the complainant identifying the purse and cash in Court, these omissions materially weaken the prosecution case. A purse containing a small amount of cash and one photograph is not such a distinctive article that its identity can be safely assumed without proper proof. Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 10320/2023 STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND FIR No.615/2000 PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 9
24. There is another difficulty. The prosecution has not clearly established from whose possession the purse was recovered. Mere preparation of a seizure memo is not sufficient. The source, manner, and certainty of recovery had to be proved in a trustworthy way, especially when the complainant himself was not examined. That clarity is missing from the prosecution evidence.
25. The testimony of PW1 was recorded after a very long lapse of time from the date of incident. His identification of the accused in Court, in the absence of support from the complainant or any public witness, has to be viewed with caution. When the evidence on record is read as a whole, it does not inspire the degree of confidence required for holding that the prosecution has proved the offence under Section 379/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
26. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused, in furtherance of common intention, dishonestly removed the purse of the complainant out of his possession without consent. The charge under Section 379/34 IPC, thus, fails.
27. I now turn to the alternative charge under Section 411 IPC.
28. As already noted, for Section 411 IPC to apply, the prosecution must first establish that the property was "stolen property" within the meaning of Section 410 IPC. This is not a matter of form, but a substantive legal requirement. Unless the prosecution proves that the purse, the sum of Rs. 215, and the photograph were in fact property which had been Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 10320/2023 STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND FIR No.615/2000 PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 10 dishonestly taken from the complainant or had otherwise acquired the legal character of stolen property, the very foundation of the offence under Section 411 IPC disappears.
29. In the present case, that foundational requirement has not been met. The complainant has not entered the witness box. No admissible evidence has, therefore, come on record to prove that the purse, the money, and the photograph were indeed his property and that the same had been stolen from his possession. In the absence of such proof, the property cannot be held to have been proved as "stolen property"
within the meaning of Section 410 IPC.
30. Once this foundational requirement is not proved, the offence under Section 411 IPC cannot stand. Even otherwise, the prosecution has not proved in a clear and cogent manner that the said property was found in the conscious possession of the present accused. The alleged recovery is already rendered doubtful for the reasons discussed above. There is also no legally reliable material to show that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen property.
31. Thus, the offence under Section 411 IPC is not made out, first because the prosecution has failed to prove that the property falls within the definition of stolen property under Section 410 IPC, and second because possession and the requisite knowledge are also not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
32. I now deal with the charge under Section 174A IPC.
33. The record does show that earlier proceedings under Section 82 CrPC had been initiated against the accused and that the Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 10320/2023 STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND FIR No.615/2000 PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 11 accused was subsequently treated as a proclaimed offender. The old record also contains an order dated 16.02.2009 noting that process under Section 82 CrPC issued against accused Rakesh had been received back. There is also on record the old statement of Ct. Mahender to the effect that he had taken process under Section 82 CrPC to the address of the accused, learnt that the jhuggi had already been demolished, and pasted a copy of the process at a public place and at the court notice board.
34. However, criminal liability under Section 174A IPC cannot rest merely on the fact that at some earlier point the accused was declared a proclaimed offender. The prosecution was still required to prove in the present trial, by legally admissible and reliable evidence, that proclamation under Section 82 CrPC had been duly issued and executed in accordance with law and that the accused failed to appear despite such proclamation.
35. PW2 and PW3 are not witnesses to the issuance or execution of the proclamation. Their evidence only shows that in the year 2023 they verified from the record that the accused had been declared a proclaimed offender and then apprehended him. Their testimony does not prove due compliance with the requirements of Section 82 CrPC.
36. The prosecution later sought to summon Ct. Mahender under Section 311 CrPC, apparently to prove the execution of proclamation. However, it was reported that he had expired and he was dropped from the list of witnesses. As a result, the Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 10320/2023 STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND FIR No.615/2000 PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 12 prosecution remained without a live witness proving the execution of the process under Section 82 CrPC in the present trial.
37. Even otherwise, the material available on record itself shows that the address at which the process was allegedly executed related to a jhuggi which had already been demolished and that the whereabouts of the accused were not known. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, has taken the plea that he was wrongly declared a proclaimed offender as the address on record pertained to demolished jhuggies and he had not received summons or notices. Though the statement under Section 313 CrPC is not substantive defence evidence, the explanation offered by the accused does find some support from the old record itself.
38. In a prosecution under Section 174A IPC, where criminal liability arises from failure to appear pursuant to proclamation, strict proof of the foundational facts is necessary. On the present record, this Court is not satisfied that the prosecution has proved those foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt.
39. Consequently, the charge under Section 174A IPC also fails.
40. The prosecution may be justified in saying that the accused had remained absent for a long period and was arrested later. Even so, suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. A criminal Court is required to decide on evidence which satisfies the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, serious gaps remain on Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case 10320/2023 STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND FIR No.615/2000 PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC 13 every material aspect, namely, proof of theft, proof of identity of the alleged stolen property, proof that the property was stolen property within the meaning of Section 410 IPC, proof of conscious possession of such property by the accused, and proof of the legal ingredients of Section 174A IPC.
41. The cumulative effect of the evidence on record is that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
42. Accordingly, accused Rakesh @ Bablu @ Gyan Chand is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 379/34 IPC, alternatively Section 411 IPC, and Section 174A IPC.
43. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
44. Judgment be uploaded as per rules.
Announced in open court RAJ Digitally
KUMAR signed by
RAJ KUMAR
on 28.03.2026 SINGH SINGH
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/28.03.2026 Note: This judgment contains 13 (Thirteen) pagesRAJ and Digitally having my signature on each page. signed by RAJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH SINGH (Dr. Raj Kumar Singh) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/28.03.2026