Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjay Bhatia on 30 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. KARANBIR SINGH, JMFC -02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. SANJAY BHATIA
FIR NO. 141/2007
CC No. 13721/2018
UNDER SECTION 379 / 411 / 174A IPC
POLICE STATION TIMAR PUR
Date of institution of the case : 26.06.2007
Date of judgment reserved : 22.04.2025
CNR No. : DLCT020004172007
Name of the complainant : Sh. Jai Parkash
Name of accused and address : SANJAY BHATIA s/o Sh. Satpal
Bhatia, R/o DLF, Seema Puri, Gali
Number 6, Rajeev Colony, Delhi.
Offence complained of : 379 / 411 / 174A IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 30.04.2025.
Final order : Acquitted
KARANBIR
SINGH
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR
SINGH
Date: 2025.04.30
16:03:56 +0530
JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
1. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on the night of 04- 05.02.2007 in front of House Number 3566/1, Gali Number 95, B Block, Sant Nagar, Burari accused intending to take dishonestly one motor cycle bearing no. DL-8S-AC-6467 out of the possession of complainant Jai Parkash without his consent and moved it in order to such taking and thereby committed an offence of theft punishable under section 379 IPC.
2. It is further the case of prosecution that in alternative on 26.04.2007, the aforesaid motorcycle was recovered at instance of accused from area of Urban Estate, Rohtak, Delhi Road under the trees vide recovery Memo Mark A and and he dishonestly received or retained the aforesaid stolen property belonging to complainant or having such reason that the said property was stolen property and thereby he has committed an offence under section 411 IPC.
3. It is further the case of prosecution that while being an accused in the above side FIR, during the pendency of trial the accused failed to appear before the court and thereafter the proclamation under section 82 CRPC was issued against him by the Court of Larne MM0 to Sri Pavan Kumar and on second of November 2016 he was declared as proclaimed offender and thereby he has committed a offence under section 174 aipc.
COURT PROCEEDINGS :
Digitally signed by KARANBIR KARANBIR SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.04.30 16:04:01 +0530
2. After completion of investigation, police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was filed for offences under Sections 379/411/IPC. Cognizance was taken and accused was summoned. Provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after appearance of the accused. However, during the pendency of trial, accused failed to appear after which he was declared as Proclaimed Offender. He was arrested on 24.04.2018 and thereafter, supplementary chargesheet was filed under section 174A IPC.
CHARGE :
3. After hearing arguments on point of charge, charge for the offence under Section 379/411IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After supplementary chargesheet was filed, charge under section 174A was framed against him.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses.
5. PW-1 is Constable Dev Singh who deposed that On 12th march 2007 he was posted at PP Jharodha, PS Timarpur as Constable and on that day he was present at PP Jharodha along with IO HC Jagat Singh. Then the complainant in the present case Jaiprakash came there and reported about theft of his motorcycle bearing number DL 8AC6467. Thereafter his statement was recorded by IO on the basis of which Tehrir was prepared. The same was handed over to him for getting the FIR registered. Accordingly, he went to the PS, got the case registered, came back at PP Jharodha with the original Tehrir and carbon copy of the FIR. He was not cross-examined by defence despite opportunity.
Digitally
signed by
KARANBIR
KARANBIR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.04.30
16:04:05
+0530
6. PW-2 is complainant Jai Parkash who deposed that in the year 2007 he used to reside in Block B Sant Nagar. He was the owner of medical shop Namely Akash Medico in the year 2007. On the day of his deposition, he was the owner of the shop at Sant Nagar namely Nirankari Medicos. He deposed that incident is of the year 2007 however he could not remember the exact date and month. He deposed that on that day during night time he parked his motorcycle bearing number DL8 SAC 6467 in front of his house and the next day when he woke up he found that motorcycle was missing. He searched for his motorcycle but all in vain. He called police by dialing 100 number. Police came at the spot and he told them about the missing motorcycle and his statement was recorded which is exhibited PW2/A. Later IO prepared the site plan at his instance. He came to know that his motorcycle was recovered. He identified the case property correctly in the court. He was not cross examined by the defence despite opportunity.
7. PW-3 is Head Constable Janesh Kumar who deposed that on 28 th of April 2007 he was posted at Ps Timarpur, Police Post Jharodha as a Constable. On that day he joined the investigation of the present case with IO HC Jagat Singh. Accused was brought by ASI Ravindra Vats at police post Jharodha and was arrested vide arrest memo Exhibit PW3/A, personal search of accused was conducted vide Memo Exhibit PW3/B. The disclosure statement of accused was recorded. The pointing out memo at the instance of accused was prepared with respect to the spot from where the motorcycle was earlier stolen i.e. Gali number 95, B Block, Santnagar, Burari. The pointing out memo is Exhibit PW3/D. He was not cross examined by defence despite opportunity.
KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.04.30 16:04:09 +0530
8. PW-4 is HC Sunil who is MHC(M) and he brought the register number 19 and the relevant entry is entry number 3370 as per which the motorcycle was deposited in the Malkhana the entry is Exhibit PW4/A (OSR). He was not cross examined by defence despite opportunity.
9. PW-5 is Ct. Satyavart who deposed that on 22.04.2007 he had joined investigation in FIR No. 243/07. Accused was arrested in the aforesaid FIR and also disclosed his involvement in the present matter. He also joined IO during recovery of motorcycle at Hardev Nagar where the motorcycle was covered with a piece of cloth. He was not cross examined by defence despite opportunity.
10. PW-6 is ASI Dharmender Yadav who deposed that on 28.04.2007, he was posted as constable at PP Jharoda chowki, PS Timar Pur. On that day he joined the investigation with IO/ASI Ravinder Vats in case FIR No. 243/2007 where the accused had disclosed his involvement in the present case. Thereafter, IO/ASI Ravinder Vats recorded his disclosure statement which is already Ex. PW4/A(OSR) bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded his statement. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the disclosure statement was recorded by the IO at PP Jharoda Chowki on 22.04.2007. He deposed that it is correct that he did not participate in the recovery of the case property in the present case. He denied the suggestions given by defence.
11. PW-7 is Rakesh Bhardwaj who deposed that on 28.04.2007, he was working as the photographer. On that day, at the request of the IO, he took the photographs of the motorcycle. He handed over the photographs along with the negatives to the IO. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was running his photography shop in the name and style of Rainbow Studio. He had clicked the Digitally signed by KARANBIR KARANBIR SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.04.30 16:04:12 +0530 above said photographs at the PS Timar Pur. He deposed that it is correct that he does not remember the registration no. of the above said motorcycle. He had not issued any receipt regarding the photographs of the above said motorcycle.
12. PW-8 is SI Bhagat Ram who deposed that on 26.04.2007, he was posted at EHC at Special Staff, Rohtak, Haryana. On that day, he along with HC Ranbir and EHC Rajbir were on patrolling duty at Illaka Thana, Delhi Road near Jawahar Lal Nehru Canal. They observed a motorcycle bearing no. DL8SAC6467 make Bajaj Pulsar, black color was parked in the bushes. They checked engine and chassis number of the aforesaid motorbike and the said motorbike was found to be stolen. Thereafter, IO / HC Ranbir seized the aforesaid motorbike under Section 102 Cr. P.C. vide seizure memo already Mark A bearing his signatures at point A. IO HC Ranbir also prepared site plan. His Statement was recorded. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he does not remember the exact time when they observed about the aforesaid motorbike in the bushes. He had refreshed his memory and gone through his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr. P.C. His statement was recorded by IO HC Ranbir on the same day. He signed as a witness on the site plan.
13. PW-9 IS Retd. SI Ranvir vats who deposed that On 27.04.2007, he was posted as ASI at PP Jharoda, PS Timar Pur. On that day, accused Sanjay Bhatia disclosed in the FIR no. 243/07, PS Timar Pur that he had stolen a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8S-AC-6467 and he parked the same in Rohtak, Haryana at the corner of a road and the same was seized by police officials in Rohtak. Next day, he collected the said motorcycle from the malkhana. He informed the IO HC Jagat Singh regarding the same. He recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. In his cross-examination, he deposed that it is correct Digitally signed by KARANBIR KARANBIR SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.04.30 16:04:16 +0530 that FIR No. 243/07 registered in PS Timar Pur U/s 457/380/411 IPC. He was also the IO in that case FIR No. 243/07. He did not know how many cases accused was involved in PS Timar Pur. He denied the suggestions given by the defence.
14. PW-10 is SI Pushpinder Sirohi who deposed that on 27.04.2007, he was posted as the HC at Jharoda Chowki, PS Timar Pur. On that day, he along with ASI Ravinder Vats went to the PS Urban Estate, Rohtak and from there took the motorbike bearing no. DL-8S-AC-6467 vide RC no. 107 dated 27.04.2007. The said RC was now Ex. PW10/A bearing his signature at point A. The motorbike was deposited in the malkhana of PS Timar Pur. He was not cross-examined by defence despite opportunity.
15. PW-11 is SI Ajay Kumar who deposed that on 24.04.2018, he was posted as HC at PS Kirti Nagar. On that day, he along with ASI Viniti Prasad, ASI Jaibir Singh and Ct. Bhawar Singh were present near THC court redlight, Mori Gate for the search of the P.O.s. Then, the secret informer met him and told him that one person namely Sanjay Bhatia who was declared P.O. in the present case was coming. He checked the said information and it was found to be correct. After sometime, he pointed towards a person and told that he was Sanjay Bhatia. He along with the staff apprehended the aforesaid accused and he started shouting. The family members of the accused also came there and they also started shouting. Someone from the public made the PCR call and after sometime, PCR came at the spot and he along with the staff took the accused to the PS Civil Lines in the PCR van. He made the inquiry with the accused in the PS Civil Lines who told him that he did not remember the date fixed in the court and thereby he was declared P.O. Thereafter, he arrested the accused U/s 41.1c Cr.P.C. vide arrest memo which was Ex. PW11/A bearing his signature at point A. He prepared the KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.04.30 16:04:20 +0530 Kalandara vide DD No. 23-B dated 24.04.2018, PS Kirti Nagar which was Ex. PW11/C bearing his signature at point A. The information of arrest of accused was given to his father. The information was given to PS Timar Pur vide DD no. 36-B telephonically. After medical examination, accused was produced before the concerned duty MM and send to JC. In his cross-examination, he deposed that on that day, his duty was to search for the P.O.s. He did not know whether the accused was coming on that day along with his uncle and cousin to attend the court or not.
16. PW-12 is ASI Jaibir Singh who deposed on similar lines as PW-11. He was not cross-examined by defence despite opportunity.
17. PW-13 is Inspector Ravinder Singh who deposed on similar lines as PW-8. In his cross-examination he deposed that the bike was standing in a grassy area, he deposed that he has referred about the area in the site plan which is Ex. PW13/B. he deposed that it is correct that Bike was found in the area of Canal.
18. PW-14 is ASI Rajesh Kumar who received information on 24.04.2018 that accused has been arrested as PO and thereafter he obtained Kalandara from PS Kirti Nagar and filed supplementary chargesheet. In his cross- examination, he deposed that IO HC Ajay, ASI Vineet, ASI Jaiveer and Ct. Bhanwar Singh were posted at PS Kirti Nagar. He deposed that accused was arrested in FIR No. 141/2007. He deposed that it is correct that when he reached PS Kirti Nagar, accused was not present there. He deposed that he had not seen the accused prior to the present case.
19. PW-15 is MHC(M) who brought the register number 19 of year 2007 and register no. 21 of 2007 which were E. PW15/A. He was not cross-examined by defence despite opportunity.
KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.04.30 16:04:24 +0530
20. PW-16 is Rajbir Singh who deposed on similar lines as PW-8. He was not cross-examined by defence despite opportunity.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED:
21. After conclusion of this evidence, the prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused debnied each and every incriminating circumstance appearing against him. He submitted that he has been falsely roped in the present FIR.
22. I have heard the submissions of Sh. Pradeep Maurya, Ld. Counsel for the accused and Ld. APP for State and carefully gone through the material on record.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
23. The prosecution has a duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt. A Court cannot draw an inference of guilt from mere suspicion. Suspicion, no matter how strong cannot take the place of legal proof.
24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam decided on 28th May, 2013 held as under :-
"6. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved, and something that `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.04.30 16:04:28 +0530 distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof."
25. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between "may be"
true and "must be" true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343.
26. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that he has been falsely implicated. It has been submitted that he was arrested in FIR no. 243/2007 and thereafter, 14 pending cases were imputed on him. It has been submitted that IO has done this only to solve the pending cases. It has been further submitted that he was juvenile at the time of commission of crime and as such, he could never have been arrested or tried in this court. On the other hand, Ld. APP has submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
27. Firstly, I shall deal with the plea of Juvenility. Perusal of the record shows that accused had moved an application to transfer the case to Juvenile Justice Board. Reply was called from IO and IO filed a reply along with Bone Test of accused.
Digitally
signed by
KARANBIR
KARANBIR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.04.30
16:04:33
+0530
The same was considered by Ld. Predecessor of this court and vide order dated 28.05.2007, the application was dismissed as not maintainable. The law is well- settled that a criminal court does not have any power to recall its own order. The said order was never challenged by accused and it has attained finality. This court has no power to recall or modify the same. Hence, the plea of juvenility is ill- conceived at this stage.
28. Secondly, I shall deal with offence under section 379 IPC. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness and CCTV footage showing the accused committing the theft. There is nothing on record except disclosure of accused in FIR no. 243/07 which implicates the accused in present FIR. Firstly, the motorcycle is reported to be stolen on 04-5.02.2007 but the FIR is registered on 12.03.2007. There is no explanation forthcoming from testimony of PW-2 as to why there is so much delay. The court is mindful that not all delay is fatal to prosecution. However, the delay has to be satisfactorily explained. Further, initially, the untrace report was prepared by IO on 12.04.2007 but later on when accused was arrested in FIR No. 243/07, the case was revived on the basis of disclosure. His disclosure statement is Ex. PW4/A. The same is recorded on 28.04.2007. Rather, the digit 27 has been changed to 28. In the said disclosure, the accused has stated that he stole the present bike and parked it in near fields in Rohtak and Rohtak Police has seized the same. He can get the same recovered from Rohtak Police. PW-5 deposed that IO along with PW-5 went to disclosed place and found the bike parked in open area at Hardev Nagar and it was covered in cloth. Thereafter, motorcycle was seized.
29. The above said fact is in complete contradiction to PW8 who deposed that the bike was recovered by him, HC Ranbir and EHC Rajbir on 26.04.2007. PW-13 and PW-16 also deposed on same lines. Rather, ASI RAVINDER Vats has deposed that he recovered the bike from Malkhana of PS Rohtak. It is not clear as to how could PW-5 found the bike parked at Hardev Nagar when it was already Digitally signed by KARANBIR KARANBIR SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.04.30 16:04:36 +0530 recovered by PS Urban Estate, Rohtak on 26.04.2007. Rather, it has come in testimony of PW-10 that bike was already deposited in Malkhana of PS Timarpur on 27.04.2007 vide RC Ex. PW10/A. Thus, if bike was already in PS Timarpur on 27.04.2007, how could accused disclose it on 28.04.2007 and PW-5 visit Hardev Nagar and recover the same. Rather, the statement under section 161 of CrPC of Ct. Satyawart in FIR No. 243/07 is recorded on 27.04.2007 in which he mentions about visiting Hardev Nagar along with IO Ravinder Vats, ASI. However, the disclosure statement in aforesaid FIR is recorded on 28.04.2007. There appears to be complete manipulation of records by the IO as the bike was already recovered on 26.04.2007 by PS Urban Estate, Rohtak. Thus, the disclosure and consequent recovery is not admissible in evidence and it is result of total shoddy investigation of IO. Resultantly, the offence under section 379 of IPC is not proved by the Prosecution.
30. Now, I shall discuss offence under section 411 IPC. In Trimbak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1954 SC 39 Hon'ble Supreme Court had listed the following ingredients to be proved by the prosecution to secure a conviction U/s 411 IPC:-
(a) the property in question was the 'stolen property' within the meaning of the preceding Section 410.
(b) the accused received, or retained, the said stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe, the same to be stolen property.
(c) before the accused receive the said stolen property, it was in possession of somebody else; and
(d) the accused received, or retained the said stolen property dishonestly.
31. The term stolen property is defined u/s 410 IPC being the 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 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.04.30 16:04:40 +0530 the criminal breach of the trust has been committed. Section 411 IPC provides for the punishment for possessing the stolen property.
32. Now the question which arises for the consideration is that whether the prosecution has been able to produce such evidence on record which warrant the conviction of the accused on the touch stone of the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
33. To prove the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC the prosecution was required to prove that certain property was stolen property which was retained or received by the accused knowing or having the reasons to believe the same to be the stolen property and the said property was in possession of some other person before it was found in possession of the accused.
34. The facts also necessitate the drawing of the presumption U/s 114 illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as under:-
that a man who is in possession of stolen goods after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can account for his possession.
35. The bike is recovered from PS Urban Estate, Rohtak on 26.04.2007. Apart from disclosure, there is nothing on record which connects the discovery of bike and accused. Since the court has already observed above that there is manipulation in disclosure and statements of witnesses in FIR No. 243/07, the recovery also does not hold any water. There is no DD Entry showing PW-8, PW-13 and PW-16 leaving PS and arriving at the PS. No independent witnesses have been joined in recovery. Rather, no effort has been shown to be made by prosecution to join any public witness. Thus, the offence under section 411 IPC also falls to the ground.
Digitally
signed by
KARANBIR
KARANBIR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.04.30
16:04:43
+0530
36. Fourthly, I shall discuss the offence under section 174A IPC. It is noteworthy that while filing the supplementary chargesheet, the compliance with Section 195 of CrPC has not been made. Reliance in this regard is made on judgement of Hon'ble Delhi HC in Amandeep Singh Gill and Anr. vs State, State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. MC No. 5219/2017. Although the supplementary chargesheet in the present case is filed prior to the judgment, the Hon'ble DHC in aforesaid judgment has disagreed with earlier judgment in Maneesh Goomer v State, 2012 SCC Online Del 66. A clear view has been expressed that aforesaid judgment cannot be considered good law. In view of such a decision, the court finds itself unable to give benefit of previous law to the State. Since, the mandatory procedure was not followed, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
37. Result of aforesaid discussion is that the prosecution cannot be said to have established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and is accordingly acquitted of the offences alleged against him.
This judgment consists of 14 pages and each and every page of this judgment is digitally signed by me.
Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH KARANBIR Date: SINGH 2025.04.30 16:04:47 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (Karanbir Singh) COURT ON 30th April, 2025 JMFC-02, Central District Tis Hazari Courts/30.04.2025