Delhi District Court
State vs Muslim on 22 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05,
DISTRICT- NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. SARTHAK PANWAR, DJS
State Vs. Muslim
FIR No. 162/2024
PS Bawana
U/s. 356/379/411/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) Case ID : 4328/2024
2) The date of commission of offence : : 04.02.2024
3) The name of the complainant : Somendra S/o Sh.
Kuldeep
4) The name & parentage of accused : Muslim S/o Sh.
Nohar Ali
5) Ld. APP for the State : Dr. Deepak Saini
6) Offence involved : 356/379/411/34 IPC
7) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8) Final order : Conviction u/s 411
IPC and Acquittal
u/s 356/379 IPC
9) Judgment reserved on : 18.08.2024
10) Judgment announced on : 22.08.2024
State Vs. Muslim FIR no. 162/2024 7 of 7
Digitally signed by
SARTHAK SARTHAK
PANWAR
PANWAR Date: 2025.08.22
18:11:40 +0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly, the allegations of the prosecution are that on 04.02.2024 at 02:15 pm, near Jagira Hotel B-90, Sector 3 Bawana accused along with his associates (not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention had snatched the mobile phone make OPPO of the complainant Somendra and thus accused thereby had committed an offence punishable u/s 356/379/34 IPC. Further, on 12.03.2024 near Bangali Chowk, Sector -3 Bawana accused Muslim got recovered the above said stolen mobile phone (as per seizure memo mark X), which belonged to the complainant and accused had received and retained it knowingly that the said property is stolen property and thus accused thereby had committed an offence punishable u/s 411 IPC within cognizance of this Court.
2. Investigation was conducted into the allegations. Upon completion thereof, charge sheet was filed. The accused was summoned. Compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. was done by providing copy of the charge sheet and annexed documents to the accused.
3. Upon finding a prima facie case against the accused, charges for the offence punishable U/s 356/379/411/34 IPC were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, following witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.
State Vs. Muslim FIR no. 162/2024 7 of 7 Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2025.08.22 18:11:46 +0530
5. PW-1 Somender has deposed that " I am residing with my family at the above mentioned address and I am working in Chennai at spare- part factory. In February 2024 I had came to Delhi for some work at Narela. Then on one day in February, I had gone to Bawana industrial area for some work. At about 11:00 am when I was talking on mobile phone, suddenly one boy came there and snatched away my mobile phone make OPPO. Thereafter I made a complaint before police same is now exhibit PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. At this stage the attention of the witness is drawn towards accused who is present in the court today however the witness has failed to identify the accused. I can identify the case property if shown to me. Since the PW-1 had turned hostile, thereafter with the permission of the court he was cross- examined by Ld. APP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement and during his examinaiton complainant had correctly identified the case property i.e. mobile phone make OPPO exhibited as EX.P-1 as well as photographs of the mobile bill i.e. Mark P. Thereafter, PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. LADC for accused.
6. PW-2 W/HC Meenu has deposed that " On 04.02.2024, I was posted as DD writer at Police station Bawana and my duty hours were from 08.00 am to 4.00 pm. At about 02.35 p.m. I received a PCR call regarding snatching near Lal flat. I write down the said information as DD no. 45 A and same was handed over to HC Parveen for further steps. DD no. 45 A is Ex. PW-2/A (OSR) bearing my signature at point A". Thereafter, PW2 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel State Vs. Muslim FIR no. 162/2024 7 of 7 Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2025.08.22 18:11:54 +0530 for accused.
7. PW-3 HC Parveen has deposed that " On 04.02.2024, I was posted at Police station Bawana as HC. On that day I was on emergency duty and received DD no. 45 A. Thereafter, I went to the spot i.e. Jagirav Hotel. At the spot I met the complainant Somender and he give me information regarding snatching of the mobile phone. I recorded his statement, on the basis of which I prepared rukka. Rukka is Ex. PW-3/A bearing my signature at point A. Rukka was handed-over to HC Krishan Kumar and he went to the PS. After getting the FIR registered he returned to the spot, he handed-over to me original rukka and copy of FIR to me. Thereafter, I prepared the site plan which is now Ex. PW-3/B bearing my signature at point A. On 12.03.2024, we were investigating the case alongwith Ct. Kapil, when we reach near Bangali chowk sector 3, a person came on scooty and after seeing us tried to take the u turn, we stopped him and checked him. From his possession one mobile phone was recovered. We checked the scooty and mobile phone on the zip net and same were found to be stolen property. Thereafter, I seized the scooty and mobile phone vide memo Ex. PW-3/C and Ex. PW-3/D bearing my signature at point A respectively. I gave notice u/s 41 A Cr.P.C to the accused person which is Ex. PW-3/E bearing my signature at point A. I found the involvement of accused persons in many case. Thereafter, I arrested him and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex. PW-3/F and PW-3/G bearing my signature at point A respectively. I also recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex. PW- 3/H bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, we returned to the PS State Vs. Muslim FIR no. 162/2024 Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR 7 of 7 PANWAR Date:
2025.08.22 18:12:00 +0530 and submitted the case property in the malkhana. After completion of the investigation I prepared the charge-sheet and filed before the court. Today I have also brought the register no. 19. The mud number of the case property is 144 and the copy of the same is placed on record and now Ex. PW-3/I bearing my signature at point A. I can identify the case property if shown to me, the case property is already Ex. P-1.". Thereafter, PW-3 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused.
8. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 294 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused admitted the genuineness of the documents which are FIR no. 162/2024 as Ex. P-1, Certificate u/s 65 B as Ex. P-2.
9. After prosecution evidence was concluded, statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein he refuted the allegations levelled against him. The accused pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
10. The accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence and the same was closed.
11. Final arguments were heard and record of the case has been perused.
12. It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable State Vs. Muslim FIR no. 162/2024 7 of 7 Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR Date: PANWAR 2025.08.22 18:12:08 +0530 doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but, the golden rule of the criminal jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own legs.
13. Since the star witness of the prosecution i.e. PW1 Somender (complainant) had failed to identify the accused, therefore, offence u/s 356/379 IPC is not made out against the accused Muslim, as there is no testimony of any eyewitnesses who saw the accused stealing /snatching the mobile phone of complainant.
14. So far as it relates to offence u/s 411 IPC, it has been deposed by PW3 HC Parveen Kumar that while investigating the case he has recovered the case property i.e. mobile phone make Oppo from the possession of the accused which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/C, which is further fortified by the testimony of PW 1 Somender (complainant) who had identified the case property i.e. mobile phone make Oppo i.e. article Ex. P1 as well as the photographs of the mobile phone i.e. mark P, therefore, the offence u/s 411 IPC is clearly made out against the accused.
15. Thus, after going through the material on record including the consistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused only for offence u/s 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Muslim S/o Sh. Nohar Ali is convicted for offence u/s Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR State Vs. Muslim FIR no. 162/2024 7 of 7 PANWAR Date:
2025.08.22 18:12:14 +0530 411 IPC only and is acquitted for the offence u/s 356/379 IPC.
16. Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence. Copy of Judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost.
Digitally signed by SARTHAKSARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date:
2025.08.22 18:12:20 +0530 Pronounced in the open (SARTHAK PANWAR) Court on 22.08.2024 JMFC-05 (North), Rohini Courts New Delhi 22.08.2025 State Vs. Muslim FIR no. 162/2024 7 of 7