Delhi District Court
State vs Vikas Etc on 9 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-02, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURT,
NEW DELHI
STATE VS. VIKASH & ORS.
FIR NO: 12/2010
P. S Vasant Kunj North
U/s 392 & 327 r/w 34 IPC
Crc No./48280/16
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 05.04.2010
Name of the complainant : Sh. Anuj Ravi, S/o Sh. Puran Chand,
R/o 7-C/7, Gandhi Park, Hauz Rani,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence : 15.01.2020
Name of the accused : (1) Vikash, S/o Sh. Chandra Bhan
(2) Dinesh, S/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal
(3) Praveen Kumar, S/o Sh. Phool
Singh (Abated)
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 23.05.2025
Final Order : Conviction (qua accused Dinesh)
Acquittal (qua accused Vikash)
Date of orders : 09.06.2025
Name of Ld. APP : Sh. Shravan Navaria
0
Digitally signed
by ANIMESH
ANIMESH KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.06.09
18:15:47
+0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1.Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused persons namely Vikash S/o Sh. Chandra Bhan and Dinesh, S/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal for having committed the offence punishable u/s 392 & 327 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861 (hereinafter referred as "IPC").
2.Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint given by Sh. Anuj Ravi. As per the complaint, on 15.01.2010, the complainant along with his friends Vinit Singla and Sahil went to Prithvi Raj ka Tila, Sanjay Van, Mehrauli, Delhi. At around 5 PM, when the complainant along with his friends reached near grave of Bela Rani, the accused persons were already present there. These accused persons approached the complainant and his friends and asked for match stick. When the complainant refused, then the accused persons started talking with him and told them about the theft of gold chain. They asked the complainant and their friends to let them conduct their personal search. When the complainant told them that they did not have any chain then the accused persons forcefully made them sit and took the chain of the complainant from his neck. They also threatened the complainant and his friends and took purse of the complainant and mobile phones of the Digitally signed 1 by ANIMESH KUMAR ANIMESH Date:
KUMAR 2025.06.09
18:15:53
+0530
complainant and his friends. They also took gold ring of the friend of the complainant namely Vinit Singla. They also beaten the complainant and and also threatened him and his friends. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the complainant and his friends came near IIFT college and informed the police about the incident.
3.After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out by PS Vasant Kunj North. During the course of the investigation, the accused persons were apprehended and stolen mobile phones of the complainant and his friends were allegedly recovered from their possession. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Thereafter, cognisance was taken and charge was framed against the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 392 & 327 r/w 34 IPC vide order dated 17.05.2010. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
4.In order to prove the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution examined the following eight witnesses:
• HC Ram Niwas, deposed as PW-1;
• Sh. Anuj Ravi, the complainant and eye-witness, deposed as PW-2; • Sh. Israr Babu, deposed as PW-3;
Digitally
signed by
2
ANIMESH
ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09
18:15:58
+0530
• HC Satish Kumar, deposed as as PW-4;
• Retired SI Rai Singh, deposed as PW-5; • Inspector Rajnish Kumar, deposed as PW-6; • ASI Sanjay Kumar, deposed as PW-7; and • Sh. Sageer Ahmed, deposed as PW-8.
5.PW-1 was the Duty Officer. He deposed that on 15.01.2010, he had received rukka from HC Satish which was sent by ASI Rai Singh at about 7:30 PM and he had registered the present FIR Ex. PW-1/A on the basis of said rukka. He also made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW-1/B. He also recorded the DD No. 36A dated 15.01.2010 Ex. PW-1/C. He was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite the fact that opportunity was granted to them.
6.PW-2 was the complainant and eye witness of the present case. In the examination in chief, he deposed that on 15.01.2010, he along with Sahil and Vineet Singla were present at Sanjay Van, Mehrauli at around 4:30 PM. The accused persons approached them and threatened them and asked them to surrender their valuables and took 3 mobiles phone from then. The accused persons also took Rs. 600/- and gold chain belonging to the complainant. He gave his complaint Ex. PW-2/A. He identified the three mobiles phones in the Court Ex. P-1. He correctly identified the 3 Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 18:16:04 +0530 accused Dinesh in the Court, however, he could not properly identify the accused Vikash.
7.PW-2 was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State with the permission of the Court. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he was confused about the appearance of the accused Vikash as he was involved in the incident of robbery due to the passage of the time.
8.PW-2 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. In the cross-examination, he admitted that there was one paranthewala just outside the park. There were 3-4 stalls just out side the park at some distance. He further stated that they were inside the park about 200-300 metres from the entrance. He also stated that he could not see the stalls from the place of occurrence. He also stated that there was nobody in their sight at the time of the incident in the park. He also stated that they were three and the accused persons were also three. He further stated that they tried to resist but when the accused persons started beating them then they could not do anything. He also stated that there were no visible wounds on any of them. He further stated that since there was no one in the park, then they came outside the park and narrated the incident to the people present there, took mobile phone of somebody and called the police. He could not say as to whether the same was written in 4 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR ANIMESH Date:
KUMAR 2025.06.09
18:16:09
+0530
his complaint to the police or not. He further stated that the complaint Ex. PW-2/A was written in the police station about 8-10 PM. He did not remember as to whether he was called by the police but stated that he was called. He also stated that they went to the police station many times to give documents. He also stated that he had give identification documents and IMEI numbers of the mobile phones and bills. He could not tell if he had given the receipt of the bill by the police or not. He also stated that he was told by the police on the phone that the goods were recovered and he would have to go to the Court for identification of the same. He further stated that he did not give any IMEI number since it was an old phone. He did not remember if he had given to the police the receipt / bill of the phone. He did not remember if his statement was recorded by the police or not. He further stated that when the accused persons were arrested the police informed them but they did not call him in the police station. He denied the suggestion that all the three accused persons were shown to him in the police station in spite of the fact they they were not the persons but he was persuaded by the police to identify them. He did not give any receipt of the gold chain to the police. He did not remember if the receipt of the ring was given to the police or not by Vinit. He also stated that he was informed by the police that the chain or Digitally 5 signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:16:13 +0530 cash was recovered. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He also denied the suggestion that the accused persons were falsely identified by him. He also denied the suggestion that the mobile phone did not belong to him.
9.PW-3 had brought original customer application form of Vodafone mobile numbers 9873513014 issued against the name of Krunal D Patel and 9953055766 issued against the name of Vinit Kumar. The copies of these documents are Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-3/B (OSR). He also also brought the call detailed report of the mobile phone of these mobile phones for the period of 01.01.2010 to 08.02.2010 Ex. PW-3/C and Ex. PW-3/D. He was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite the fact that opportunity was granted to them.
10.PW-4 deposed that on 15.01.2010, he along with ASI Rai Singh reached at the spot where he met PW-2 and his friends. ASI Rai Singh recorded the statement of PW-2, prepared the rukka and got the present FIR registered through him. He was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite the fact that opportunity was granted to them.
11.PW-5 was the investigating officer of the present case. In the examination in chief, he deposed that on 15.01.2010, he along with HC Digitally 6 signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:16:17 +0530 Satish reached at the spot where he met with PW-2 and his friends. He recorded the statement of PW-2, prepared the rukka and got the present FIR registered. After receiving the copy of FIR and rukka, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW-5/B and on 07.02.2010, the accused Vikash was apprehended and one stolen mobile phone make Nokia E63 was recovered from his possession. The accused Vikash was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-5/C, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW-5/D and the said mobile phone was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/E. Thereafter, the accused Dinesh was arrested at the instance of the accused Vikash vide arrest memo Ex. PW-5/DG, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-5/H and one smashing mobile phone was also recovered vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/ I. He also prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW-5/Q. He correctly identified the accused persons and the case properties in the Court. He was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite the fact that opportunity was granted to them.
12.PW-6 deposed that on 15.02.2010, he joined the investigation with the IO. On that day, he had come to the Court and one day police custody of the accused persons was taken. They searched for a person namely Sonu to whom the jewellery was sold, however, the said person was not found.
Digitally signed by 7 ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:16:23 +0530 Thereafter, they came to the police station along with the accused persons, when the complainant and his friends had identified the accused persons in the police station. The complainant and his friends had handed over the receipt of stolen mobile phones and photocopies of their id cards which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-6/B. He correctly identified the accused persons in the Court. He was not cross-examined by the accused persons despite the fact that opportunity was granted to them.
13.PW-7 deposed that on 07.02.1010, he joined the investigation along with the IO ASI Rai Singh, HC Yogender, Ct. Khem Chand and they reached at Sanjay Van. Thereafter, they reached at Kishangarh Goshala where one secret informer met the IO and he informed about the accused Vikash. At about 12:45 PM, the accused Vikash was apprehended and one stolen mobile phone E63 was recovered from the right pocket of his pant during his search. Thereafter, the said mobile phone was seized. Thereafter, the accused Vikas was arrested his personal search was conducted. The disclosure statement of the accused Vikas was recorded by the IO. Thereafter, on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused Vikas, he was taken to Pahadi Colony, Mehrauli where the accused Dinesh was found who got recovered one mobile phone Samsung which 8 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:16:27 +0530 was seized by the IO. The accused Dinesh was arrested and his personal search was also conducted. Thereafter, the case properties were deposited by the IO in the malkhana. Thereafter, they went to Sanjay Van where pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of the accused persons and recovery site plans of the stolen mobile phones were also prepared. He correctly identified the accused persons and the case properties.
14.PW-7 was duly cross-examined by the accused persons. In the cross- examination, he stated that the IO made a DD entry for going to the spot. He also stated that he had left the post station at about 11 AM. He further stated that the distance between the Vasant Kunj North and Sanjay Van was about 8 km. He denied the suggestion that the distance between Vasant Kunj North and Sanjay Van was about 8 km. He also stated that they reached at Sanjay Van within 10-15 minute and they reached Gaushala in another 10-15 minutes but he did not remember the exact time. He further stated that the distance between the Sanjay Van and Gaushala was about 1.5 km. He denied the suggestion that the distance between Sanjay Van and Gaushala was about 6 km. He admitted that no public persons were present at the time of the arrest of the accused Vikas.
Digitally
signed by
ANIMESH 9
ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09
18:16:32
+0530
15.PW-8 was authorised by CMO, MRD, Safdarjung Hospital to produce the record of MLC No. 6756 dated 15.01.2010. He had brought the certificate and order which was weeded out vide DGHS order dated 10.12.2014. The said report is Ex. PW-8/B. He also stated that there was no doctor who could identify the handwriting or signature of the doctor who had prepared the said MLC. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein he admitted that the said MLC was not mentioned in Ex. PW-8/B. He also admitted that there was no doctor available who could identify the handwriting or signatures of the doctor who had prepared the said MLC. He denied the suggestion that no such MLC was prepared due to which he did not bring the said MLC in the Court.
16.The accused persons also admitted the genuineness of the TIP proceedings Ex. P-1, P-2 & P-3 respectively u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Hence, formal proof of these documents was dispensed with.
17.After examination of all prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, the prosecution evidence was closed on 21.09.2024. Thereafter, statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") on 07.10.2024 wherein all the incriminating Digitally signed by ANIMESH 10 ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:16:36 +0530 circumstances were put to them which they denied and took a defence that they were falsely implicated in the present case.
18.During the final arguments, the Ld. APP urged that testimonies of the material witnesses have remained unchallenged in the cross-examination The complainant has completely supported the case of the prosecution.
19.The Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the the guilt of the accused persons in the present case. The accused persons cannot be convicted on the sole testimony of the complainant. The other two eye witnesses were examined. It was also argued that since the motorcycle of the complainant was never actually moved from the spot, the offence of robbery was not completed. Therefore, the accused persons cannot be convicted for the same. Also, there are material contradictions among the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, benefit of doubts needs to be extended to the accused persons.
20.I have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. defence counsel and have perused the case file.
21.Before, discussing the testimonies of PWs, it would be prudent to discuss the legal position involved in the present case.
Digitally 11 signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:16:43 +0530 LAW INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE
22.Section 390 IPC provides for the offence of robbery. It defines robbery in the following manner:
"390. Robbery.--In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery.--Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint When extortion is robbery.--Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person, or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation.--The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint."
23.Bare reading of the above provision will clearly show that robbery is an aggravated form of theft or extortion which is committed when the person interalia voluntarily causes or attempt to cause death or hurt or wrongful Digitally 12 signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:16:48 +0530 restraint to the victim either while committing the theft or while carrying away the stolen property. "Theft" is defined u/s 378 IPC in the following manner:
" 3 7 8 . T h e f t . -- W h o e v e r, i n t e n d i n g t o t a k e dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Explanation 1.--A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2.--A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft. Explanation 3.--A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
Explanation 4.--A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
Explanation 5.--The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied."
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
24.After discussing the offence briefly, I shall now be examining the guilt of the accused persons by appreciating the materials available on record.
Digitally 13
signed by
ANIMESH
ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09
18:16:52
+0530
25.It is cardinal principle of law accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution.
26.At the outset, in so far as the argument of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons regarding conviction of the accused persons based on sole testimony of complainant is concerned, it should be noted that the said argument does not hold any ground.
27.It is a settled proposition of law that an accused can be convicted based on the testimony of solitary witness if the same is unblemished and gains the confidence of the Court. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly provides that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish a case. It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity which is to be seen.
28.At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 Crl. LJ 1023 , wherein the Apex Court had Digitally 14 signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:16:56 +0530 upheld a conviction under Section 302 IPC based on the sole testimony of a witness. The Hon'ble Court has held that "on the basis of solitary evidence conviction can be maintained. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained."
29.The above discussed principle was reiterated (albeit with certain qualifications) recently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh vs. State (NCT OF Delhi) Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2015 decided on 12th October 2020 wherein it was held that conviction can be based on sole eye witness testimony only if he is wholly reliable. But if there are doubts about the testimony then the Courts will insist on corroboration. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
"16. Thus, the finding of guilt of the two accused appellants recorded by the two Courts below is based on sole testimony of eye witness PW-1. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts 15 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:17:01 +0530 about the testimony Courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise"
30.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of State through Inspector of Police vs. Laly @ Manikandan @ Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1424 has again reiterated the ratio that there can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable.
31.Hence, in view of the above discussions, it becomes very clear that an accused can be convicted based on the sole testimony of witness/ complainant. However, the said testimony must be unblemished and wins the confidence of the Court. If there is any contradiction or doubt over the reliability of the witness, then the Courts can insist on corroboration.
32.In the instant case, it should be noted that the prosecution has only examined the complainant PW-2. The other two eye-witnesses / victims could not be traced, and, therefore, were dropped from the list of witnesses. No other independent or public witnesses who had witnessed the incident or were present at the spot were examined by the Digitally signed by 16 ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:17:05 +0530 prosecution. Perusal of the testimony of the complainant PW-2 would show that he had supported the case of the prosecution qua the culpability of the accused Dinesh. In his testimony, he had given a detailed account of the manner in which he and his friends were approached by the accused Dinesh and two other persons and were robbed. He had also stated that he and his friends were also beaten and threatened during the commission of the offence. He had also categorically stated that his mobile phone along with gold chain and purse were stolen and mobile phones of his friends were also stolen. PW-2 correctly identified the accused Dinesh in the Court but failed to identify the accused Vikas. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and no material contradictions could be seen in his testimony.
33.The above testimony of the complainant could also be corroborated from the refusal of the accused Dinesh to participate in the TIP proceedings. An adverse inference can be drawn against the accused Dinesh upon his refusal to participate in the TIP proceeding. The complainant in his cross-examination had categorically denied that the accused persons were shown to him in the police station by the police officials. In fact, he had stated that he was not called in the police station by the police officials. He had also categorically denied this suggestion Digitally 17 signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:17:09 +0530 that the accused Dinesh was shown to him in the police station. Also, the Defence Counsel did not bring on record any material to show as to why the complainant would falsely implicate the accused Dinesh in the present case when he was not even known to him. It would become all the more relevant in light of the fact that PW-2 failed to properly identify the accused Vikas in the Court. If the accused persons would have been shown to the complainant in the police station during the investigation, the complainant would also have been able to correctly identify the accused Vikas in the Court.
34.Further, as discussed in the preceding part of this judgment, the offence of robbery is an aggravated form of theft. From the testimony of the complainant PW-2, it would become clear that the the accused Dinesh along with his associates had also beaten and threatened the complainant and his friends while committing the theft and fleeing away. Since, the accused persons had given beatings to the complainant while commititng the offence of theft, it could be said that the offence of robbery was completed which is punishable u/s 392 r/w 34 IPC.
35.I am of conscious of the fact that as per the MLC of the complainant, no external injury was observed. However, MLC is not a sine qua non for the Digitally signed by ANIMESH 18 ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:17:13 +0530 offence of robbery. It cannot be sole determinant to prove as to whether robbery has occurred or not.
36.In the instant case, from the testimony of the complainant PW-2, it would become very clear that the complainant did not suffer any major injuries. He was only beaten by the accused Dinesh and his associates.
"Hurt" is defined u/s 319 IPC in such a manner that even causing bodily pain would also amount to hurt. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshman Singh vs. State of Bihar AIR 2021 Supreme Court 3552. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
"However, production of an injury report for the offence under Section 323 IPC is not a sine qua non for establishing the case for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Section 323 IPC is a punishable section for voluntarily causing hurt. "Hurt" is defined under Section 319 IPC. As per Section 319 IPC, whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause "hurt". Therefore, even causing bodily pain can be said to be causing "hurt". Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no error has been committed by the courts below for convicting the accused under Section 319 IPC."
37.Since, the complainant was beaten by the accused Dinesh and his associates then bodily pain must have been caused to him. Thus, it can 19 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:17:18 +0530 be said that hurt was caused to the complainant by the accused Dinesh and his associates during the commission of the offence of robbery.
38.Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I find that the prosecution has successfully established the essential ingredients of robbery in the present case qua the accused Dinesh. However, since, the complainant and only eye witness examined by the prosecution failed to identify the accused Vikash, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused Vikash beyond reasonable doubts for the offence of robbery.
39.In the present case, as per the testimony of the complainant, the accused persons forced the complainant and his friends to sit and took their mobile phones, gold chain and cash. Perusal of the testimony of the complainant would show that the complainant or his friends were not induced to deliver the articles per se by putting him under the fear of injury. In fact, as per the testimony of the complainant, the offence of extortion was not completed. No demand was made by the accused persons per se from the complainant by putting him under the fear of injury. No statement was made by the complainant in this regard. No other materials were brought on record by the prosecution to prove this offence. Thus, I find that there are insufficient materials to convict the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 327 r/w 34 IPC. 20
Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:17:22 +0530
40.In so far as the culpability of the accused Vikash for the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC is concerned, it should be noted that recovery of the stolen articles from the possession of the accused Vikash could not be properly established by the prosecution. There is a significant gap between the date of the snatching and date of recovery. Thus, no presumption u/s 114 of the Indian Evidence Act could be drawn in the present case.
41.The recovery of the stolen articles of the possession of the accused persons would become all the more doubtful in light of the fact that no public persons were included during the recovery proceeding. No notice in writing was given by the IO to any of the public persons to join the investigation. The prosecution did not even bring on record the relevant departure and arrival entries of the police officials (who were involved in the investigation) from or at the police station. As per the Punjab Police Rules, it was mandatory for these police officials to make departure or arrival entries.
42.Also, there would be question on the seizure of the said stolen articles. It is not clear as to whether the mobile phone allegedly recovery from the possession of the accused was put in a sealed pullanda. It is not clear as to whether the seal was handed over to any public persons after or before 21 Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2025.06.09 18:17:27 +0530 use. Also, none of the recovery witnesses stated that they actually offered their personal search to a public person before searching the accused persons.
43.It would become all the more important in light of the fact that the identity of the mobile phone allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused Vikash could not be separately established by the prosecution. The actual owner of the stolen phone was not examined by the prosecution. Thus, it could not established that the mobile phone allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused Vikash was actually related to the present case.
44.Even if it assumed that some stolen mobile phone was actually recovered from the possession of the accused Vikash, however, it would not automatically prove the fact the said mobile phone was retained / purchased by him with the knowledge that the same was a stolen property. In fact, this was precisely the duty of prosecution to impute the existence of knowledge on the part of the said accused. Mere disclosure of this fact in the disclosure statement of the accused would not be of any help to the prosecution.
ANIMESH KUMAR Digitally signed by 22 ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 18:17:31 +0530
45.Therefore, I find that while there are grave suspicions against the accused Vikash in the present case for the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC, however, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubts.
46.Further, it should be noted that the accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable u/s 327 r/w 34 IPC also. Section 327 of the IPC deals with "voluntarily causing hurt to extort property, or to constrain to do an illegal act." It reads as under:
"Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer, or from any person interested in the sufferer, any property or valuable security, or of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in such sufferer to do anything which is illegal or which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
47.In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 327 r/w 34 IPC, it is imperative for the prosecution to prove the fact that hurt was caused in order to interalia extort property. The offence of "extortion" is defined u/s 383 IPC which is said to be committed when the accused intentionally put another person in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly induces the person to interalia deliver the property.
Digitally signed by ANIMESH 23 ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.06.09 18:17:35 +0530
48.Thus, in light of the above discussions and findings, the accused Dinesh stands convicted for the offence punishable u/s 392 r/w 34 IPC. However, he stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 327 r/w 34 IPC. The accused Vikash stands acquitted for all the offences for which he has been charged in the present case.
49.Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the convict. Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
Announced in the open court 2025.06.09 18:17:39 On 09.06.2025 +0530 (Animesh Kumar) JMFC-02, Patiala House Court New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 24 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 18:17:47 +0530 (Animesh Kumar) JMFC-02, Patiala House Court New Delhi 24