Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu on 18 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NEETIKA KAPOOR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-06, SOUTH WEST DWARKA, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. : DLSW020380912023
FIR Number : 293/2023
Police Station : Dwarka North
Section : 356/379 IPC
STATE VS. SONU
a) Cr. no. of the Case : 9006/2023
b) Name & address of the Complainant : Neelam, W/o Sh. Roshan Lal,
R/o Flat No. 512, Sarvhit
Apartment, Sector 17,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
c) Name & address of the accused : Sonu, S/o Sh. Virender Shah,
R/o H. No. 102, Police
Enclave, Chachal Park,
Nangloi, Najafgarh, Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of offence : 30.04.2023
e) Offence complained of : 356/379 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquittal
Date of registration of FIR : 30.04.2023
Final arguments heard on : 18.09.2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 18.09.2025
FIR Number : 293/2023 State Vs. Sonu Page 1 of 8
Digitally
signed by
NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.09.18
17:18:10
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Sonu is facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 356/379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) in connection with the case FIR No. 293/2023 registered at P.S. Dwarka North.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 30.04.2023 at around 04:45 pm in front of NLU, Sector 14, Dwarka near PHP Outer Red Light, accused Sonu came on a motorcycle and snatched mobile phone (Vivo S1 Pro, blue in colour) from the complainant Neelam Devi and immediately, fled from the spot. Complainant called PCR on No. 100. Police officials came at the spot and took the complainant to PS where her statement was recorded, based on which rukka was prepared and present FIR was registered.
3. During investigation, IO inspected the site of the incident and having inspected it, prepared a site plan. IO arrested the accused and personally search. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and based on the material collected, accused Sonu was found responsible for the commission of offences punishable under Section 356/379 of the IPC. After completion of the investigation, case file was handed over by the IO to SHO of Police Station Dwarka North who after following the codal formalities, prepared and filed the instant challan against the accused.
4. On finding sufficient material on record against accused Sonu, he was summoned before this court and on his appearance, copies of the challan and other documents were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (herein referred to as Cr.P.C).
5. On finding a prima-facie case against the accused Sonu under Sections 356/379 of I.P.C., charge was put to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to have a defense to make.
FIR Number : 293/2023 State Vs. Sonu Page 2 of 8 Digitally signed by NEETIKANEETIKA KAPOOR Date: KAPOOR 2025.09.18 17:18:14 +0530
6. During course of proceedings, offence u/s 379 IPC was compounded between the parties and statutory acquittal was announced in favour of the accused for offence u/s 379 IPC.
7. Thereafter, prosecution was called upon to adduce its evidence. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 02 witness. PW-1 Neelam Devi is the complainant and sole eye witness to the present case and PW-2 ASI Subhash is the 2nd Investigating Officer of the case.
8. After completion of prosecution evidence, incriminating evidence adduced by prosecution was put to accused by recording his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the case of prosecution and pleaded innocence and preferred not to lead any evidence in his defense. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
9. I have heard Mr. Amit Yadav, Ld. APP for State and Ld. counsel for accused and have gone through the records carefully.
10. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that the evidence of hostile witness can be read on material points, and it can be used to prove the offence charged against the accused. As such, it is prayed that accused persons be punished for the said offence.
11. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel has argued that main witness has turned hostile and despite reading his evidence as a whole, nothing has come on record against the accused. As such, it is prayed that accused be acquitted for the said offence.
12. On the basis of evidence on record, the following points arise for determination in the present case:
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 30.04.2023 at around 04:45 pm in front of NLU, Sector 14, Dwarka near PHP Outer Red Light, accused Sonu FIR Number : 293/2023 State Vs. Sonu Page 3 of 8 Digitally signed by NEETIKA KAPOOR NEETIKA Date:
KAPOOR 2025.09.18
17:18:17
+0530
snatched mobile phone from the complainant
Neelam Devi by using criminal force, as alleged?
(ii) Final order.
13. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the reasons for my findings, my findings on the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No. 1: No Final order: The accused Sonu is acquitted as per the operative part of the judgment.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS POINT NO. 1
14. To bring home the culpability of accused under Section 356 IPC, it is pertinent that relevant provisions of law are first read. Section 356 IPC is reproduced herein below:
Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person.--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 im- prisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
15. From bare reading of this provision, the two essential ingredients which constitute the offence of using criminal force or assault in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person are as follows:
1. Person must have used criminal force or assault on any person;FIR Number : 293/2023 State Vs. Sonu Page 4 of 8
Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.09.18 17:18:21 +0530
2. and the assault or criminal force must have been used in attempting to commit theft of any prop-
erty which that person was then wearing or carrying.
16. It is trite that in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused must be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the case at hand, is to be weighed keeping in view these legal standards.
17. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined, PW-1 Neelam Devi being the complainant is material to the case.
18. PW-1 Neelam Devi stepped into the witness box and deposed that on the day of the incident at around 4:45 pm, he was going towards her house from markt and when she was crossing NLU, Sector 14, suddenly, one boy came on a motorcycle from behind snatched her mobile phone and immediately, fled from the spot. As the incident took place all of a sudden, she could not see the face of the boy involved in the incident. She called PCR on No. 100. Police officials took her to PS and recorded her statement which is Ex.PW1/A. She deposed that she could not identify the accused. Witness was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State and was cross-examined at length.
19. In her cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, though she admitted her signature on the statement but denied the contents of the case. She denied that she had stated to the IO that she can identify the accused. She admitted that incident had taken place on 30.04.2023 at around 4:45 pm in front of NLU, Sector 14, Dwarka but denied that she had stated to the IO that she can identify the boy. She was confronted with her statement from point A1 to A2 but she denied the contents of the same. Witness denied the suggestion that she had intentionally not identified the FIR Number : 293/2023 State Vs. Sonu Page 5 of 8 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR Date: KAPOOR 2025.09.18 17:18:25 +0530 accused as she had been won over by accused. Witness denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
20. PW-1/complainant/eye witness has turned hostile in the instant case. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that under Indian Law, the evidence of a hostile witness is not discarded completely as the legal maxim "false in uno false in omnibus" is not applicable. Reliance can be placed on the following observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana(2013) 14 SCC 434:
"It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
21. Therefore, it must be seen if the evidence of such hostile witness can be relied in part. The perusal of the testimony of this witness shows inconsistencies and contradiction in her version. PW1 in her testimony has failed to identify the accused and clearly stated to have not seen the face of the snatcher at the time of alleged incident. The witness also categorically stated that she cannot identify the boys involved in the incident. Witness failed to depose anything about the involvement of accused in the alleged incident. Thus, even if the evidence of the hostile witness is considered partly, there is nothing to implicate the accused as it is clear that an inference of use of criminal force or assault by the accused cannot be drawn from a simple testimony of the PW1. Specific evidence has to be led by the prosecution in order to prove the same.
22. In order to prove its case, prosecution also examined PW-2 ASI FIR Number : 293/2023 State Vs. Sonu Page 6 of 8 Digitally signed by NEETIKA KAPOOR NEETIKA Date:
KAPOOR 2025.09.18
17:18:28
+0530
Subhash who stepped into the witness box and deposed that in the month of June, 2023, investigation of the case was marked to him. He was informed by DO about arrest of one person by AATS Staff, Dwarka vide DD No. 4 who had disclosed his involvement in the present matter. On 05.06.2023, he obtained the permission of the court to interrogate the accused at Tihar Jail and interrogated him. He recorded disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW2/A. He formally arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused despite opportunity.
23. Testimonies of other witnesses were dispensed with as they being police witnesses could only explain the factum of investigation conducted by them and could not explain in detail, the act of assault or use of criminal force by the accused. Moreover, site plan prepared by the IO is not sufficient to prove the act of assault or criminal force on the part of the accused. While it shows the location of the accident which is undisputed, it could not be inferred that the incident had occurred as accused persons had used criminal force on the victim.
24. There is no other witness to establish the guilt of the accused. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish the act of assault or use of criminal force on the part of the accused and his involvement in the present case and, therefore, failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that accused Sonu had snatched the mobile phone from the complainant by using criminal force or assault. Testimony of eyewitness does not completely support the prosecution story and testimonies of the rest of the witnesses are not sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Thus, this point is answered in the negative and is decided against the prosecution.
FINAL ORDER
25. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, since the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for commission of offence FIR Number : 293/2023 State Vs. Sonu Page 7 of 8 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR Date:
KAPOOR 2025.09.18 17:18:32 +0530 punishable under section 356 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt, accused Sonu is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 356 of IPC.
26. Personal bonds/surety bonds stands cancelled. Endorsement, if any is also cancelled. Sureties stand discharged. Superdarinama, if0 any stands cancelled. Original documents, if any be returned to the rightful claimant against proper receipt as per rules.
27. The accused has already furnished personal and surety bonds as per the mandate of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he has undertaken that he shall put in his appearance before the appellate court within the prescribed period in case an appeal is filed and admitted for hearing. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced and signed in the open court on 18th Day of September, 2025.
Digitally signed by NEETIKANEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.09.18 17:18:37 +0530 (Neetika Kapoor) JMFC-06/SWD/Dwarka Court New Delhi/18.09.2025 **It is certified that this judgment contains 08 pages, and each page bears my signature.** FIR Number : 293/2023 State Vs. Sonu Page 8 of 8