Delhi District Court
State vs Vishal on 23 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. AAYUSHI SAXENA,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case No. -: 194/2013 & 79902/2016
CNR No. -: DLSH020008882011
FIR No. -: 352/2011
Police Station -: Jagatpuri
Section(s) -: Section 356/379/411/34
IPC
In the matter of:
Digitally
signed by
STATE AAYUSHI
AAYUSHI SAXENA
(Represented by Sh. Bhuvnesh Sharma, SAXENA Date:
2025.07.23
Ld. APP for the State) 15:55:35
+0530
VERSUS
1) Vishal
S/o Sh. Uday Bhan
Village Arihar, PS Rudauli District,
Bara Banki, UP,Vagabond Krishan Kunj,
Pusta, Delhi.
2) Rajiv Gaba
S/o Sh. Bal Kishan
H. No. 1152, Multani Mohalla,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
3) Ganeshi Lal @ Anil
S/o Sh. Kanwar Pal
H. No. 39, Gali No. 5, Sarojini Park,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
...... Accused
1.
Name of Complainant : Smt. Ajit Kaur
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 1 of 24
W/o Sh. Sadhu
Singh, R/o S-33,
South Anarkali,
Near Gurudwara,
Delhi-51.
1) Vishal
S/o Sh. Uday Bhan
R/o Village Arihar,
PS Rudauli District,
Bara Banki, UP,
Vagabond Krishan
Kunj, Pusta, Delhi.
2) Rajiv Gaba
S/o Sh. Bal Kishan
R/o House No.
1152, Multani
Mohalla Gandhi
2. Name of Accused : Nagar, Delhi.
(Proceedings
against him has
already abated
vide order dated
16.02.2019)
3) Ganeshi Lal @
Anil.
S/o Sh. Kanwar Pal
R/o House No. 39,
Gali No. 5, Sarojini
Park, Shastri nagar,
Delhi.
Section
3. Offence complained of or proved :
356/379/411 IPC
4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 03.07.2011
6. Date of filing of case : 21.09.2011
7. Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2025
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 2 of 24
Accused no.1
Vishal has already
been convicted
vide order dated
8. Final Order : 13.03.2012.
Accused no.2
Ganeshi Lal has
been acquitted u/s
356/379/411 IPC.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE
DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX –
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 30.07.2011
at about 04:00 PM at Parwana Road, Jagatpuri all the
accused, in furtherance of their common intention,
assaulted and used criminal force against the complainant
Smt. Ajit Kaur and snatched her earring (bali). Also, on
04.08.2011 at Pusta road, near T point, Taj enclave road,
Geeta Colony, accused Ganeshi Lal was found in
possession of the above-said earring, belonging to the
complainant Smt. Ajit Kaur knowing or having reason to
believe that such property was stolen. Pursuant to the
complaint of the complainant, FIR was registered under
Section 356/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter, “IPC“).
2. After completing the formalities, investigation
was carried out. On culmination of the same, the PoliceState Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 3 of 24
Report under Section 356/379/411/34 IPC against the
accused persons was filed in the Court.
3. Vide order dated 21.09.2011 cognizance in the
present matter was taken by Ld. Predecessor of this Court
and summons were directed to be issued upon the accused
Rajiv Gaba. Since accused Vishal and Ganeshi Lal were
stated to be in JC, production warrants were issued
against them. On 30.09.2011, accused Vishal and Ganeshi
were produced from JC and accused Rajiv Gaba had
appeared in the court and copy of charge sheet was
supplied to the accused persons as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
on that very date.
4. On finding a prima facie case against accused
persons, charge under Section 356/379/411 IPC was
framed against accused Ganeshi Lal and charge under
Section 356/379 IPC was framed against accused Vishal
and Rajiv Gaba by Ld. Predecessor of this Court on
22.12.2011, to which the accused persons pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated
27.04.2023 separate statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C. of accused
Ganeshi Lal was recorded, wherein he admitted the
following documents;
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 4 of 24
5.1. TIP Proceedings order dated 20.08.2011 of
accused Ganeshi Lal and Rajiv Gaba and case
property dated 02.09.2011, which were exhibited as
Ex.P1, Ex. P2 and Ex. P3.
5.2. DD No.44B dated 04.08.2011,which was
exhibited Ex.P4.
In view of the same, witness, mentioned at serial
no.6, 10 and 11 of the list of witnesses, was
dropped.
6. On 13.01.2012, an application u/s 265B Cr.PC, in
respect of plea bargaining was filed on behalf of accused
Vishal and vide order dated 13.03.2012, passed by the
plea bargaining Magistrate, accused Vishal was convicted
for offense u/s 356/379 IPC. Since accused Rajiv Gaba
had expired during trial of the case, proceedings qua
accused Rajiv Gaba stood abated vide order dated
16.02.2019.
PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
examined 7 witnesses.
7.1. PW1 Smt. Ajeet Kaur inter-alia deposed
that on 30.07.2011, she was going to her brother’s
house namely Harjeet Singh at House no. 10,
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 5 of 24
Parwana Road by a rickshaw and at about 04:00
PM, when she got down from the rickshaw and
was paying money to the rickshaw puller, three
persons came on a black color motorcycle from
the front. She further deposed that accused Vishal
got down from the motorcycle and snatched her
right earring and two other persons ran away from
the spot. She further deposed that she made an
alarm and some public persons ran after the
accused persons and caught hold of accused
Vishal. She further deposed that the abovesaid
motorcycle fell down on the street and the other
two accused persons ran away from the spot. She
further deposed that Police came at the spot and
IO recorded her statement Ex. PW-1/A and
prepared site plan at her instance. She further
deposed that accused Vishal was arrested vide
arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B, and was personally
searched vide memo Ex. PW-1/C. She also
proposed that she could not identify accused Rajiv
and Ganeshi Lal as they had already run away
before she could see them. She also deposed that
she neither knew the number of motorcycle nor
she could identify the same but she stated that the
same was of black color.
She duly identified accused Vishal in the Court.
PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 6 of 24
the accused Rajiv and Ganeshi Lal.
7.2. PW2 Ct. Kunwar Pal inter-alia deposed
that on 30.07.2011, he was posted at PS Jagatpuri
as a Ct. He further deposed that on receiving DD
No. 28A at about 04:00 PM, he alongwith SI Luv
Aatre, reached at Parwana Road, Jagatpuri, where
they met with the complainant Smt. Ajeet Kaur,
who gave her statement to IO/SI Luv Aatre and
stated that at about 04:00 PM, when she was
getting down from a rickshaw one boy came from
behind and snatched her earring from her ear and
tried to flee away alongwith his two other
associates, who were sitting on motorcycle. He
further deposed that one of them was caught by
public persons at the spot and the other two fled
away from the spot on a bike. He further deposed
that IO/SI Luv Aatre seized the recovered bike
bearing no. DL-5S-AA-4497 make Bajaj Discover,
vide seizure memo Mark X and prepared a rukka
for registration of FIR and went to the PS and
came back with SI Yashwant Singh. He further
deposed that SI Luv Aatre handed over the
accused namely Vishal and the recovered bike to
the SI Yashwant. He further deposed that SI
Yashwant arrested accused Vishal (already
convicted in present case) vide arrest memo Ex.
PW-1/B, personally searched him vide memo Ex.
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 7 of 24
PW-1/C and recorded his disclosure statement
vide memo Ex. PW-2/A. He further deposed that
thereafter second IO/SI Yashwant prepared a site
plan at the instance of SI Luv Aatre and thereafter
case property, i.e. the motorcycle was deposited in
the malkhana. He further deposed that SI
Yashwant recorded his statement.
Since Superdar/ accused Rajiv had not brought the
vehicle .i.e., motorcycle bearing No. DL-5S-
AA-4497, the same was not identified by PW-2.
PW-2 was not cross examined by ld. Counsel for
accused persons despite opportunity.
7.3. PW-3 SI Love Atrey inter-alia deposed that
on 30.07.2011, he was posted at PS Jagatpuri as
SI. He further deposed that on receiving DD No.
28A Ex. PW-3/A regarding snatching, at about
04:00 PM, he alongwith Ct. Kunwar Pal, reached
at Parwana Road, Jagatpuri, where they met with
the complainant Smt. Ajeet Kaur, who produced
accused Vishal and the motorcycle bearing no.
DL-5S-AA-4497 to him. He further deposed that
he recorded statement of the complainant Ex.
PW-1/A, prepared rukka Ex. PW-3/A and handed
over the same to Ct. Kunwar Pal, who got the FIR
registered. He further deposed that he seized the
abovesaid motorcycle vide memo Ex. PW-3/C and
thereafter furhter investigation of the case was
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 8 of 24
marked to the Second IO. He further deposed that
he could identify accused Vishal if produced
before him (accused Vishal had already been
convicted).
PW-3 duly identified the motorcycle Ex. P2.
PW-3 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the
accused Rajiv Gaba. Ld. Counsel for accused
Ganeshi had adopted cross examination that was
conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajiv.
7.4. PW-4 HC Narendar Pal inter-alia
deposed that on 30.07.2011 he was posted at PS
Jagatpuri as HC and was working as DO. He
further deposed that his duty hours were from
04:00 PM to 12:00 Midnight and on that day at
about 05:40 PM, Constable Kanwar Pal produced
before him a rukka, which was sent by IO/SI Luv
Attrey. He further deposed that he registered FIR
Ex. PW-4/A (OSR) and made endorsement on the
rukka Ex. PW-4/B. He further deposed that he
handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to
Constable Kanwar Pal, for handing over the same
to Second IO/SI Yashwant for necessary action.
PW-4 was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
accused Ganeshi and Rajiv despite opportunity.
7.5. PW-5 ASI Shiv Murti inter-alia deposed
that on 04.08.2011, he was posted at PS Gandhi
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 9 of 24
nagar as a HC and on that day, he alongwith Ct.
Rohit were on patrolling duty. He further deposed
that when they reached near Jheel Chowk, one
secret informer told them that one person, who
was wanted in the incident of PS Jagatpuri, was
standing near Jheel Chowk and that he could be
arrested, if efforts could be made. He further
deposed that he requested 4-5 persons to join the
raiding party but they denied to join the same. He
further deposed that he apprehended that person,
at the identification of the secret informer and that
apprehended person disclosed his name as Rajiv
Gaba, who was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-5/A,
personally searched vide memo Ex. PW-5/B and
his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo
Ex. PW-5/C. He further deposed that in the
disclosure statement, the accused disclosed his
involvement in the Jagatpuri case. He further
deposed that he had informed about the arrest of
accused Rajiv Gaba in PS Jagatpuri vide DD No.
20A.
He duly identified accused Rajiv Gaba in the
Court. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
accused Rajiv Gaba.
7.6. PW-6 Inspector Yashwant Singh inter-
alia deposed that on 30.07.2011, he was posted at
PS Jagatpuri as SI and was present at the PS when
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 10 of 24
DO informed him that first IO/SI Love Atrey had
got one FIR registered bearing no. 352/11 u/s
356/379/411/34 IPC and the accused and the
victim were present at the spot. He further
deposed that he went to the spot, he met SI Love
Atrey and Ct. Kunwar Pal and one accused Vishal
with the complainant Smt. Ajit Kaur. He further
deposed that he discharged SI Love Atrey from the
investigation and took over further investigation.
He further deposed that he prepared the site plan
Ex. PW-6/A, at the instance of the complainant
and interrogated and arrested the accused Vishal
vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B, personally
searched him vide memo Ex. PW-1/C . He further
deposed that he recorded the disclosure of accused
Vishal Ex. PW-2/A. He further deposed that on
04.08.2011, information regarding arrest of
accused Ganeshi Lal @ Anil was received from PS
Geeta Colony, who had made a disclosure with the
case property of the present case vide DD No. 17A
Ex. PW-6/B. He further deposed that on
05.08.2011 at PS Gandhi Nagar an information
regarding arrest of Rajiv Gaba was received vide
No. 20A Ex. PW-6/C and he made a disclosure of
the present case. He further deposed that on the
same date, he arrested Rajiv Gaba after taking
formal permission at the KKD Courts and on
08.08.2011, he arrested accused Ganeshi at KKD
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 11 of 24
Court vide arrest memo Ex. PW-6/D and
Ex.PW-6/E. He further deposed that he recorded
disclosure statement of accused Rajiv Gaba and
Ganeshi vide memos Ex. PW-6/F and Ex.
PW-6/G. He further deposed that on 12.08.2011,
he seized the case property from PS Geeta Colony
vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/H. He further
deposed that on 20.08.2011, he had to get TIP of
both the accused conducted but the said accused
persons refused to get TIP done and the TIP orders
had been exhibited as Ex. P1 and Ex.P2. He
further deposed that he obtained the photocopies
of the document of PS Geeta colony and PS
Gandhi Nagar vide which accused Ganeshi and
accused Rajiv Gaba were arrested. He further
deposed that he recorded the statement of Ct.
Kunwar Pal and thereafter he completed the
investigation and filed the chargesheet in the
Court.
He duly identified accused Ganeshi in the Court.
He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
accused despite opportunity.
7.7. PW-7 HC Rohtash deposed that on
04.08.2011, he was posted at PS Geeta Colony as
HC and on that day he arrested one Ganeshi Lal
vide DD No. 44B. He further deposed that he
recovered one earring from the accused, which
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 12 of 24
was seized vide memo Ex. PW-7/A. He further
deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of
accused and informed vide DD No. 17A to PS
Jagatpuri regarding disclosure statement of
accused about commission of offence in FIR No.
352/2011 Ex. PW-7/B. He further deposed that
thereafter SI Yashwant recorded his statement.
He duly identified accused Ganeshi in the Court.
He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
accused despite opportunity.
8. After completion of prosecution evidence,
statement of accused Ganeshi under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
was recorded. All incriminating materials brought on
record were put to the accused Ganeshi in response to
which he denied the allegations made against him and
claimed himself to be innocent and pleaded that he has
been falsely implicated in this case.
9. Accused did not opt to lead any evidence in his
defence and the same was closed and the matter was listed
for final arguments.
10. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State.
No final arguments were advanced by accused Ganeshi
despite opportunity. I have also perused the case file
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 13 of 24
carefully.
11. Accused Ganeshi has been charged under Section
356/379/411 IPC.
11.1. Section 356 IPC prescribes punishment for
assault or criminal force in an attempt to commit
theft of a property carried by a person. The
essential ingredients to bring home the act of the
accused within the purview of this Section are :-
a) Use of assault/criminal force by the accused;
b) Such assault/criminal force was used against the
person whose property is being stolen; and
c) Such assault/criminal force was used in attempt
to commit theft of a property being worn/carried by
such person.
11.2. The essential ingredients to prove an offence
under Section 379 IPC are as follows: –
a) Accused had taken the movable property
dishonestly;
b) Property was taken out of the possession of
complainant;
c) Property was taken out without consent of
complainant; and
d) The property was moved to such taking.
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 14 of 24
11.3. To bring home the charge of Section 411
IPC, it is essential for the prosecution to prove re-
tention of the stolen property on the part of the ac-
cused and recovery of the same from the accused
person. It is further essential on the part of prosecu-
tion to bring on record clinching evidence which
proves the ingredients of Section 411 IPC beyond
doubt.
12. As per the testimony of PW1 (complainant), on
30.07.2011 while she was going to her brother’s house at
Parwana Road by a Rikshaw, at about 4 PM, when she
got down from the Rikshaw and was giving money to the
Rikshaw puller, three persons came on a black color
motorcycle from the front and accused Vishal got down
from the motorcycle and snatched her right earing but the
other two accused persons ran away from the spot. She
also deposed that accused Vishal was caught by some
public persons. She also stated that she could not identify
the other two accused persons as they already run away
before she could see them.
13. Perusal of the file shows that accused Vishal was
convicted by Ld. Plea Bargaining Judge on 17.03.2012
and proceedings against accused Rajeev have already
abated vide order dated 16.02.2019.
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 15 of 24
14. When PW6 Inst. Yashvant Singh was examined, he
stated that on 04.08.2011 he received information
regarding the arrest of accused Ganeshi Lal from PS
Geeta Colony, who had made a disclosure of case
property in the present matter vide DD NO. 17 A Ex.
PW6/B and he also deposed that on 05.08.2011 he
received information regarding the arrest of accused Rajiv
Gaba from PS Gandhi Nagar, who had made a disclosure
with case property vide DD NO. 20A Ex. PW6/C. He
also deposed that thereafter he formally arrested accused
Rajiv Gaba on 05.08.2011 and accused Ganeshi on
08.08.2011.
15. When PW-7 HC Rohtash Kumar was examined he
deposed that on 04.08.2011 he was posted at PS Geeta
Colony as HC and he had arrested accused Ganeshi Lal in
Kalandera bearing DD No. 44B. He also deposed that he
had recovered one earing from accused Ganeshi, which
was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. He further deposed
that he recorded disclosure statement of accused and
informed to PS Jagatpuri regarding disclosure statement
of accused Ganeshi Ex. PW7/B about the commission of
offence in FIR No. 352/2011 vide DD NO. 17A.
16. A perusal of seizure memo of the gold earing
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 16 of 24
Ex.PW7/A shows that the same does not bear signature of
any public witness. The name of only Ct. Abodh Kumar
has been mentioned as a witness. So, from this document
it appears that no public witness was joined during the
recovery proceedings of the case property. It is not even
the case of prosecution that public witnesses were joined
during recovery proceedings of the stolen property.
17. It is pertinent to reiterate that in such cases the
entire prosecution of the accused is based on the alleged
recovery of the stolen articles, therefore, it becomes
absolutely essential for the court to examine the
circumstances under which the recovery was made from
the accused person. Any suspicion or doubt over the
alleged recovery of stolen article/goods from the accused
can prove fatal to the prosecution’s case.
18. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
“Bijender @ Mander vs. State of Haryana” (Criminal
Appeal No. 2438/2010 decided on 08.11.2021) whereby
inter-alia it was observed that :-
“15. The short question that falls for our
consideration thus is whether the conviction
of the appellant on the strength of the
purported disclosure statement (Ex. PD) and
the recovery memo (EX PD/2), in the
absence of any corroborative evidence, canState Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 17 of 24
sustain?
16. We have imported ourselves with
abounding pronouncements of this court on
this point. It may be true that at times the
Court can convict an accused exclusively on
the basis of his disclosure statement and the
resultant recovery of inculpatory material.
However, in order to sustain the guilt of such
accused, the recovery should be
unimpeachable and not be shrouded with
elements of doubts. We may hasten to add
that circumstance such as (I) the period of
interval between the malfeasance and the
disclosure; (ii) commonality of the recovered
object and its availability in the market; (iii)
nature of the object and its relevance to the
crime; (iv) ease of transferability of the
object; (v) the testimony and trustworthiness
of the attesting witness before the Court
and / or other like factors, are weighty
considerations that aid in gauging the
intrinsic evidentiary value and credibility of
the recovery. (See: Tulsiram Kanu vs. the
State; Pancho vs. State of Haryana; State of
Rajasthan vs. Talevar & Anr. and Bharama
Parasram Kudhachkar vs. State of
Karnataka).
17. Incontrovertibly, where the prosecution
falls to inspire confidence in the manner and
/ or contents of the recovery with regard to
its nexus to the alleged offence, the Court
ought to stretch the benefit of doubt to the
accused. Its nearly three centuries old
cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence
that “it is better that ten guilty persons
escape, than that one innocent suffer”. The
doctrine of extending benefit of doubt to an
accused, notwithstanding the proof of a
strong suspicion, holds its fort on the
premise that “the acquittal of a guilty
person constitutes a miscarriage of justiceState Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 18 of 24
just as much as the conviction of the
innocent”.
19. It is essential to note here that the circumstances
under which the alleged recovery has been made from the
accused creates a shadow of doubt over the version
presented by the prosecution, more so when the case
property was not recovered in presence of the
complainant.
19.1. Police officials conducting investigation of
an offence can ask any public person to join the
investigation and upon refusal by the said person,
the official concerned can even taken action under
the relevant provision of the law. The failure to do
so on the part of the investigating officer can be
fatal to the prosecution in such cases where the
entire case is based upon recovery of stolen
articles. It was incumbent upon the investigating
officer to at least show efforts on his part for
joining of independent public witness during the
alleged recovery, however, in the present case since
there are no efforts on the part of the investigating
agency therefore, the accused is entitled to benefit
from the same. It is further relevant to point out
here that the seizure memo Ex. PW7/A does not
even mention the exact time of alleged recovery of
the case property. No attempt having been made for
joining of public/ independent person is a
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 19 of 24
circumstance which creates doubt on the recovery
of the stolen motorcycle from the instance of the
accused person.
19.2. It was inter-alia held in “Anoop Joshi vs.
State” 1992 (2) CC Cases 314 (HC) that sincere
efforts shall always be made by the police to join
the independent witnesses. It has further in held in
series of cases that failure of joining of independent
witnesses at the time of recovery of stolen article
shall cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution
version. In the facts of the present case, since the
recovery has been effected from a public place and
thus, it is difficult to believe that there were no
public persons available during the alleged
recovery.
19.3. No doubt, it is settled law that the testimony
of police witnesses can be relied upon if it inspires
confidence of the court but in this case, no
plausible explanation has been put forth by the
prosecution for failure to join public witnesses
during the investigation and specifically at the time
of alleged recovery of case property, despite their
availability in compliance of Section 100 (4)
Cr.P.C. The same brings the seizure under a cloud
of doubt.
19.4. Reference is made to the judgment of
Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 20 of 24
case of Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana 1999
(1) CLR 69 wherein it was observed that, “It is
well settled principle of the law that the
Investigating Agency should join independent
witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband
articles, if they are available and their failure to do
so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on
the prosecution case. In the present case also
admittedly, the independent witnesses were
available at the time of recovery but they refused to
associate themselves in the investigation. This
explanation does not inspire confidence because the
police officials who are the only witnesses
examined in the case have not given the names and
addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a
very common excuse that the witnesses from the
public refused to join the investigation. A police
officer conducting investigation of a crime is
entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and
on refusal by a person from the public the
Investigating Officer can take action against such a
person under the law. Had it been a fact that he
witnesses from the public had refused to join the
investigation, the Investigating Officer must have
proceeded against them under the relevant
provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police
officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation
for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 21 of 24
afterthought and is not worthy of credence. All
these facts taken together make the prosecution
case highly doubtful”.
19.5. In case of Pradeep Narayana V. State of
Maharashtra reported AIR 1995 Supreme Court
1930, it was held that failure of police to join
witness from locality during search creates doubt
about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which
has to go to the accused.
20. So, from the above, it becomes clear that there is
nothing on record, except for the disclosure statement
given by accused Ganeshi Lal in DD No. 17A dt.
04.08.2011, to connect him with the offence in the
present case.
21. The testimony of complainant PW-1 is of no
consequence with respect to the offence u/s 411 IPC as
she neither saw accused Ganeshi at the time of incident
nor her gold earing was recovered from accused Ganeshi
in her presence. The remaining witnesses are police
officials, whose testimonies solely hinge upon the
disclosure statement of accused Ganeshi Lal.
22. It has been held in case of Sadhu Singh V/s State
of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 the Hon’ble Punjab &
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 22 of 24
Haryana High Court :-
“In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution
to establish its case beyond all reasonable
doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel
the entire distance from may have to must
have. If the prosecution appears to be
improbable or lacks credibility the benefit
of doubt necessarily has to go to the
accused.”
23. Therefore, in view of the above discussion this
court is of the considered opinion that the accused
Ganeshi Lal is entitled to benefit of the doubt as the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. From the facts of the present
case, it cannot be said that the alleged recovery from
accused Ganeshi in the present case is unimpeachable and
matches the standard of proof required for conviction in
such like cases.
CONCLUSION
24. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the present case and the evidence
produced on record, it is held that the prosecution has
failed to prove the alleged offence against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Ganeshi Lal
S/o Sh. Kunwar Pal is hereby acquitted for the offence
u/s 356/379/411 IPC.
State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 23 of 24
25. Case property, if any, shall be disposed of as per
rules, after expiration of period of appeal and as per law.
Case file be consigned to the record room after due
compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. 23.07.2025. Digitally
signed by
AAYUSHI
AAYUSHI SAXENA
SAXENA Date:
2025.07.23
(Aayushi Saxena) 15:55:45
+0530JMFC-05/SHD, Karkardooma
Courts/Delhi/23.07.2025This judgment consists of 24 pages and each page bears my Digitally
signed bysignatures. AAYUSHI
AAYUSHI SAXENA
SAXENA Date:
2025.07.23
(Aayushi Saxena) 15:55:50
+0530JMFC-05/SHD, Karkardooma
Courts/Delhi/23.07.2025State Vs. Vishal
FIR No. 352/2011
PS Jagatpuri Pgae No. 24 of 24
[ad_1]
Source link