CRL.A. 121 of 2018
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) vs NARENDER @ BABLOO
This was an appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.09.2014, passed by the learned Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, with respect to the FIR No.575/2002 registered at Police Station Paharganj, Delhi for offence punishable under Sections 379/356/411 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Appeal before the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV.
| Section 356 | Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person. |
| Section 379 | Punishment for theft |
| Section 411 | Dishonestly receiving stolen property |
FACTS OF THE CASE
On 20.11.2002, Raja Singh (complainant) was attending the marriage ceremony of his colleague at Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, Paharganj, Delhi. Around 11:15 PM, when he tried to take out his mobile phone from the mobile cover, which was tied with his waist belt he had realised that the respident had stolen the mobile phone from his waist.
The complainant stated that after this he and his friends chased the respondent and subsequently, with the help of the Constable Budh Singh, the respondent was apprehended.
Narender S/o Nathu Ram (respondent) and along with him, the belongings of the complainant were recovered.
The FIR for offences punishable under Sections 379/356/411 of the IPC was registered against him. After investigation, charge-sheet for offences punishable under Section 379 of the IPC was filed.
The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The learned trial court in its Judgment on 17.09.2014 convicted the appellant under Section 379 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 year and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In lieu of fine, further simple imprisonment had been instructed.
The respondent challenged the above conviction before the learned Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Here the judgment was reversed in the favor of the respondent and hence the State was in revision before the Delhi High court.
JUDGEMENT
The Court stated that the witnesses of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 have failed to be corroborated together.
During cross-examination of (PW-1), the witness stated that he does not remember the date and month of the incident. He also stated that he did not see the respondent stealing his mobile, the same came to his attention while dancing at the function.
PW-3 failed to elaborate the whole incident whether he noticed the respondent stealing the mobile or not.
The Constable Budh Singh (PW-4) stated that he was only present during the chase and not when the offence was committed.
The Court observed that there could be allegations of offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC at the most. The Court further stated that the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC, are not made out against the accused/appellant, as there was no evidence brought on record with respect to the removal of mobile phone from the possession of the complainant by the respondent, and the evidence so produced in the current case was only to the recovery of mobile phone.
The Court found that the prosecution had not been able to successfully prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. On examination of the material available on record, the court was not inclined to take a different view other than the view which has already been taken by the learned Special Judge. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ADITYA G S.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ADITYA G S.
