Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi @Judi on 23 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NEETIKA KAPOOR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-06, SOUTH WEST DWARKA, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. : DLSW020162652018
FIR Number : 530/2016
Police Station : Dwarka North
under Section : 356/379/411/34 IPC
STATE VS. RAVI @ JUDI & ORS.
a) Cr. no. of the Case : 3203/2018
b) Name & address of the Complainant : Vikas Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram
Bahadur, R/o H. No. B-206,
Kakrola Village, New Delhi.
c) Name & address of the accused : (1) Ravi @ Judi S/o Sh.
Rajendra, R/o H. No. B-130,
J.J. Colony, Bharat Vihar, New
Delhi.
(2) Murgesh S/o Sh. Rajesh,
R/o H. No. B-322, Pocket B,
J.J. Colony, Bharat Vihar,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of offence : 11.12.2016
e) Offence complained of : 356/379/411/34 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquittal
FIR Number : 530/2016 State vs. Ravi @ Judi & Ors. Page 1 of 14
Digitally signed
NEETIKA by NEETIKA
KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date: 2025.05.23
17:01:21 +0530
Date of registration of FIR : 14.12.2016
Final arguments heard on : 23.05.2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 23.05.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons, namely, Ravi @ Judi and Murgesh are
facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 356/379/411/34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) in connection with the
case FIR No. 530/2016 registered at P.S. Dwarka North.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.12.2016 at
around 8:00 pm in front of liquor shop situated at Erros Mall, Sector 14, Dwarka, both
accused persons in furtherance of their common intention snatched Rs. 2900/- from the
complainant Vikas Kumar and fled from the spot and on the same day, at instance of
accused Murgesh, Rs. 600/- was recovered which he had received or retained knowing
or believing the same to be stolen property. Statement of complainant Vikas Kumar
was recorded, based on which rukka was prepared by the IO and present FIR was
registered.
3. During investigation, IO inspected the site of the incident and
having inspected it, prepared a site plan. Statements of the witnesses were recorded
and based on the material collected, accused persons, namely Ravi @ Judi and
Murgesh were found responsible for the commission of offences punishable under
Section 356/379/411/34 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 persons,
they were summoned before this court and on their appearance, copies of the challan
FIR Number : 530/2016 State vs. Ravi @ Judi & Ors. Page 2 of 14
Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
KAPOOR
NEETIKA Date:
KAPOOR 2025.05.23
17:01:28
+0530
and other documents were supplied to them 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 persons for
offence under Sections 356/379/411/34 of I.P.C., charge was put to them, to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed to have a defense to make.
6. Thereafter, prosecution was called upon to adduce its evidence.
The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 06 witnesses. PW-1 SI
Sunder Lal is the DO who proved the endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW1/A
and registration of FIR which is Ex.PW1/B, PW-2 Vikas Kumar is the complainant,
PW-3 Jai Mangal is the eye witness, PW-4 HC Satyabhan and PW-5 HC Ashok Kumar
had accompanied the IO during investigation and PW-6 Retd. SI Ram Niwas is the
Investigating officer in the present case.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, incriminating evidence
adduced by prosecution was put to accused persons by recording their statement u/s
313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the case of prosecution and pleaded innocence and
preferred not to lead any evidence in their defense. Thereafter, final arguments were
heard.
8. I have heard Mr. Manish Sidhawat, Ld. APP for State and Sh.
Manish Sehrawat, Ld. LAC for accused Ravi @ Judi and Sh. Pooran Singh, Ld.
counsel for accused Murgesh and have gone through the records carefully.
9. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that the ingredients of the
offence alleged have been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution from the evidence
on record as identify of the accused has been duly established by the witness/PW1. As
such, it is prayed that accused persons be punished for the said offence.
10. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that State has
failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt as evidence on record is not
sufficient to infer assault or criminal force on the part of the accused. As such, it is
prayed that accused be acquitted for the said offence.
FIR Number : 530/2016 State vs. Ravi @ Judi & Ors. Page 3 of 14
Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.05.23
17:01:32 +0530
11. 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 11.12.2016 at
around 8:00 pm in front of liquor shop situated at
Erros Mall, Sector 14, Dwarka, both accused persons
in furtherance of their common intention snatched
Rs. 2900/- from the complainant by using criminal
force on the complainant, as alleged ?
(ii) Whether the aforesaid, time, date and place,
accused Murgesh was found in possession of Rs.
600/- which he had received or retained knowing or
having reason to believe the same to be stolen
property, as alleged?
(iii) Final order.
12. 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
Point No. 2 : No
Final order: The accused persons are acquitted
as per the operative part of the judgment.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
POINT NO. 1
13. Both these points being interlinked and interconnected are taken
up together for discussion for the sake of brevity and precision.
FIR Number : 530/2016 State vs. Ravi @ Judi & Ors. Page 4 of 14
Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.05.23
17:02:03 +0530
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;
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. Offence of theft is defined in Section 378 IPC and its punishment
in Section 379 IPC. Section 378 and 379 IPC, are reproduced herein below:
“Section 378 IPC: Whoever, intending to take
dishonestly any moveable property out of the
possession of any person without that person’s
consent, moves that property in order to such taking,
is said to commit theft.
Explanation 1.–A thing so long as it is attached to
FIR Number : 530/2016 State vs. Ravi @ Judi & Ors. Page 5 of 14
Digitally
signed by
NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.05.23
17:02:43
+0530
the earth, not being movable property, is not the
subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the
subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2.–A moving effected by the same act
which affects the severance may be a theft.
Explanation 3.–A person is said to cause a thing to
move by removing an obstacle which prevented it
from moving or by separating it from any other thing,
as well as by actually moving it. Explanation 4.–A
person, who by any means causes an animal to move,
is said to move that animal, and to move everything
which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is
moved by that animal.
Explanation 5.–The consent mentioned in the
definition may be express or implied, and may be
given either by the person in possession, or by any
person having for that purpose authority either
express or implied.
“Section 379 IPC: Punishment for theft.-Whoever
commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.”
17. To bring home the culpability of accused under Section 411 IPC,
it is pertinent that relevant provisions of law are first read. Section 411 IPC are
reproduced herein below:
FIR Number : 530/2016 State vs. Ravi @ Judi & Ors. Page 6 of 14
Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
Date:
KAPOOR 2025.05.23
17:02:46
+0530
“Section 411 IPC – Dishonestly receiving stolen prop-
erty.-Whoever dishonestly received or retains any
stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe
the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
18. In order for the prosecution to successfully prove the offense
under section 411, the following elements must be established:
1. The property must have been stolen;
2. The accused must have received, retained, bought
or sold the stolen property;
3. The accused must have known or had reason to
believe that the property was stolen;
4. The act of receiving, retaining, buying or selling
the stolen property must have been done
dishonestly.
19. It is important to note that the mere receipt of stolen property is
not enough to attract the provisions of section 411 IPC. The accused must have the
knowledge or reason to believe that the property was stolen, and must have acted
dishonestly in receiving, retaining, buying or selling it.
20. 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.
21. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined, PW2
Vikas Kumar who being the complainant is material to the case.
FIR Number : 530/2016 State vs. Ravi @ Judi & Ors. Page 7 of 14
Digitally signed
NEETIKA by NEETIKA
KAPOOR
KAPOOR 17:02:51
Date: 2025.05.23
+0530
22. PW-2 Vikas Kumar stepped into the witness box and deposed that
on 11.12.2016 at about 08:00 PM, he had gone to Eros Mall, Sector-14, Dwarka, to
purchase liquor as he intended to host a party for his friends. He was carrying Rs.
2900/- in cash with him. At that time, a person snatched the cash from his hand and
raised an alarm by shouting, “bhag Judi bhag”. Both snatchers had fled from the spot.
He had immediately called the PCR on No. 100. Police reached at the spot. They
searched for the accused persons but in vain. After two days, with the help of his friend
Jai Mangal, he had identified the accused persons at Shani Bazar, Gol Chakkar but
failed to depose anything thereafter. Police reached at the spot and recorded his
statement which his Ex.PW2/A. Site plan was prepared which is Ex.PW2/B. Witness
correctly identified accused Murgesh in the court but failed to identify accused Ravi @
Judi. Witness was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State and was cross-examined at
length.
23. In his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, witness failed
to identify accused Ravi @ Judi on confrontation. Witness stated that accused Ravi @
Judi had not been arrested in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was
intentionally not identifying the accused as he had been won over by the accused. He
denied the suggestion that he had handed over the accused Ravi @ Judi to the police.
24. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel for accused
Murgesh, he stated that accused Murgesh had not been arrested in his presence. He
denied that he was a habitual drinker. He deposed that he had no prior acquaintance
with Murgesh and was unsure whether Murgesh or another person accompanying him
had snatched his money. He stated that he had made a call to PCR on No. 100 when he
again saw accused at Shani Bazar. Police reached at the spot. His statement was
recorded by the police on the day of the incident at Eros Mall. He deposed that his
signatures were taken on only one paper by the police on the day of the incident. He
denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
25. Perusal of testimony of PW2 reveals that though he has supported
FIR Number : 530/2016 State vs. Ravi @ Judi & Ors. Page 8 of 14
Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.05.23
17:02:55 +0530
the case of the prosecution but only to a limited extent by deposing that the incident
had taken place on 11.12.2016 at 8:00 pm near liquor shop, Eros Mall, Sector 14,
Dwarka, when accused persons came and snatched Rs. 2900/- from his hand. Though
he initially identified accused Murgesh in the court, however, in his cross-examination
stated that he cannot state whether Murgesh or the other accused had actually snatched
his money or not. Though he admitted his signatures on the arrest memo but deposed
that accused persons were not arrested in his presence. As such, testimony of PW2 is
not sufficient to establish guilt of accused for alleged offences and requires
corroboration.
26. In order to corroborate testimony of PW2, prosecution examined
PW-3 Jai Mangal who stepped into the witness box but failed to recollect the factual
matrix of the case. Witness was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State and was
cross-examined at length.
27. In his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he denied the
suggestion that on 11.12.2016, he alongwith his friend Vikas had gone to Sector 14,
Eros Mall and while they were about to purchase liquor, one boy snatched Rs. 2900/-
from Vikas. He denied the suggestion that on 14.12.2016, he was present with his
friend at Sector 14 crossing where they apprehended the accused Ravi @ Judi and
handed over his custody to the IO. Witness failed to identify the accused Ravi @ Judi
in the court. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying the
accused as he had been won over by the accused and he was deposing falsely.
28. PW-3 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, merelyFIR Number : 530/2016 State vs. Ravi @ Judi & Ors. Page 9 of 14
Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.05.23
17:03:00 +0530
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.”
29. 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 his version. Witness failed to depose anything
about the factual matrix of the case. He even 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.
30. Further, PW-6 Retd. SI Ram Niwas stepped into the witness box
and deposed that on 14.12.2016, he was on emergency duty alongwith Ct. Ravinder.
On that day, vide DD No. 3A information regarding apprehension of accused was
received. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Ravinder went to the spot i.e. Roundabout
Sector 14, Dwarka where complainant Vikas produced the accused Ravi @ Judi and
gave his statement wherein he told that on 11.12.2016 while he was standing at Eros
Mall, two boys came and snatched Rs. 2900/- from him. Statement of complainant was
recorded which is Ex.PW2/A. Rukka was prepared which is Ex.PW6/A and handed
over to Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR, who after registration of FIR, returned to
the spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to him. Site plan was prepared at
instance of complainant which is Ex.PW2/B. Accused Ravi @ Judi was arrested vide
arrest memo Ex.PW2/C. Personal search memo was prepared which is Ex.PW6/B. On
FIR Number : 530/2016 State vs. Ravi @ Judi & Ors. Page 10 of 14
Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
Date:
KAPOOR 2025.05.23
17:03:04
+0530
26.12.2016, he had formally arrested accused Murgesh with permission of the court
vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/C. Personal search of accused was conducted vide memo
Ex.PW6/D. Disclosure statement of accused Murgesh was recorded which is
Ex.PW6/E. One day PC of accused Murgesh was taken and on 27.12.2016, accused
Murgesh took them to the spot where snatching incident had been taken place. He
prepared pointing out memo which is Ex.PW6/F. Accused Murgesh took them to his
house i.e. B-322, B Block, J.J. Cololy, Bharat Vihar from where Rs. 600/- was
recovered and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/G. Site plan of recovery
spot was prepared which is Ex.PW6/H. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet
was filed in the court. Witness correctly identified the accused persons in the court.
31. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsels, he deposed
that the incident is of 11.12.2016 and DD No. 40A information regarding the alleged
incident was marked to ASI Banwari Lal, however, he failed to state whether any
investigation was conducted by ASI Banwari Lal in respect of DD No. 40A or not. He
admitted that DD No. 40A is regarding an incident that took place near roundabout
Sector 14, Dwarka. He failed to state whether any statement of complainant Vikas was
recorded on 11.12.2016. He recorded statement of complainant which is Ex.PW2/A.
He admitted that complainant had stated in his complaint that on 11.12.2016 he was
standing outside the liquor shop, Eros Mall, Sector 14, Dwarka. He denied the
suggestion that DD No. 40A was related to some other incident and the statement of
complainant Ex.PW2/A was related to some other incident. He failed to state whether
any CCTV camera was installed around the spot of the incident or not. He denied the
suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter and
no recovery was effected from them. He denied the suggestion that all the documents
were prepared while sitting in PS. He denied the suggestion that accused persons had
not made any disclosure statement or their signatures were taken on blank papers. He
denied the suggestion that he had not conducted fair and proper investigation in the
present matter. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
FIR Number : 530/2016 State vs. Ravi @ Judi & Ors. Page 11 of 14
Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.05.23
17:03:10 +0530
32. PW-4 and PW-5 had also narrated the factum of investigation
conducted by them. Both were duly cross-examined and discharged.
33. Perusal of testimonies of PW4, PW5 and PW6 reveal that they
had only conducted the investigation after receiving the information regarding the
incident and had reached the spot later and are recovery witnesses but cannot depose
about the factual position of the incident and the use of criminal force by the accused,
if any. As such, testimony of PW4, PW5 and PW6 are at best corroborative in nature
but not sufficient to establish guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. As
regards offence u/s 411 IPC is concerned, the present FIR was registered on
14.12.2016 whereas the case property as per recovery memo has been recovered on
27.12.2016.
34. The major assertion of Ld. Counsel for the accused is that no
independent witnesses were joined by the police during the whole investigation and
same is doubtful. Although non-joining of independent witness cannot be a sole
ground to discard the evidence of police witnesses, however, in the present case, as per
the version of prosecution witnesses, public persons were present at the house of
accused when case property was recovered from accused Murgesh. Admittedly, no
notice was issued to public persons to join investigations. Inevitably all the police
officials deposed that accused Murgesh got recovered cash of Rs. 600/- from his house
which itself is a public spot and thus, the spot of recovery itself was a crowded place
which were full of other family members/public persons which in itself points towards
presence of public persons. The fact that despite availability, no public persons were
joined, casts doubt on the version of the prosecution. No sincere attempts were made
by the police to join witnesses in the present case and there is no cogent explanation by
the prosecution in this regard. As such, recovery does not inspire confidence of the
court. There is no evidence to suggest that case property was indeed recovered from
the possession of accused. According, in the opinion of this court, prosecution has
failed to prove that offence alleged against the accused Murgesh on the standards
required to be met by prosecution.
FIR Number : 530/2016 State vs. Ravi @ Judi & Ors. Page 12 of 14
Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
KAPOOR
NEETIKA Date:
KAPOOR 2025.05.23
17:03:14
+0530
35. There is no other witness to establish the guilt of the accused
persons. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish the act of assault or use of
criminal force on the part of the accused persons and their involvement in the present
case and, therefore, failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that accused
persons had snatched the money from the complainant by using criminal force or
assault and same was recovered from the possession of accused Murgesh. 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 persons. While it shows the location of the incident
which is undisputed, it could not be inferred that the incident had occurred as accused
persons had used criminal force on the complainant. Moreover, site plan also fails to
depict the exact location where the cash of complainant was snatched and the point
from where the accused persons were apprehended. Testimony of eyewitnesses 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 persons. Hence,
benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons. Thus, these points are answered
in the negative and are decided against the prosecution.
FINAL ORDER
36. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, since the
prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused persons for commission of offence
punishable under section 356/379/411/34 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt, accused
persons namely, Ravi @ Judi and Murgesh are acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 356/379/411/34 of IPC.
37. 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.
FIR Number : 530/2016 State vs. Ravi @ Judi & Ors. Page 13 of 14 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2025.05.23 17:03:18 +0530
38. The accused persons have already furnished personal and surety
bonds as per the mandate of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein
they have undertaken that they shall put in their 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 09th Day of October, 2024.
Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.05.23
17:03:24 +0530
(Neetika Kapoor)
JMFC-06/SWD/Dwarka Court
23.05.2025/New Delhi
**It is certified that this judgment contains 14 pages, and each page bears my signature.**
FIR Number : 530/2016 State vs. Ravi @ Judi & Ors. Page 14 of 14