IN THE COURT OF MANISHA BATRA,

SESSIONS JUDGE, PANIPAT.

Misc. Session Case No. 64 of 2019.

CIS No. SC-194 of 2019.
CNR No.HRPP01-006292-2019.
Date of Institution: 21.05.2019.
Date of Decision: 17.11.2021.

State Versus Ravi son of Subhash, resident of 237/8,

Kumhar Mohalla, Panipat.
…Accused.

FIR No. 261 dated 19.03.2019.

under Sections: 379-A of I.P.C.
Police Station: City., Panipat.

Case committed vide order dated 16.05.2019, passed

by Shri Jatin Garg, learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Panipat.

**********

Present: Shri R.K.Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor for the State.

Accused Ravi on bail in this case, but in custody in some
other case, represented by Shri Surender Singh, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

The above named accused has been sent up by Station House

Officer, Police Station City, Panipat, to stand trial for alleged commission

of offence punishable under Section 379-A of Indian Penal Code.

FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE

2. Broad contours of the case as set up by the prosecution in this

case are that on 19.03.2019, a written complaint was submitted by

(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-2-

complainant Jagdish Chawla alleging therein that on 18.03.2019, his

daughter Latasha Chawla was standing outside their house at about 4.00

pm while carrying a mobile phone of Vivo company make Y95, when a

youth riding on a scooty bearing registration no.HR-06AR-9986 reached

there and after snatching the mobile phone from his daughter, he fled

towards Bhawna Chowk. On this complaint, a case under Section 379-A

of IPC was immediately registered. Investigation proceedings were

initiated. Accused was arrested on the same day. He was interrogated and

suffered disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof, he got recovered

the snatched mobile phone as well as Activa scooty bearing registration

no.HR-06AR-9986, used at the time of occurrence. He also identified the

place of occurrence. The daughter of the complainant identified the

mobile phone to be her property and also identified the accused. Memo of

identification was prepared. After completion of the necessary

investigation and usual formalities, challan under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.

was presented in the Court for trial of the accused.

3. Copy of challan was supplied to the accused free of costs.

Vide order dated 16.05.2019, passed by Shri Jatin Garg, learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, the case had been committed to the Court of

Sessions for trial of the accused and had been kept on the cause of this

Court.

CHARGE SHEET

4. On finding a prima facie case for the commission of offence

(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-3-

punishable under Section 379-A of IPC, the accused was charge-sheeted

accordingly vide order dated 29.05.2019 to which he pleaded not guilty

and claimed trial.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as

six witnesses besides placing reliance upon certain documents and

thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. It will be proper to briefly refer

to the purport of the prosecution evidence which is as under:-

(i) PW1 Inspector Jitender deposed about preparing challan

report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. after completion of investigation

proceedings.

(ii) PW2 Head Constable Narender deposed about joining the

investigation on 19.03.2019, 20.03.2019 and 09.04.2019 and supported

the case of the prosecution. He deposed about attesting Ex.P1 and P2

memos of disclosure statements of accused as suffered on 19.03.2019 and

20.03.2019 respectively, Ex.P3 memo of demarcation of the place of

occurrence, Ex.P4 memo of recovery of snatched mobile phone and

Activa scooty bearing registration no.HR-06AR-9986, Ex.P5 memo of

identification of accused and of recovered snatched mobile phone as

attested by the daughter of the complainant, Ex.P6 photocopy of invoice

of mobile phone, Ex.P7 memo qua taking the bill of mobile phone into

custody, Ex.P7 registration certificate of Activa scooty bearing registration

(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-4-

no.HR-06AR-9986 and Ex.P9 memo qua taking the registration certificate

of above-said Activa vehicle in custody.

(iii) PW3 Sub Inspector Rajbir deposed about registering formal

FIR Ex.P10 on receipt of complaint and about making endorsement

Ex.P11 on the same. He also deposed about sending special reports of the

case.

(iv) PW4 ASI Sumit Kumar deposed about conducting

investigation w.e.f. 19.03.2021 and proved the investigation as carried out

by him leading to conclusion of all incriminating circumstances justifying

the prosecution of the accused for the commission of offences for which

he had been charge-sheeted from the stage of submission of the complaint

and lodging of FIR till the completion of investigation and also deposed

about the steps taken by him to complete the proceedings against the

accused till the preparation of the challan. Apart from the documents

already proved in evidence, he proved Ex.P12 rough site plan of the place

of occurrence and Ex.P13 rough sketch of the place of recovery.

(v) PW5 Jagdish Chawla, complainant deposed that on

18.03.2019, at about 4.00 pm, his daughter was present outside their house

while carrying a mobile phone make Vivo Y95, when a youth had come

on a scooty and after snatching her mobile phone, had fled away towards

Bhawna Chowk. He deposed that he was present at village Nissing at that

time and on 19.03.2019, he had submitted a written complaint Ex.P14 to

the police. He deposed that a CCTV camera was installed in a factory near

his house and after perusing the CCTV camera footage, the police had
(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-5-

noted the registration number of the above-said scooty. He stated that he

had not mentioned the number of the scooty of the snatcher in his

complaint, nor he remembered the same. This witness was declared hostile

on the request of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and was

allowed to be cross-examined by him. He was confronted with the

contents of his complaint Ex.P14. He admitted that the registration

number of the vehicle used in the subject crime was mentioned in his

complaint. He denied that he had deviated from the contents of his

complaint. He admitted that the police had recovered the mobile phone of

his daughter which had been released on superdari.

(vi) PW6 Latasha deposed that on 18.03.2019, at about 4.00 pm,

she was present outside her house and was carrying a mobile phone make

Vivo Y95, when a youth came on a scooty and after snatching her mobile

phone had fled away from the spot towards Bhawna Chowk. She stated

that she could not identify the accused, present in the Court as the snatcher

had worn helmet at that time and his face was not visible. She had also not

noted down the registration number of the scooty. She was also declared

hostile on the request of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and

was allowed to be cross-examined by him. She was confronted with the

contents of statement Ex.P15 alleged to have been recorded by her before

the police and admitted that in the said statement, the registration number

of the scooty vehicle had bee mentioned, but did not say that it was she

who had recorded the said statement. She was also confronted with

Ex.P16 memo of identification of mobile phone and the accused, but

(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-6-

while admitting that she had identified the mobile phone to be her

property, she stated that the identity of the accused was suspicious because

the snatcher had worn helmet at that time and stated that she had identified

only her mobile phone and not the accused. She stated that she had signed

memo Ex.P16 on the asking of the police.

STAND OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.

6. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, the

accused denied the entire incriminating evidence and circumstances

appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded innocence

and false implication in the present case. Initially, he opted to lead defence

evidence, but later on, closed the same without leading any.

7. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and

learned counsel for the accused and have perused the evidence and other

material available on record carefully.

PROSECUTION VERSION

8. It was argued by learned Public Prosecutor for the State that

there was sufficient, cogent and convincing evidence on record to prove

that an offence of snatching of mobile phone of the complainant had taken

place on 18.03.2019. The snatched mobile phone had been recovered at

the instance of the accused on the very next day at his instance and in

pursuance of his disclosure statement. The said disclosure statement was

fully admissible in evidence as it had not only led to recovery of the

snatched mobile phone, but also of the scooty which was involved in the
(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-7-

occurrence. The registration number of the said scooty was mentioned in

the complaint by the complainant himself and his daughter had also

disclosed the same in her sworn deposition. As such, the factum of

commission of offence of snatching and recovery of snatched property as

well as vehicle used in the subject crime had been established from the

evidence produced on record. Therefore, it was urged that the the charges

as framed against the accused stood fully proved and further that he had

become liable to be held guilty and convicted.

DEFENCE VERSION

9. Per contra, learned counsel for accused argued that the

prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused.

The prosecution case suffered from several material infirmities and there

was no direct incriminating evidence against the accused on record. The

complainant was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. His daughter

Latasha had not identified the accused as the snatcher. The disclosure

statement of the accused was not admissible in evidence. The recovery of

mobile phone at his instance was highly doubtful. The case of the

prosecution with regard to suffering disclosure statement by the accused

and with regard to recovery rested upon the police officials interested

witnesses which had not been corroborated by any independent evidence

and were also inconsistent. No genuine or sincere efforts were proved to

have been made by the prosecution to join any disinterested and

independent evidence at the time of recovery. Therefore, it was argued that

(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-8-

the guilt of the accused could not be proved beyond doubt and it was

urged that the accused deserved to be given benefit of doubt and was

entitled to be acquitted.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

10. On giving due consideration to the arguments as advanced by

learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused and on minute

scrutiny of the evidence produced on record, in my opinion, the following

points crop up for consideration:-

1. Whether the prosecution produced sufficient evidence

on record to prove that the present accused had snatched
mobile phone make Vivo Y95 from the possession of PW
Latasha i.e. daughter of the complainant and thereby had
committed an offence punishable under Section 379-A of
Indian Penal Code?
2. Final Order

REASONINGS FOR FINDING (POINT No.1)

11. As per the prosecution version, on 18.03.2019, at about 4.00

pm, the accused while riding on a scooty bearing registration no.HR-

06AR-9986, had snatched the mobile phone of the daughter of the

complainant while she was standing outside her house and had escaped

with the same. The incident is shown to have been reported to the police

on 19.03.2019 at about 12.40 pm i.e. after a gap of about 21 hours after

the incident. The complainant stated in his sworn deposition that on

18.03.2019, he was at village Nissing for his personal work and that is
(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-9-

why the complaint had been presented by him on 19.03.2019. He was not

controverted on this point. No suggestion was given to him to the effect

that the delay in reporting the matter to the police had resulted in causing

any prejudice to the accused. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve

the version of the complainant on the point that an incident of snatching of

mobile phone of his daughter had taken place on 18.03.2019. His version

is further supported by the testimony of his daughter PW6 Latasha who

too deposed so and her statement remained unshattered on that point. As

such, it stands proved that offence of snatching of mobile phone from the

daughter of the complainant had taken place on 18.03.2019. Then, PW2

HC Narender deposed that the photocopy of invoice regarding purchase of

mobile phone make Vivo Y95 in the name of the complainant had been

handed over by the complainant which was proved by him as Ex.P6. The

IMEI number of the mobile phone which is shown to be purchased by the

complainant vide this bill is the same as is mentioned in memo of

identification as well as memo of recovery. Therefore, it also stands

proved that the snatched mobile phone was owned by the complainant and

was used by his daughter.

12. Now, the next question that arises for consideration is as to

whether it was the accused who had snatched the mobile phone of the

complainant and had escaped with the same, thereby committing the

offence of snatching? In this regard, it may be stated that though PW6

Latasha supported the version of the prosecution with regard to offence of

snatching taking place with her, but she stated during her examination that
(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-10-

she could not identify the snatcher as he was wearing a helmet at that time

and his face was not visible. She did not identify the accused as the

snatcher of her phone, even despite the fact that she was declared hostile

and was subjected to incisive questions of cross-examination by learned

Public Prosecutor. Therefore, her testimony did not help the prosecution in

proving that it was the accused who had snatched the mobile phone from

PW6 Latasha. PW5 Jagdish Chawla, complainant was not an eye-witness

to the incident and his testimony also proved that he had not seen the

snatcher. The version of the prosecution is that the complainant as well as

PW6 had disclosed the registration number of the Activa scooty which

was used by the snatcher at the time of snatching mobile phone from PW6

and this scooty as well as mobile phone of the complainant were

recovered from the accused on 20.03.2019. No doubt, in the complaint

Ex.P14, it was mentioned that the snatcher had come while riding on the

scooty bearing registration no.HR-06AR-9986. However, in his sworn

deposition, the complainant stated that in his complaint made to the

police, he had not mentioned the registration number of the scooty used by

the snatcher. It was stated by him that a CCTV camera was installed in a

factory near his house and the police had noted down the registration

number of the scooty from the footage of the said CCTV camera. Though

on being declared hostile and during cross-examination by learned Public

Prosecutor, he admitted his signatures on complaint Ex.P14, but still did

not say that he had disclosed the registration number of the vehicle used

by the snatcher. Therefore, by examining this witness, the prosecution

(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-11-

could not extract any incriminating evidence to the effect that the scooty

bearing registration no.HR-06AR-9986 was used for commission of

offence of snatching. Then coming to the testimony of PW6 Latasha. She

also stated that she had not noted down the registration number of the

vehicle used by the snatcher. She was confronted with the contents of her

statement Ex.P15 as recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., wherein the

registration number of the scooty had been mentioned, but still did not say

that she had made any such statement that the offence was committed by

the rider of the above-mentioned vehicle. . No doubt, it is revealed from

the record that the registration certificate of the above-mentioned scooty

was in the name of Chanchal Sharma, mother of the accused and she had

produced the registration certificate of the same before the police.

However, on the basis of this fact, it cannot be presumed that the vehicle

no.HR-06AR-9986 was involved in the occurrence in view of the fact that

while appearing into the witness box, neither PW5 nor PW6 stated that

they had disclosed the registration number of the vehicle used in the crime

of snatching. Hence, in my opinion, by examining PW5 and PW6,

prosecution has filed to extract any incriminating evidence to the effect

that it was the scooty bearing no.HR-06AR-9986 owned by the mother of

the accused which was used for committed the subject offence. As

mentioned above, PW5 had stated that the registration number of the

vehicle used for the purpose of committing offence of snatching was noted

by the police by checking the CCTV footage from the camera installed in

front of his house, however, neither the investigating officer nor any other
(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-12-

police official witness stated so. Therefore, it has remained unexplained as

to how the vehicle bearing registration no.HR-06AR-9986 was involved

in the case. There is no other eye-witness account of the offence of

snatching of mobile phone carried by PW6 Latasha, therefore, it emerges

that the prosecution has filed to produce any direct, cogent and convincing

evidence of such nature on record which could be acted and relied upon

beyond doubt to prove that the accused had committed the offence of

snatching.

13. The prosecution further rested its case upon the evidence as

to suffering of disclosure statement by the accused vide memo Ex.P1 on

19.03.2019 and vide memo Ex.P2 on 20.03.2019 and consequent

demarcation of the place of occurrence and recovery of the snatched

mobile phone as well as Activa vehicle bearing no.HR-06AR-9986.

Prosecution examined PW2 HC Narender and PW4 ASI Sumit Kumar to

prove these allegations. So far as the disclosure statement stated to be

suffered by the accused vide memo Ex.P1 is concerned, it may be stated

that the The inculpatory part of this disclosure statement cannot be stated

to be admissible in evidence due to the reason that the same is

confessional in nature and is suffered in the custody of the police and did

not lead to recovery of any new or distinct fact. Further, so far the

disclosure statement stated to be suffered by the accused vide memo

Ex.P2 is concerned, PW2 HC Narender and PW4 ASI Sumit deposed that

the accused had suffered this disclosure statement in their presence and in

pursuance thereof, he had demarcated the place of occurrence and then got
(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-13-

recovered the snatched mobile and Activa scooty bearing no.HR-06AR-

9986. As already discussed that it has not been proved that the Activa

vehicle bearing no.HR-06AR-9986 was used in the subject crime.

However, so far as the recovery of the snatched mobile phone in

pursuance of disclosure statement of accused is concerned, the statements

of PW2 and PW4 in this regard were consistent. Both these witnesses

deposed in unison about the factum of suffering of disclosure statement

Ex.P2 by the accused and leading of the same to the recovery of the Vivo

Y95 mobile phone belonging to the complainant. They were cross-

examined in detail by the learned counsel for the accused on this point,

but the credit of their statements could not be shattered by the defence

side. No doubt, their statements are not corroborated by any independent

evidence. However, non-joining of independent witness is not a sine qua

non for acting upon the statements of both these witnesses. It is well

recognized principle of law that prima facie public servants must be

presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be

assessed on its intrinsic worth and their statements cannot be discarded

merely because of their official status. The defence side failed to point out

any defect in statements of both these witnesses to the extent to which the

same were concerned with regard to factum of recovery of mobile phone

snatched from the daughter of the complainant. The complainant also

stated that the police had shown the recovery of the mobile phone from

the accused and he had identified the same. No material inconsistency

whatsoever could be pointed out in the statements of PW2 and PW4 on

(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-14-

the point of recovery on the basis of which it could be stated that their

statements were no worthy of credence. In such circumstances, I see no

reason as to why it should not be believed that the recovery of snatched

mobile phone was effected at the instance of accused. These witnesses

also disclosed that accused had demarcated the place of occurrence on

20.03.2019. No doubt, the rough site plan of the place of occurrence had

already been prepared by the investigating officer on 19.03.2019 and the

same was known to him, however, still the identification of the same by

the accused was a relevant circumstance pointing towards his act and

conduct of identifying the place of occurrence and was admissible in

evidence. The snatched mobile phone had admittedly been taken on

superdari by the complainant. Though the same had not been produced in

the Court, but non-production of the same during trial was not a

circumstance on the basis of which it could be stated that the same had not

been snatched from the daughter of the complainant and was not

recovered from the accused. The testimonies of PW3 and PW4 have

remained unshattered and nothing could be extracted from their statements

on the basis of which it could be stated that the accused did not get

recovered the snatched mobile phone from his possession in the presence

of these witnesses and they were deposing falsely. Hence, it is held that

the statements of both these witnesses can certainly be acted and relied

upon beyond probabilities of all reasonable doubts to prove that the

snatched property was recovered at the instance of the accused. It is well

settled that once the property is proved to have been stolen/snatched

(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-15-

property and has been properly identified, the possession of the stolen

property or retention of it, knowing it to have been stolen will amount to

an offence. The snatched mobile phone was recovered from the accused

just next day after lodging of FIR. It was not necessary for the prosecution

to prove as to from whom the accused received the stolen property. He

failed to give any explanation as to how and in what manner, he retained

the same. Therefore, it stands established that he received or retained the

stolen/snatched property, such retention was dishonest and further that he

knew that the property so received and retained by him was

stolen/snatched property. As such, though he is not proved to have

committed the offence punishable under Section 379-A of IPC, but cogent

and convincing evidence had been brought on record by the prosecution to

prove the factum of offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC as

against him. With these observations, it is held that the prosecution has

succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused for commission of

offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC which being an offence

punishable with a lesser sentence than the offence punishable under

Section 379-A of IPC, the accused can be held guilty and convicted

thereunder without framing a formal charge thereunder. Accordingly, he is

held guilty and convicted under Section 411 of IPC for retaining the

stolen/snatched property. The point for determination i.e. point no.1 is

accordingly decided.

14. No other point has been urged before me or survived for

consideration.
(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-16-

FINAL ORDER

15. As a sequel to above discussion and for the reasons given

while deciding point no.1, it is held that the prosecution has failed to

prove beyond doubt that accused committed the offence of snatching in

the manner as defined under Section 379-A of IPC and as such, he is

acquitted of the charge as framed against him for commission of offence

punishable under Section 379A of IPC. However, the prosecution has

successfully proved its case to the effect that the snatched mobile phone

was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused and he

retained it while fully knowing that it was the stolen/snatched property.

Therefore, he is held guilty and convicted for the commission of offence

punishable under Section 411 of IPC. Accused Ravi, who is on bail in this

case, but in custody, be taken into custody in this case also. Let, the

prosecution and the convict lead evidence and heard on quantum of

sentence. For this purpose a date is requested. Granted. To come up on

18.11.2021 for leading evidence if any and hearing arguments on quantum

of sentence.

Announced in open Court:

17.11.2021. (Manisha Batra)
Sessions Judge, Panipat,
(Asha Rani)
Stenographer Gr-I. UID No.HR0036.

All the pages of this judgment have been checked and signed by me.

(Manisha Batra)
Sessions Judge, Panipat,
17.11.2021.
UID No.HR0036.

(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.
 State Versus Ravi
-17-

(Manisha Batra)
SJ, Panipat: 17.11.2021.