Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. In the present case, it has been alleged that the mobile phone in question was stolen from the possession of complainant Sh. Mueen Khan at about 3.30 PM on 05.04.2022 and found in the possession of the accused on 18.04.2022 . In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the complainant Sh. Mueen Khan as a witness.

20. It was imperative for the prosecution to have proved that the mobile phone allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused was the same as that which had been stolen from the complainant. Perusal of the complaint Ex.PW1/1 reveals that complainant had not stated the IMEI number of the stolen mobile phone. He had simply informed that his mobile which was blue in State vs.Sonu Rathor colour of Honour Brand having mobile phone No. 9582998917 was snatched. It is nowhere stated in the said complaint as what was the IMEI number of the mobile phone. A mobile phone can be identified specifically on the basis of its model and its IMEI number. Perusal of the record reveals that no cogent evidence has been placed on record to show that the complainant was the owner of the case property or he was in the possession of the same. The prosecution has relied upon two photograph of mobile phone which are Ex.PH1 (Colly) are on record but the IMEI no. of the mobile phone is not visible in the said photographs. Further, no cogent evidence like CDR of the complainant or bill of the purchase of mobile phone has been placed on record to show that the complainant Moeen Khan was the owner of the mobile phone make Honor, Blue in Colour having IMEI No. 866783043101678 & 866783043136682. It is relevant to mention that the complainant/ PW1 Mueen Khan deposed that he did not remember the IMEI no. of the mobile phone. Further, he deposed that when he went to Police Station Badarpur for registration of FIR, police official asked him for bill of the mobile phone. However, the said bill was not placed on record. It is also pertinent to note that in the seizure memo Mark PW3/1, the IMEI number of Honor mobile phone was also not found mentioned. Thus, it is apparent that the complainant has not produced any cogent document to prove his ownership and consequent possession of the mobile phone. Thus, this court finds merit in the State vs.Sonu Rathor contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has failed to establish complainant's possession or ownership of the mobile beyond reasonable doubt.

26. PW3 SI Amit Kumar is the only recovery witness in this case. He deposed that on 05.04.2022, at about 08.00 PM, he received information from Duty Officer regarding apprehension of accused Sonu Rathore at Kabutar Chowk Ring Road, CR Park. He further deposed that he went to the spot where Ct. Jaiveer State vs.Sonu Rathor produced accused Sonu Rathore alongwith one knife and two mobile phones. He also deposed that one motorcycle bearing registration No. HR 87BH 9416 was also recovered from the possession of accused. He deposed that he interrogated the accused and during interrogation accused disclosed that he had stolen two mobile phones from different places. PW 3 SI Amit deposed that he seized the recovered mobile phones vide seizure memo Mark PW3/1 and also seized the motorcycle vide seizure memo Mark PW3/2. He further deposed that during investigation he came to know the mobile phone make Honor Blue Color was stolen in the present case and he gave information at PS Badar Pur vide DD No.52 dt. 18.04.2022. He further deposed that IO ASI Vijay Singh came to the PS CR Park and recorded his statement in which he stated the IMEI number of recovered mobile phone. He identified the Honor mobile as Ex.P-1. However, it is pertinent to note that during his cross examination he deposed that public persons were present at the spot and he requested them to join the investigation but none agreed to join the investigation.

33. Further, the PW3 SI Amit Kumar deposed in his examination in chief that he seized the recovered mobile phone and during investigation he came to know the mobile phone make Honor blue color was stolen in the present case i.e. FIR No. 180/22 PS Badar Pur. He did not explain as to what part of investigation revealed to him the IMEI number of the mobile phone in question Further, PW4 ASI/IO Vijay Singh deposed that the recovery witness/ SI Amit had not intimated to him the IMEI number of the recovered mobile phone. In view of the aforesaid, it is not clear as to how the recovery witness and IO of the present case came to the conclusion that the mobile phone stolen was the one which belonged to the complainant in the present case.