Delhi District Court
State vs Raghubir @ Kallu on 19 July, 2024
DLWT020036862021
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-06,
DISTRICT- WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. SWATI BHARDWAJ, DJS
State Vs. Raghubir @ Kallu
FIR No. 001169/20
PS - Hari Nagar
Under section 411 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) Case ID No. : 2876/21
2) The date of commission of offence : 25.12.2020
3) The name of the complainant : Aman Yadav
4) The name & parentage of accused : Raghubir @ Kallu
S/o Sh. Ramchander
R/o Jhuggi No. 17/A-120,
Pathar Wala Bagh, J. J.
Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi.
5) Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Pravesh Kumar Vyas
6) Offence involved : 411 IPC
7) The plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
8) Final order : Acquittal
9) Judgment reserved on : 03.07.2024
10) Judgment announced on : 19.07.2024
State vs. Raghubir @ Kallu FIR No. 001169/20 Page No.1 of 4
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, the allegations of the prosecution are that on 25.12.2020 at about 5:40 PM at Square Bus Stand Road towards Dhaula Kuan, Delhi, the accused was found in possession of one mobile phone (make of realme) which belonged to the complainant Aman Yadav and the same was stolen from the area of PS - Hari Nagar and the accused retained the same knowingly and having reason to believe the same is stolen property thereby committed an offence punishable under section 411 IPC and within the 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 made by providing copy of the charge-sheet and annexed documents to the accused.
3. Upon finding a prima facie case against the accused, notice for the offences punishable under section 411 IPC was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations of offence Under section 411 IPC, the prosecution proposed to examine 09 witnesses out of which only 02 were examined.
5. PW-1 HC Naresh Kumar deposed that on 24.12.2020, he was marked the FIR No. 001169/2020 by CCTNS. He called the complainant and asked him to come to the spot. Thereafter, PW-1 went to the spot at Ghanta Ghar, Hari Nagar. There he met complainant Aman Yadav. PW-1 prepared site plan at the instance of complainant which is Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, PW-1 recorded the State vs. Raghubir @ Kallu FIR No. 001169/20 Page No.2 of 4 statement of complainant. On 30.12.2020, PW-1 received the information vide DD entry 72A by HC Bhushan 455/SW, regarding the apprehension of the accused Raghubir and seizure of the case property at PS Delhi Cantt. Thereafter, on 02.01.2021 PW-1 went to Police Chowki Subarto Park PS Delhi Cantt and collected the relevant documents, case property and statements recorded by the IO HC Bhushan u/s 161 C.r.P.C and PW-1 returned to PS - Hari Nagar. PW-1 formally arrested the accused vide arrest memo PW1/B. PW-1 recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW1/C. After completing the other proceeding in the other case, he filed charge- sheet on 27.02.2021. PW-1 correctly identified the accused.
6. PW-2 Lokesh Kumar deposed that he was running mobile shop in the name and style of Lakshay Telecom Centre at ground floor RZ-47E Gali No. 2 Gandhi Market West Sagarpur Delhi for last 10 years. The copy of receipt bill bearing no. 3542 was shown to the witness. After seeing the same witness stated that it was the cash receipt issued by him against the bill payment of mobile phone make Redmi having IMEI No. 867516042503216. Witness identified his signature at point A on the said cash receipt. The copy of receipt is Ex.PW2/A.
7. Despite repeated attempts to summon PW complainant Aman Yadav, who was the owner of the stolen property, he remained unserved even through DCP concerned. Ultimately, he was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses. As the star witness of the prosecution i.e. PW complainant Aman Yadav was not examined, the recovered case property was never identified as the stolen property. In absence of identification of case/ stolen property by the complainant, the allegations qua commission of offence punishable under section State vs. Raghubir @ Kallu FIR No. 001169/20 Page No.3 of 4 411 IPC would not have been successfully substantiated as the offence of knowingly receiving or retaining stolen property cannot be established unless the property recovered is proved to be stolen.
8. In such circumstances, examining the remaining formal witnesses would have been a futile exercise at the cost of judicial time and resources. Their testimonies, even if accepted unrebutted, would not have been sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Thus, keeping in view the right of the accused to speedy trial and the guidelines echoed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India from time to time that when it becomes fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial for completing the formality only to pronounce the conclusion on a future date, the trial was truncated and PE was closed. [Ref: Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr.; (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 766]
9. In the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, recording of his statement under section 313 CrPC was dispensed with.
10. The accused opted not 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. In a criminal trial, the prosecution must discharge twin burden of proving the identification of the perpetrator of the crime and the actual commission of the crime itself. The onus remains on State vs. Raghubir @ Kallu FIR No. 001169/20 Page No.4 of 4 the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. In the present case, complainant Aman Yadav who was the owner of the stolen property never stepped into the witness box to prove the allegations and to identify the accused or the case property. There is no other substantive evidence available on record to establish that the identity of the stolen property.
14. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Raghubir @ Kallu retained any stolen property with knowledge that it is stolen.
15. In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that the case of the prosecution has failed to stand on its own legs. Consequently, accused Raghubir @ Kallu S/o Sh. Ramchander is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 411 IPC.
Digitally signed by SWATI SWATI GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.07.19 16:48:04 Pronounced in the open (SWATI BHARDWAJ) +0530 Court on 19.07.2024 JMIC-06 (West), Tis Hazari Courts Delhi This judgment contains 05 signed pages.
State vs. Raghubir @ Kallu FIR No. 001169/20 Page No.5 of 4