Delhi District Court
Fir No. 219/2014 State vs Ravi And Anr Cs No. 1327/2017 on 16 January, 2023
FIR No. 219/2014 State vs Ravi And Anr CS No. 1327/2017
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIJAYSHREE RATHORE, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. Ravi And Anr
FIR No. : 219/2014
PS : Hauz Khas
U/s : 356/379/411/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. No. of the Case 1327/2017
B. Date of Commission of offence 27.02.2014
C. Date of FIR 27.02.2014
D. Date of charge-sheet 07.04.2017
E. Name of the complainant Ms. Asha Mishra W/o Late Santosh
Mishra
F. Name of the accused persons, their Ravi S/o Raja, R/o CPO 210, Madangir,
parentage and residence ND
G. Offence complained of or proved 356/379/411/34 IPC
H. Date of framing of charges 14.11.2018
I. Date of commencement of evidence 09.01.2023
J. Plea of the accused Not guilty
K. Date on which judgment is reserved 16.01.2023
L. Final Order Acquitted
M. Date of Judgment 16.01.2023.
State Vs. Ravi And Anr FIR No. : 219/2014 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 356/379/411/34 IPC Page no.1 of 5
FIR No. 219/2014 State vs Ravi And Anr CS No. 1327/2017
Brief facts of the present case
1. The case put forth by prosecution in brief is that on 27.02.2014
complainant was going though her house towards office at Khel Gaon by walking. When she was passing through at DDA Park, Panchsheel, an unknown person came from behind and snatched her black leather purse and fled away. On shouting, people in the surrounding came to her. A 100 no. call was made. On the basis of complaint given by complainant, FIR was registered. After registration of FIR, site plan was prepared by IO, statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of witnesses were recorded. During investigation accused persons Suraj and Ravi were arrested. Their disclosure statement were recorded. Case property was recovered from accused Ravi and seizure memo was prepared. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused persons Suraj and Ravi. Cognizance of the same was taken.
Framing of charge
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 14.11.2018 accused Suraj was discharged. However charge was framed against accused Ravi for the offence u/s 356/379/411 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. On 29.03.2019, complainant compounded the offence u/s 379/411 IPC with the accused. On the basis of separate statement of complainant accused was acquitted from said offence. Trial in respect of offence u/s 356 IPC was proceeded as it is non- compoundable in nature.
4. In a separate proceeding u/s 294 CrPC, accused admitted the genuine of registration of FIR NO. 219/2014 Ex.PA without admitting its content.
State Vs. Ravi And Anr FIR No. : 219/2014 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 356/379/411/34 IPC Page no.2 of 5
FIR No. 219/2014 State vs Ravi And Anr CS No. 1327/2017
Prosecution Evidence
5. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined complainant PW1 Asha Mishra.
6. PW-1 Asha Mishra had deposed that she is working in Doordarshan, near India Gate at Jam Nagar House, Delhi. She further deposed that she do not remember the date of incidence however it may be 2014-2015. She further deposed that at about 10:30 am, she was going towards her office by foot, in the meanwhile someone came from her back and snatched her bag containing mobile phone Samsung, ATM card SBI, Pan Card, ID card, keys of her office and one thousand cash and ran away from the spot. She had further deposed that she gave written complaint to IO which is Ex. PW1/A bearing her signature at point A. She had further deposed that she had shown the place of incident to IO, however site plan was not prepared in her presence. The witness had failed to identify accused present in the Court. On seeking permission to cross examine by ld. APP for the State, the witness had admitted that she had not given the invoice of the stolen mobile phone to IO. The witness had also denied her statement u/s 161 CrPC and stated that she did not give any such type of statement to IO. She further denied that she is deposing falsely at the instance of accused.
7. The examination of accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as nothing incriminating was deposed by complainant against accused Ravi in her testimony.
8. Accused did not lead defence evidence. Thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
State Vs. Ravi And Anr FIR No. : 219/2014 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 356/379/411/34 IPC Page no.3 of 5
FIR No. 219/2014 State vs Ravi And Anr CS No. 1327/2017
9. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Legal aid Counsel for accused were heard and case file was perused.
10. For proving the charge under Section 356 IPC, prosecution had to prove that the assault or criminal force was used by any person, in attempt to commit theft on any property which that person was then wearing or carrying.
11. It is the case of prosecution that on alleged date of incident 27.02.2014, accused snatched the bag of the complainant while she was going by foot from her house towards her office at Doordarshan. Perusal of the entire material available on record shows that complainant had not supported the prosecution version in this case. The testimony of complainant is utmost important in the case as she is the victim of offence. She had turned hostile in the case and had not deposed even a single incriminating fact against the accused. She had resiled from her previous statement given to IO u/s 161 CrPC and had denied giving any such statement to police. She further denied any site map being prepared at her instance. She had also not identified the accused present before the Court. Further no other eye witness had been brought on record by the prosecution. Thus, the eye account of incident is also not available.
12. In her cross examination as well PW1 Asha Mishra had denied that she had seen accused snatching the bag from her. As per the explanation furnished by witness, the accused had snatched her bag from behind and had fled away. Thus, it must be possible that complainant had not seen the person snatching her bag. Further there is no MLC or other document on record to show that assault or criminal force was used by the accused while snatching the bag. In the absence of any testimony of complainant in this regard and also in the absence of MLC, it cannot be presumed that complainant was assaulted or criminal force was used against her. Since the State Vs. Ravi And Anr FIR No. : 219/2014 PS Hauz Khas U/s 356/379/411/34 IPC Page no.4 of 5 FIR No. 219/2014 State vs Ravi And Anr CS No. 1327/2017 complainant had denied the identity of accused, it could not be proved in the case that the purse of complainant was snatched by the accused from the hands of complainant.
13. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. There is no material on record to assume that accused had snatched the bag from the complainant while she was going towards her office and had assaulted her. It is apparent from the above discussion that the allegations against the accused have not been proved. Thus, it is concluded that the prosecution has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the commission of offence under section 356 IPC by the accused.
Conclusion & Decision
14. Thus it is apparent from the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case u/s 356 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Keeping in mind the above-mentioned discussion, accused Ravi is acquitted for the commission of the offence U/s 356 IPC.
Announced in the open court (VIJAYSHREE RATHORE) In Delhi on 16.01.2023 MM-06, SOUTH/SAKET DELHI State Vs. Ravi And Anr FIR No. : 219/2014 PS Hauz Khas U/s 356/379/411/34 IPC Page no.5 of 5