Delhi District Court
State vs Himanshu on 12 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. DEEKSHA RAO: JMFC-04
EAST / KKD COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. Himanshu
FIR No. : 112/2021
U/s : 411 IPC
P.S. : Laxmi Nagar
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 3082/2022
b) Date of institution of the case : 06.05.2022
c) Date of commission of offence : 14.03.2021
d) Name of the complainant : Vikas Sachdeva
S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
R/o H. No. FF-7 Mangal Bazar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
e) Name & address of the accused : Himanshu
S/o Sh. Sukhbeer
R/o H. No. 28/27, Trilok Puri, Delhi.
f) Offence charged : S. 411 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Arguments heard on : 10.03.2025
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 12.03.2025
CR Cases 3082//2022 Page no. 1 of 7
State Vs. Himanshu
FIR No. 112/2021 Digitally
signed by
PS Laxmi Nagar DEEKSHA
DEEKSHA RAO
RAO Date:
2025.03.12
15:14:24
+0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 14.03.2021, the complainant Vikas Sachdeva made the complaint that he had come to Laxmi Nagar to visit his friend and at about 01:50 at Laxmi Nagar Metro Station, Gate No. 1, three persons came who snatched his mobile phone. Further, on 13.03.2022 at unknown time at Ward No. 14, LBS Hospital, Kalyanpuri, Delhi, accused was arrested in a case registered vide FIR No. 249/2022, U/s 186/353/307 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act, PS Ghazipur, Delhi by Special Staff, East Delhi and during the course of investigation, accused disclosed about commission of incident of the present case. Thereafter, pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused, accused led the police party to his residence at H. No. 27/28, 3rd floor, Trilokpuri, Delhi and got recovered 12 stolen mobile phones including the stolen mobile make Samsung 21S, IMEI No. 355368119852590 with SIM no. 9634652382 belonging to the complainant, namely, Sh. Vikas Sachdeva, which accused was found retaining, dishonestly, knowingly and having reason to believe the same to be a stolen property. Investigation was carried out accordingly.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused. He was supplied with the copy of charge sheet in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the matter was listed for consideration on charge.
3. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and on perusal of record, prima facie case for offence punishable u/s 411 CR Cases 3082//2022 Page no. 2 of 7 State Vs. Himanshu FIR No. 112/2021 Digitally PS Laxmi Nagar signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA RAO RAO Date:
2025.03.12 15:14:36 +0530 IPC was found to be made out against accused. Accordingly, charge was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Presence of complainant/PW Vikas Sachdeva could not be secured despite repeated efforts. Summons issued to him were received back served, however he did not appear. Thereafter, Bws were issued against the complainant the same were received back unexecuted. Then, Bws were issued against the complainant/Vikas Sachdeva through DCP concerned which were also received back unexecuted. Accordingly, in view of the report, PW Vikas Sachdeva was dropped from list of witnesses as his presence could not be secured despite repeated efforts.
5. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, prosecution examined ASI Vinod Kr. as PW-1. PW-1 deposed that on the night of 13/14.03.2021, he was posted as SI at PS Laxmi Nagar and on that day he received the DD No. 7A dated 14.03.2021 regarding snatching of mobile phone. He immediately went to the spot at Gate No. 1, Laxmi Nagar Metro Station, Delhi where he got to know that the complainant Vikas Sachdeva had already left for PS. He came back to PS and met the complainant who gave him a written complaint i.e. Ex. PW1/A regarding snatching of his mobile phone. He further deposed that he alongwith the complainant again visited the spot. He inspected the spot and prepared the site plan i.e. Ex. PW 1/B. Then they came back to PS. He made his endorsement on the complaint of complainant i.e. Ex. PW 1/C and got the case registered with DO vide FIR Ex. C1. He further deposed that he recorded supplementary statement of complainant. He alongwith the complainant left for the search of accused CR Cases 3082//2022 Page no. 3 of 7 State Vs. Himanshu FIR No. 112/2021 PS Laxmi Nagar Digitally signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA RAO RAO Date:
2025.03.12 15:14:43 +0530 but found no clue about him. Thereafter, after expiry of stipulated period, he filed an untrace report in this matter. He deposited the case file with MHC(R). Later, he got transferred from PS Laxmi Nagar. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
6. Apart from Complainant Vikas Sachdeva there was no other witness/eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Since presence of PW Vikas Sachdeva could not be secured the evidence of remaining witnesses who were formal in nature, was dispensed with as allegations against accused could not have been proved by the mere testimony of remaining formal witnesses. Accordingly, Prosecution Evidence was closed.
7. Since no incriminating evidence came against accused, recording of his statement in terms of provisions u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with.
8. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments. Accordingly, final arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. counsel for the accused.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED
9. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubts following facts to prove that the accused has committed offence u/s 411 IPC:
i. The accused must have dishonestly retained or received stolen property belonging to the complainant, CR Cases 3082//2022 Page no. 4 of 7 State Vs. Himanshu FIR No. 112/2021 Digitally PS Laxmi Nagar signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA RAO RAO Date:
2025.03.12 15:14:50 +0530 ii. The accused must have knowledge or reason to believe that the said property is stolen property.
10. Presumption of innocence is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence.
The burden of proving guilt of the accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. In Partap vs. State of U.P., (1976) 2 SCC 798, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the burden on the accused is not as onerous as that which lies on the prosecution and that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas, the accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probability. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, each and every element of the offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, independent and unimpeachable evidence, unless otherwise provided by the statute. The prosecution is required to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the story of prosecution lacks credibility or appears to be improbable, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go in favour of the accused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
11. In the present case, accused, allegedly was found retaining dishoneslty, knowingly and having reason to believe a stolen mobile phone belonging to the complainant. PW complainant Vikas Sachdeva to whom the said phone belonged, could not be examined as he was not traceable despite repeated efforts and was dropped from the list of witnesses. PW1 was examined, however, nothing incriminating could come in his testimony which CR Cases 3082//2022 Page no. 5 of 7 State Vs. Himanshu FIR No. 112/2021 PS Laxmi Nagar Digitally signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA RAO RAO Date:
2025.03.12 15:14:57 +0530 establishes the commission of alleged offence by the accused. The other witnesses were mere formal witnesses and hence their examination was dispensed with.
12. In view of the above facts, it is quite clear that no evidence has come on the record against the accused as the complainant could not be examined. No other evidence or material witness was examined/mentioned by the prosecution to establish its case against the accused.
13. It is trite that non availability of a victim or complainant to be examined can never be ground to acquit accused if there is evidence otherwise available proving criminal act of accused. However, as discussed herein above, there is no such evidence to prove the criminal act of accused and considering the overall facts of the case, version of the prosecution cannot be stated to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION
14. In a criminal trial, onus is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is the duty of prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have and in case the story of prosecution lacks credibility or appears to be doubtful, the benefit of doubt must go in favour of the accused.
15. In view of the discussion made herein above and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the view that the CR Cases 3082//2022 Page no. 6 of 7 State Vs. Himanshu FIR No. 112/2021 PS Laxmi Nagar Digitally signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA RAO RAO Date:
2025.03.12 15:15:04 +0530 prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC which he has been charged with. Digitally signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA RAO RAO Date:
2025.03.12 15:15:14 +0530 Announced in the open court (Deeksha Rao) on 12.03.2025 JMFC-04/East /KKD/Delhi 12.03.2025 This judgment contains seven pages in total.
CR Cases 3082//2022 Page no. 7 of 7
State Vs. Himanshu
FIR No. 112/2021
PS Laxmi Nagar