Delhi District Court
State vs Hemant @ Bukka on 6 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PADMA LADOL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04,
NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 29/2019
PS Rajiv Chowk Metro
U/S : 356/379/511 IPC, 1860
State V/s Hemant @ Bukka
Cr.C No. 3368/2019
CNR No. DLND020104512020
Date of Institution 22.08.2020
Complainant Ms. Jyoti Lahoti
D/o Sh. Virender Pal Maheshwari
R/o 20-D, Pocket-1, Mayur Vihar
Phase-1, Delhi
Name, parentage and address of the Hemant @ Bukka
accused S/o Sh. Ravi
R/o H. No.-13/131, Kalyanpuri,
Jalebi Chowk, New Delhi
Offence complained off Section 356/379/511 Indian Penal
Code
Plea of Accused Not Guilty
Final Order Convicted u/s. 356/379 IPC
Date of Judgment 06.05.2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argued by: Ms. Shruti Singhal, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Upender Bahadur, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digitally signed
by PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
FIR No. 29/2019 LANDOL Date:
2024.05.06
State Vs. Hemant @ Bukka 15:38:32 +0530
Page 1 of 14
JUDGMENT
1. The SHO, Police Station Rajiv Chowk Metro has presented this charge-sheet against above named accused for initiation of trial U/s. 356/379/511 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 13.12.2019 at around 3.00 PM, the complainant/victim Jyoti Lahoti was de-boarding from Rajiv Chowk Metro at platform no. 4 when the accused snatched her purse and mobile phone and started running away. However, the complainant nabbed the accused with the help of public/other passengers. Thereafter, he was taken to the police booth Rajiv Chowk Metro. Based on the complaint of the complainant, present FIR was registered and investigation ensued. During further investigation, witnesses were examined and their statement u/s. 161 CrPC were recorded. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, final report was presented for trial against accused Hemant @ Bukka.
COGNIZANCE, COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 207 CRPC AND PLEA OF ACCUSED
3. After presentation of charge-sheet, accused were summoned by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to accused u/s. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"). Thereafter, charge u/s. 356/379/411 IPC was framed against the accused by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 26.02.2021 to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE Digitally
signed by
PADMA
PADMA LANDOL
LANDOL Date:
2024.05.06
FIR No. 29/2019 15:38:43
State Vs. Hemant @ Bukka +0530
Page 2 of 14
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined three witnesses and relied upon following evidence -
Witness exhibiting Identification Description
PW-1 Jyoti Lahoti Ex. PW-1/A Written
complaint/tehrir
Ex. PW-1/B Arrest Memo of
accused
Ex. PW-1/C Personal Search Memo
of accused
PW-2 HC Gangaram - -
PW-3 SI Kuldeep Kumar Ex. PW-3/A Site Plan
Ex. PW-3/B Disclosure Statement
of accused
Ex. PW-3/C MLC of accused
Ex. P1 (colly) CCTV footage in CD
5. PW-1 Jyoti Lahoti deposed that on she was going to R.K Ashram through metro for some social work. As soon as she reached Rajiv Chowk Metro station and was de-boarding the metro, one person snatched her mobile and purse and tried to run away from the spot. She apprehended that person with the help of public persons present at the spot and took him to police booth at the metro station. She further deposed that person disclosed his name as Hemant @ Bukka on inquiry by the police officials. That she gave her written complaint to the police official at the spot which is at Ex. PWI/A bearing her signature at point A and the accused was arrested and personally searched in her presence vide memos Ex PW-1/B and Ex PW-1/C bearing her signature at point A respectively. PW-1 correctly identified the accused in Court.
Digitally signed by PADMA LANDOL PADMA Date:
FIR No. 29/2019 LANDOL 2024.05.06
15:38:52
State Vs. Hemant @ Bukka +0530 Page 3 of 14
In her cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that there were many passengers at the gate of the metro station. She also cried for help when the accused snatched her mobile and purse. That the accused was beaten by the public persons present at the spot. PW-1 further deposed that the accused was also seen committing the offence in the CCTV footage. That she gave the complaint at the spot. That no witness signed the complaint. There were two police officials whose name she could not remember. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he is innocent.
6. PW-2 HC Gangaram deposed that on 13.12.2019, he was posted as Constable at PS Rajiv Chowk Metro along with SI Kuldeep Kumar on emergency duty. On that day, one lady came to police booth Rajiv Chowk Metro along with few public persons. The lady revealed her identity as Jyoti Lahoti D/o Virender Pal Maheshwari R/o 20-D, Pocket 1, Mayur Vihar, Delhi-91. He further deposed that the said lady apprehended one person with the help of public persons and came to police booth Rajiv Chowk Metro. That the IO interrogated the said lady and she revealed the fact that the apprehended person attempted to snatch her bag and mobile phone from her possession. Thereafter, IO prepared the tehrir at the instance of said lady and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. Then he reached the PS Rajiv Chowk and got the FIR registered on the basis of said tehrir [Ex. PW-1/A]. Then he returned to the spot and handed over the FIR along with tehrir to IO SI Kuldeep Kumar. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused in his presence and prepared the arrest memo which is already Ex. PW- 1/B bearing his signature at point B. That IO also conducted the personal search of the accused in his presence and prepared the personal search memo which is already Ex. PW-1/C bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, Ld. counsel for the accused has submitted that the identity of the accused is not disputed by him.
Digitally signedFIR No. 29/2019 by PADMA LANDOL State Vs. Hemant @ Bukka PADMA Date: Page 4 of 14 LANDOL 2024.05.06 15:39:10 +0530
In his cross-examination, PW-2 has deposed that the time of the incident was 02:45 pm. He further deposed that the accused was arrested after registration of the FIR. That accused was brought to police booth by complainant herself. That the IO did not record the statement of other public persons because everyone left the spot citing their personal reasons for not recording their statement.
7. PW-3 (Retd.) SI Kuldeep Kumar deposed that on 13.12.2019, he was posted as SI at PS Rajiv Chowk Metro along with Ct. Gangaram. On that day, one lady came to police booth Rajiv Chowk Metro along with few public persons. The lady revealed her identity as Jyoti Lahoti D/o Virender Pal Maheshwari R/o 20- D, Pocket 1, Mayur Vihar, Delhi -91. The said lady apprehended one person with the help of public persons and came to police booth Rajiv Chowk Metro. Thereafter, he interrogated the said lady and she revealed the fact that the apprehended person attempted to snatch her bag and mobile phone from her possession. The apprehended person after interrogation revealed his identity as Hemant @ Bukka S/o Ravi, R/o H. No.13/131, Kalyanpuri, Jalebi Chowk, New Delhi aged about 22 years. Thereafter, he prepared the tehrir on the basis of written complaint which is already Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he handed over the said tehrir to Ct Gangaram for registration of FIR. PW-3 further deposed that Ct Gangaram visited the PS Rajiv Chowk for registration of FIR under relevant section. Then Ct. Gangaram returned to the spot and handed over him the FIR and tehrir [Ex. PW-1/A]. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and prepared the arrest memo which is already Ex. PW-1/B bearing his signature at point C. He also conducted the personal search of the accused and prepared the personal search memo which is already Ex. PW-1/C bearing his signature at point C. He also prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant which is at Ex. PW-3/A bearing his signature at point A. That he Digitally FIR No. 29/2019 signed by PADMA State Vs. Hemant @ Bukka PADMA LANDOL Page 5 of 14 LANDOL Date:
2024.05.06 15:39:18 +0530 also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused in the presence of complainant which is at Ex. PW-3/B bearing his signature at point A. PW-3 further deposed that he had also requested the concerned official of metro Rajiv Chowk for CCTV footage of the incident. The CCTV footage was supplied via CD which is at Ex. P1 (colly). Then he also recorded the statement u/s. 161 CrPC of the relevant witnesses. That he also sent the accused to Lok Nayak Hospital for medical examination. That the medical examination report is at Ex. PW-3/C. Thereafter, Ld. counsel for the accused has submitted that the identity of the accused is not disputed by him.
In his cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that the time of the incident was 02:45 pm. That the complainant came to PS booth along with other person. That he did not record the statement of other public persons because everyone left the spot citing their personal reasons for not recording their statement. That he had also not recorded the name and address of public persons. He prepared the site plan at the spot. On that day, he was on patrolling duty and present at Rajiv Chowk Metro police booth. He further deposed that it took him around 2-3 hours for preparing the site plan and for doing other related investigation. That he did not make an application for obtaining CCTV footage at same time, however, an application was made on same day. PW-3 denied the suggestion that every document pertaining to investigation was prepared by him at PS.
8. The statement of the accused under Section 313 r/w 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded on 06.02.2024 and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. The accused submitted that the IO and complainant has falsely implicated him in this case for the reasons best known to them. He pleaded innocent, however, chose not to lead DE.
Digitally signed by PADMA LANDOL PADMA FIR No. 29/2019 LANDOL Date: 2024.05.06 State Vs. Hemant @ Bukka 15:39:26 Page 6 of 14 +0530 CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts by examining all the material witnesses who have supported the prosecution version in material aspects. Prosecution has relied on the testimony of complainant/victim who has successfully stood the test of cross-examination and her testimony is same throughout. All the PWs have successfully proved the ingredients of the provisions and to show that there is nothing to suggest otherwise in the present case than the commission of the offence u/s. 356/379/411 IPC by the accused. Accordingly, conviction of the accused was prayed.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to examine any other eye-witness despite their availability at the spot as per the versions of all the PWs, hence, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts. Defence further argued that as per PW- 2, only complainant came to the police booth with the accused, however, as per PW-3 accused was brought to the police booth by complainant as well as public persons, hence there are is a lacuna in the case of prosecution. Hence, case is liable to be dismissed and the accused deserves to be acquitted of the present offence.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
11. After giving anxious consideration to the rival contentions and perusing the case file meticulously, this court is of the opinion that at the heart of the matter is a determination as to:
Digitally signed by PADMA LANDOL PADMA Date:
LANDOL 2024.05.06
15:39:38
FIR No. 29/2019 +0530
State Vs. Hemant @ Bukka Page 7 of 14
i) whether the accused Hemant @ Bukka used criminal force against the complainant Jyoti Lahoti on 13.12.2019 at around 3.00 PM at Rajiv Chowk Metro Station platform no. 4; and
ii) whether the accused used the aforementioned criminal force against the complainant in order to commit theft of her purse and mobile phone carrying by the complainant on the said date, time and place; Or
iii) whether the accused Hemant @ Bukka dishonestly received or retained the stolen property i.e. mobile phone and purse of complainant knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
12. At the outset, it would be beneficial to peruse Sections 356 of IPC which defines 'Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person'. The provision read as follows:
"Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting to commit theft on any property which that person is then wearing or carrying shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Further Section 350 defines "Criminal Force" as:
"Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other."
Further Section 351 defines "Assault" as:
Digitally signed by PADMA LANDOLPADMA FIR No. 29/2019 Date:
LANDOL 2024.05.06
State Vs. Hemant @ Bukka 15:39:46 Page 8 of 14
+0530
"Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault."
Further Sec. 378 IPC defines "Theft" as:
Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable 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.
Further Sec. 410 IPC defines "Stolen Property" as:
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 criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as "stolen property", whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property.
13. The ocular testimony in support of prosecution is by way of PW-1/complainant.
PW-1 has categorically deposed that on the date of incident she was travelling in the metro and had reached Rajiv Chowk Metro station. While she was de- boarding the metro, one person snatched her mobile and purse and tried to run away from the spot. She apprehended that person with the help of public persons present at the spot and took him to police booth at the metro station. Thereafter, she gave her written complaint to the IO. PW-1 has also stated that the accused was caught committing the offence on CCTV. She has correctly identified the accused in Court at the time of her deposition.
Digitally
signed by
FIR No. 29/2019 PADMA
State Vs. Hemant @ Bukka PADMA LANDOL
Page 9 of 14
LANDOL Date:
2024.05.06
15:39:54
+0530
14. As rightly argued by Ld. Counsel for accused, there is no other eye-witness to the incident despite availability of public persons. It is to be noted that our legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither the Legislature (Section 134 Indian Evidence Act, 1872) nor the judiciary mandates that there must be a particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused. Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. With respect to the testimony of single eyewitness, it is trite law that testimony of single eyewitness can form basis for conviction provided it is of sterling quality. In Bhimappa Chandappa v. State of Karnataka (2006) 11 SCC 323, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "testimony of a solitary witness can be made the basis of conviction. The credibility of the witness requires to be tested with reference to the quality of his evidence which must be free from blemish or suspicion and must impress the Court as natural, wholly truthful and so convincing that the Court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that Indian."
Further, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mahesh vs State Of (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi (2007 SCC OnLine Del 633) held that: "Undoubtedly, he is a neighbour of the Appellants as well as the deceased. It is a well settled principle of law that it is quality of the evidence which is material for deciding the criminal trial. Emphasis has always been put on the quality of evidence under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, which makes it clear that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact." It is clear from the above that the conviction can be based solely on the basis of the testimony of eyewitness if such a testimony is of sterling quality and inspires confidence.
Digitally signed by PADMAFIR No. 29/2019 PADMA LANDOL Date: State Vs. Hemant @ Bukka LANDOL 2024.05.06 Page 10 of 14 15:40:01 +0530
15. In the present case, not only the deposition of PW-1 inspires confidence, it is supported by the CCTV footage [Ex. P1 (colly)]. Though the footage does not exactly reflect the accused snatching the mobile phone or purse of complainant as the place of incident (near the door of metro) is outside the reach/angle of CCTV, however, it clearly reflects the accused being taken away from the metro platform by the complainant and a public person in a hasty manner. Further, the version of complainant is also corroborated by the testimony of other two witnesses. PW-2 who was a Constable posted at PS Rajiv Chowk Metro has deposed that the complainant had apprehended the accused with the help of public persons and had brought him to the metro station police booth. Further, PW-3 who was posted as SI at Rajiv Chowk Metro has also deposed that the complainant with the help of public persons had apprehended the accused and brought him to the police booth. Upon query, she had revealed that the accused had snatched her purse/bag and mobile phone. Identity of the accused was not disputed by the Ld. Counsel for accused at the time of deposition of PW-2 ad PW-3. No motive can be assigned on PW-1/complainant to have falsely implicated the accused. The complainant and the accused were not known to each other prior to the incident. Complainant was just a passenger who happened to de-board at Rajiv Chowk Metro to take another metro towards R.K Ashram and the accused who probably was looking for an opportunity to commit theft got one and snatched the belongings of the complainant. There is no justifiable reason why the complainant would falsely implicate the accused in this case as alleged by the Ld. Counsel for accused. There could be some other victim instead of complainant at the very same place, date and time. There is not a single reason why deposition of PW-1/complainant should not be believed. Hence, this Court finds no reason to discard the testimony of PW-1 on a hypothetical argument of accused.
Digitally signed by PADMAPADMA LANDOL Date: FIR No. 29/2019 LANDOL 2024.05.06 15:40:10 State Vs. Hemant @ Bukka +0530 Page 11 of 14
16. As already discussed, the testimony of PW-1 is coherent, probable, trustworthy and inspires the confidence of the Court. Nothing has come in her cross- examination which would discredit her testimony. Further, the accused has not led any evidence in his defence and there is nothing contrary to show that he has been falsely implicated in this case and what may be the probable motive of the police officials i.e. PW-2 and PW-3 or the complainant i.e. PW-1 to falsely implicate him in the offence. It is pertinent that during his statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC, accused has not given any explanation why all the PWs have deposed against him. Hence, the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used criminal force in snatching the purse and mobile phone of PW- 1 and thereby, he removed the purse and mobile phone of the complainant from her possession without her consent.
17. Now coming to the aspect of accused also being found in possession of stolen property i.e the purse and mobile phone of complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandmal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1976 SC 917 has held that: "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 "stolen property " given in Section 410, Indian Penal Code. Only such property possession where of has been transferred by theft, or extortion or criminal misappropriation or other offences allied to them as mentioned in Section 410, falls within the definition of "stolen property".
18. However the question is when the court has already held that the accused herein has committed theft of purse and mobile phone, can he also be convicted for being receiver of the case property or being found in its possession knowing that Digitally signed by FIR No. 29/2019 PADMA PADMA LANDOL State Vs. Hemant @ Bukka LANDOL Date: Page 12 of 14 2024.05.06 15:40:19 +0530 the same was a stolen property? In this regard, it is worth mentioning that in Rajjaua v. The State AIR 1959 All 718, while relying upon an earlier judgment on Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held as follows:
"When the thief removes the stolen property from the possession of its owner and takes it into his own possession, he not only commits theft but is also in possession of stolen property knowing it to be stolen. He cannot, however, be convicted of both the offences. If he is the 'thief' he possesses the stolen property in his capacity as a thief, and not as a receiver. It has, therefore, been held that the same person cannot be convicted of theft as well as of receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen."
Same view has also been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mohit v. State (GNCT of Delhi) 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1225 that the property alleged to be in possession of an accused has to be transferred by way of theft or extortion or robbery or offences akin to them as provided in Section 410 IPC (emphasis supplied).
19. In the present case, in the considered view of this Court, accused Hemant @ Bukka had snatched and stolen away the purse and mobile phone of the complainant, so being a thief himself, he cannot be convicted for offence punishable u/s. 411 IPC for being found in possession of stolen property or being receiver of the same. Hence it would be pointless to discuss the evidence against the accused qua offence punishable u/s. 411 IPC.
FINAL ORDER
20. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Hemant @ Bukka is hereby convicted of offence FIR No. 29/2019 Digitally State Vs. Hemant @ Bukka signed by PADMA Page 13 of 14 PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date:
2024.05.06 15:40:27 +0530 punishable u/s. 356/379 IPC. However, in view of the aforesaid discussion, he is not separately convicted for the offence u/s. 411 IPC with which he was also charged.
Digitally signed PADMA by PADMA LANDOL LANDOL Date: 2024.05.06 15:38:14 +0530 PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (PADMA LADOL) TODAY ON 06th MAY, 2024 MM-04, NEW DELHI DISTRICT/PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI FIR No. 29/2019 State Vs. Hemant @ Bukka Page 14 of 14