IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR MALIK: MM

(WEST) -02 TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI

State Vs. AINAR
FIR No.: 332/2014
PS: Rajouri Garden
U/S: 379/356/411 IPC
Unique Case ID No.

:02401R0433382014

Date of institution of case

:05.09.2014.

Date on which case reserved for

:07.06.2016.

judgment
Date of judgment

:07.06.2016.

JUDGMENT U/S 379/356/411 IPC

a)Date of offence

:22.03.2014.

b)Offence complained of

:U/s

c)Name of accused, his parentage

:Ainar

& residence

S/o Sh. Ram Dayalam

R/o D1/49, J.J. Colony,
Sector-7, Dwarka,
Delhi.

d)Plea of accused

:Pleaded not guilty

e)Final Order

:Accused is acquitted for

the offence U/s 379/356
IPC.
Accused is convicted
for the offence U/s 411
IPC.

379/356/411

IPC

JUDGMENT
FIR No.332/2014

State Vs. Ainar

Page No. 1 of 7

BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-

1.

On 22.03.2014 complainant Bhawna Vig came to police

station and got her statement recorded to IO/ASI Karambir and

stated that today on 22.03.2014 she along with her maid were
going to Bank of Baroda through one rickshaw. At about 1-12 PM
they reached at Bank of Baroda, suddenly one motorcycle came
from behind and snatched the purse of complainant. The
motorcycle rider was wearing blue coloured helmet. The
complainant could not note the registration number of the
motorcycle. From the built, the accused could have been 30-35
years of age. The snatched purse was containing one diamond
set, two gold set, about Rs.4000/-, locker key of bank of Baroda
and one Nokia mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 355944055339261
and 355944055339279,

mobile No. 9811996611. On

the

complainant the FIR U/s 356/379 IPC was registered, site plan
was prepared, accused was searched but all in vain. Ct. Tilak Raj
arrested the accused Ainar in the kalandra U/s 41(a) Cr. P.C.
and recovered the stolen mobile phone in the present case. On
production warrants, the accused was produced before the court
and arrested. The accused refused to join the TIP proceedings.
FIR No.332/2014

State Vs. Ainar

Page No. 2 of 7

Section 411 IPC was added in the present FIR. After completion of
investigation, IO filed charge sheet U/s 173 Cr. P.C. against the
accused Ainar in the court.
2.

The cognizance of offence was taken and copy of

charge sheet were supplied to accused. After compliance of

provisions U/s 207 Cr.P.C. the charges were framed against
accused Ainar on 22.09.2014 to which accused not pleaded guilty
and claimed trial.
3.

Matter was then listed for PE. Prosecution has produced

as many as two witnesses to prove its version.

4.

Prosecution examined Smt. Bhawna as PW1 who

deposed that on 22.03.2014 at about 01:00 pm, she along with

her maid, namely, Rachna were going to New Bank of India,
Rajouri Garden in a cycle-rickshaw. PW1 further deposed that
when they reached just before the police chowki, suddenly one
motorcyclist came from behind and snatched her purse/handbag
forcibly from her arm. PW1 raised alarm, jumped from rickshaw
and sustained injuries. PW1 further deposed that she rushed to
Police Chowki and they sent her to PS Rajouri Garden in a cycle
rickshaw. Where police recorded her statement. PW1 proved her
complaint as Ex.PW1/A. PW1 further deposed that her purse was
FIR No.332/2014

State Vs. Ainar

Page No. 3 of 7

containing two gold sets, one diamond set, cash of Rs.4000/-, one
mobile phone make Nokia Asha having sim no.9811996611 and
key of bank locker at the time of theft. PW1 further deposed that
the snatcher was wearing helmet and his face was covered with a
handkerchief and he was healthy. The colour of motorcycle was
blue.

PW1 proved her mobile phone having IMEIs No.

355944055339261 and 355944055339279 as Ex.P1.

PW1

specifically deposed that she cannot identify the snatcher as she

had not seen his face at the time of occurrence.
4.1

During cross examination by Ld. APP, PW1 stated that

she cannot identify the accused present in the court as she had
not seen the face of the accused at the time of occurrence. During
cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 stated that she
has not handed over the bills of the stolen gold sets to the police
as same are not available with her.
5.

Prosecution examined ASI Senser Pal as PW1 who

deposed that on 22.03.2014 he was posted at PS Rajouri Garden

as DO from 04:00 PM to 12:00 mid night and on that day at about
06:25 PM, ASI Karambir handed over to him one rukka for
registration of FIR. PW1 further deposed that on the basis of said
rukka he registered the present FIR and proved the copy of same
FIR No.332/2014

State Vs. Ainar

Page No. 4 of 7

as Ex.PW2/A. PW2 also proved the endorsement on rukka as

Ex.PW2/B.
6.

Vide separate statement given by the accused on

06.06.2016, he admitted certain documents placed on record i.e.

Seizure Memo of Nokia Mobile Phone and Mobile Bill as Ex. P-1
and Ex. P-2, Site Plan as Ex. P-3. Accused further admitted the
documents i.e. Kalanadra U/s 41.1(d) Cr. P. C. of DD No. 2, PP
MIG Flats, PS Rajouri Garden, DD No. 2, PP MIG Flats, PS
Rajouri Garden, Seizure Memo of aforesaid Mobile Phone under
DD No. 2, Disclosure Statement of accused, Arrest memo and
Personal Search Memo

as Ex. P- 4 to Ex. P-9 respectively.

Thereafter, in view of admission of aforesaid document, at request

of Ld. APP, P.E. was closed.
7.

All the incriminating evidence/material was then put to

accused which he denied in his statement dated 07.06.2015

recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C submitting the present case to be false.
He wished however not to lead any defence evidence.
8.

Final arguments advanced. I have perused the case

record.
9.

Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that as per

testimony of PW2, the mobile phones were recovered from the

FIR No.332/2014

State Vs. Ainar

Page No. 5 of 7

possession of the accused but the accused never used that

phones and the prosecution also not produced any call detail
record to show that the accused ever used this phone hence, the
recovery from the accused does not support the story of the
prosecution and it is not incriminating against the accused Ainar.
10.

It is observed by this court that the accused had

admitted the seizure memo of mobile phone as Ex.P1 and nothing

remains to prove regarding possession of stolen property by the
accused. There is nothing on record to show that the PWs have
given any contradictory depositions or the testimony is doubtful in
any manner. Apart from any other thing, the accused himself has
admitted the seizure memo of the stolen case property and things
admitted by one party is need not to be proved by the counterpart.
11.

It is observed by this court that the PW1 has failed to

identify the accused and has specifically mentioned that she

cannot identify the accused as the accused was having
handkerchief at his face and accused was also wearing the helmet
at the time of occurrence so she is unable to identify the accused.
The prosecution has also failed to examine any other witness in
order to prove the allegations U/s 356/379 IPC against the
accused. Any of the witness not deposed even a single line
FIR No.332/2014

State Vs. Ainar

Page No. 6 of 7

regarding theft of property by the accused Ainar in their

presence. Hence, accused - Ainar is acquitted from the offence
u/s 356/379 IPC.
12.

In view of above observations, this court is of the

considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved

its case regarding possession of stolen property by the accused
and hence, the accused - Ainar is convicted for the offence
U/s 411 IPC. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the convict
free of cost.

Announced in the open Court

on this 07th Day of June, 2016

(AJAY KUMAR MALIK)

MM(West)-02/THC
07.06.2016.

FIR No.332/2014

State Vs. Ainar

Page No. 7 of 7

FIR No. 332/14

PS: Rajouri Garden
07.06.2016
Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Ainar along with Ld. Counsel.
Separate statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C.
recorded today in which accused wished to not
lead D.E.
Arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment of even date, accused
Ainar is acquitted for the offence U/s 356/379
IPC and he is convicted to the offence
punishable U/s 411 IPC.
Orders on quantum of sentence is also passed
today.
Bail Bond U/s 437 A Cr. P.C. furnished by the
accused. Same is perused and accepted.
Previous surety of the accused is discharged
from the present case. Original document of the
previous surety, if any, be released to him
against countersigned photocopy of the same.
File be consigned to Record Room after due
completion.
(AJAY KUMAR MALIK)
MM (West)-02/THC/DELHI
07.06.2016

FIR No.332/2014

State Vs. Ainar

Page No. 8 of 7