Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 1 of 18
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHUPINDER SINGH,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR NO. DLCT01-010435-2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 187/2023
Arising out of FIR no. 160/2012 u/s 392/394/411/34 IPC
PS Timarpur
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. 	Suresh Yadav S/o Sh. Jhari Yadav
2. 	Manoj Yadav S/o Sh. Sona Yadav
3. 	Laxman Yadav S/o Sh. Babu Lal Yadav
All R/o Village Kakuria Thami,
District Koderma, Jharkhand.
…….Appellants
Versus
The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
……..Respondent
Instituted on 	:02.08.2023
Reserved on 	:28.03.2026
Pronounced on 	:27.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide instant appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment
of conviction dated 24.01.2023 and order on sentence dated
03.06.2023 passed by Ld. MM, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi in FIR no. 160/2012 u/s 392/397/411 IPC PS Timarpur in
-- 1 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 2 of 18
case titled as ‘ State Vs. Suresh Yadav & Ors’ , whereby
Appellant/convict was convicted for offence u/s 392/411/34 IPC.
The present appeal has been preferred by appellants/ convicts
challenging their convictions for the said offences and order on
sentence emanating therefrom.
2. The factual gamut involved in the present appeal as is culled out
from the impugned order dated 24.01.2023:-
“The story of the prosecution, in brief, is that the case of
the prosecution in nutshell is that on 15.07.2012 at about
09.00 pm at House No. 52, B D Estate, Timarpur, Delhi,
within the jurisdiction of PS Timarpur, accused Suresh
Yadav, Laxman Yadav and Manoj Yadav alongwith one
Hiraman Yadav @ Ramu (since juvenile) robbed the
complainant of two gold rings having diamond affixed,
one gold chain, Rs. 80,000/-, three Samsung mobiles and
while committing robbery accused persons wrongfully
restrained complainant and his wife and caused fear of
instant hurt by showing knife to them. On 19.07.2012
recovery was effected from accused Manoj Yadav and
Suresh Yadav.”
3. Investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet u/s
392/397/411/34 IPC was prepared and same was sent to the Court
for trial. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken by the ld.
Trial Court and the provisions of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C were
complied with by the ld. Trial Court and the matter was committed
to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 30.10.2012.
4. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, vide order dated
21.01.2013, Ld. ASJ discharged the accused persons for the
offence u/s 397 IPC and charges were ordered to be framed for the
offence u/s 392/411/34 IPC against the accused persons and the
matter was sent back to the Ld. CMM for trial.
-- 2 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 3 of 18
5. Ld. MM framed charges against the accused persons in terms of
order dated 21.01.2013 of Ld. ASJ to which the accused persons
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
7. Subsequently, the prosecution proposed to examine 17 witnesses.
However, only fifteen witnesses were examined by the
prosecution. PWs Smt. Kaushalya Devi, wife of the complainant
and Ms. Leelawati, maid of the complainant were dropped vide
order dated 08.02.2018 and 24.03.2018 of Ld. Trial Court since
Smt. Kaushalya Devi had unfortunately expired whereas Ms.
Leelawati was not traceable.
8. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to make a brief mention
of the role and deposition of theses prosecution witnesses. The
detail deposition of the witnesses is not being adverted to, as the
same shall be referred to while dealing with the necessary
ingredients of the offense, with which the accused has been
charged, vis-a-vis the rival contentions advanced by the Ld.
Addl.PP for the state as well as the ld. Counsel for the appellants.
Even the detailed cross examination of these witnesses is not being
mentioned for the sake of brevity, but the same shall be referred to
during the course of appreciating the legal as well as the factual
issues advanced by the parties.
i. PW1 is HC Narayand Dass,Duty Officer. He proved the
computerized copy of the FIR Ex. PW-1/A, rukka Ex. PW-1/B
and certificate u.s 65 B of IE Act.
ii. PW2 is Amit Kumar, driver of the complainant. He was present
with police team during arrest/apprehension of accused persons
and recovery of the case property.
-- 3 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 4 of 18
iii. PW3 is Sh. Bishan Dass @ Kishan Dass, the complainant. He
proved his complaint Ex. PW-3/A and original bills of the
Samsung phone, gold chain and diamond ring as Ex. PW-3/B.
iv. PW4 is Israr Babu, Alernative Nodal Officer, Vodafone. He
produced the summon record i.e. original CAF of the mobile
phone no. 9873217032 and proved the attested copy of the
same Ex. PW-4/A (OSR), attested copy of ID proof of Election
card Asif Ali Ex. PW-4/B. He also produced the certified copy
of call detail record of the above said mobile number and
proved the same Ex. PW-4/C and certificate u/s 65B of IE Act
as Ex. PW-4/D. He also produced cell ID chart of the same and
proved the same as Ex. PW-4/E.
v. PW5 is Sh. Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel. He
produced the summoned record i.e. original CAF of the mobile
phone no. 8800608921 and proved the attested copy of the
same as Ex. PW-5/A (OSR) and attested copy of ID proof of
Election card of Anil Kumar Yadav as Ex. PW-5/B. He also
produced CAF from mobile no. 9810625155 and proved the
same as Ex. PW-5/C and attested copy ID proof of driving
license as Ex. PW-5/D. He also proved call detail record of the
above said mobile numbers as Ex. PW-5/E and Ex. PW-5/F,
certificate as Ex. PW-5/G and cell ID chart as Ex. PW-5/H.
vi. PW6 is Ct. Irshad Ahmed, the photographer. He proved
photographs of the spot along with its negatives as Ex. P-6 and
Ex. P-7 respectively.
vii. PW7 is ASI Jai Singh, member of Crime team North District.
He proved his report as Ex. PW-7/A.
viii. PW8 is HC Prem Chand, MHC(M). He proved the entry in
register no. 19 at serial no. 3369 as Ex. PW-8/A.
ix. PW-9 is SI Vikram Dahiya. He joined the investigation of the
present case along with IO/SI Anand. He proved the seizure of
the mobile phone recovered from the accused Manoj Yadav,
arrest memo, personal search and disclosure statement of the
accused Manoj Yadav as Ex. PW-9/A to Ex. PW-9/D
respectively. He also proved the seizure of the diamond ring
recovered from the accused Suresh Yadav, arrest memo,
personal search and disclosure statement of the accused Suresh
Yadav as Ex. PW-9/E to Ex. PW-9/H respectively. He also
proved the seizure of the gold chain recovered from the
accused Laxman, arrest memo, personal search and disclosure
-- 4 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 5 of 18
statement of the accused Laxman as Ex. PW-9/I to Ex. PW-9/L
respectively. He also proved further disclosure statement of the
accused Laxman as Ex. PW-9/M, pointing out memo prepared
at the instance of the accused persons as Ex. PW-9/N1 to Ex.
PW-9/N4. He also proved sketch memo of the knife recovered
at the instance of the accused Laxman as Ex. PW-9/N5 and its
seizure memo as Ex. PW-9/O. He also proved sketch memo of
the knife recovered at the instance of the accused Suresh Yadav
as Ex. PW-9/O1 and its seizure memo as Ex. PW-9/O2. He
correctly identified the case properties as Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-6.
x. PW-10 is Sh. Sanjeev Singhania, Son of the complainant.
xi. PW-11 Ms. Aparna Swami, Ld. MM, who proved the TIP
proceedings of the case property as Ex. PW-11/A to Ex. PW-
11/C.
xii. PW-12 is Ms. Madhu, daughter-in-law of the complainant.
xiii. PW-13 is Sh. Vivek Bansal, who proved the photocopies of
bills of Samsung Mobile phone (already Ex. PW-3/B) as Ex.
PW-13/A and Ex. PW-13/B.
xiv. PW-14 is IO/Inspector Anand Singh. He deposed about the step
taken by him in the investigation. He proved the rukka , site
plan and application for conducting TIP of the accused persons
as Ex. PW-14/A to Ex. PW-14/C respectively. He also
identified the case property Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-6.
xv. PW-15 is HC Shiv Singh, who went to the spot along with IO.
9. The appellants/convicts in their separate statements u/s 294 of the
Cr.P.C., admitted the genuineness of the TIP proceedings and same
were proved as Mark L to Mark N.
10.After, conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of
appellants/accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C,
wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them.
Appellants/ convicts denied the same as incorrect and claimed to
be falsely implicated by the IO at the behest of the complainant. It
was stated by the appellants that they do not wish to lead any DE.
11.Vide impugned judgment, after relying upon the testimonies of the
-- 5 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 6 of 18
complainant and the police officials, Ld. Trial Court convicted the
appellants for offence u/s 392/34 IPC. Further, appellants namely
Suresh Yadav, Laxman Yadav and Manoj Yadav were also
convicted for offence u/s 411 IPC.
12.Vide separate order on sentence, appellants were sentenced as
under:-
a) Convict Suresh Yadav was sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- only for committing an offence punishable under
Section 392/34 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-only for committing an offence punishable under Section
411 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further
undergo RI for 3 months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was
granted to him. Both the imprisonments were directed to run
concurrently. He was further directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- towards
prosecution expenses.
b) Convict Manoj Yadav was sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/- only for committing an offence punishable under Section
392/34 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for a period of 3 and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-only for committing
an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. In default of
payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo RI for 3
months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was granted to him. Both
the imprisonments were directed to run concurrently. He was
further directed to pay Rs.3500/- towards prosecution expenses.
c) 	Convict Laxman was sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- only for committing an offence punishable under
Section 392/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed
to further undergo RI for 3 months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
was granted to him. He was further directed to pay Rs.3469/-
towards prosecution expenses.
13.The appellants are aggrieved with the impugned judgment and
order on sentence emanating therefrom and have assailed the same
-- 6 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 7 of 18
on the following grounds:-
i. Because the impugned judgment and order on sentence are otherwise are
bad in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case, hence liable to be
set aside;
ii. Because the impugned judgment and order are based on conjecture and
surmises and inconsistent with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court;
iii. Because the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and has been
passed without appreciating the vital issues raised by the appellant, hence
the same deserves to be set aside.
iv. Because the Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record on the basis
of assumption and presumption and it appears by going through the content of the
judgment that all along the Learned Trial Court has been in the exercise of filling the
lacunae of prosecution story by one way or the other and by giving some imaginary
thoughts which were never supported by any witnesses during trial.
v. Because the Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the
witnesses examined by the prosecution have contradicted themselves in
material particulars.
vi. Because the ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that no independent
witness was examined despite their availability
vii. Because the Ld. Trial Court has not given weightage to the confrontation
and contradictions came during the cross-examination of the witnesses
and undue weightage has been given to the examination in chief of the
witnesses, despite that they contradicted their statements in their cross-
examinations. It has been stated that there is contradictions regarding the
employment of PW-2/Sh. Amit and as to who had purchased his ticket for
going to the place of resident of the appellant for the purpose of his
arrest/recovery.
viii. Because the Ld. Trial court failed to appreciate the fact that there was no
substantial evidence against the appellants during the whole trial.
ix. Because the Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and
merely has taken into consideration the evidence which is against the
appellant. The evidence favouring the appellants has neither been
discussed nor been made part and parcel of the judgment.
x. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the police officials
did not prove their arrival/departure entries of date and there is an
unexplained of gap of one hour.
xi. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that no independent
witnesses were cited.
14.Ld. Counsel for appellants has argued on the line of grounds taken
in the instant appeal. On the strength of these grounds/arguments,
-- 7 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 8 of 18
appellants seeks acquittal.
15.Per contra, Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/respondent
has opposed the appeal, stating that prosecution has proved its case
against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and learned
Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced them.
16.I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.
17.In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove
the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of
doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. 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.
18.It is well settled principle of law that the prosecution has to prove
the case beyond reasonable doubt and has to stand upon on its own
legs. The prosecution also cannot draw any strength from the case
of the accused howsoever weak it may be. It is also well settled
proposition of criminal law that the accused has a profound right
not to be convicted for an offence which is not established by the
evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is also
well settled principle of law that in a criminal trial the burden of
proof always rests upon the prosecution and the same never shifts
onto the accused.
19.Now the question which arises for the consideration is that
whether the prosecution has been able to produce such evidence on
the record which warrant the conviction of the accused persons on
the touch stone of golden principal of criminal jurisprudence that
-- 8 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 9 of 18
the guilt of the accused persons has been proved beyond the
reasonable doubt.
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
20. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the record, this Court proceeds
to examine whether the essential ingredients of the offences al-
leged stand established and whether the conviction recorded by the
Trial Court calls for interference.
21.To bring home an offence under Section 392 IPC, the prosecution
is required to prove that theft was committed and that, in the course
of such commission or in carrying away the stolen property, the of-
fender voluntarily caused or attempted to cause death, hurt, wrong-
ful restraint, or fear of instant death or hurt.
22. Complainant Sh. Bishan Dass @ Kishan Dass on being examined
as PW-3 deposed that on 15.07.2012, when he along with his wife
Kaushalya Devi, his servant Ramu and one maid Leela were pre-
sent at their house, someone knocked the door at about 9:00 PM
which was opened by his servant Ramu, whereupon three persons
carrying knives along with his servant Ramu entered his room
where he was present along with his wife. He deposed that they
were threatened by saying ‘agar bologe to tumhe jaan se maar
denge”. He deposed that after taking key of the almirah, they stole
some articles which on being checked later on found to be consist-
ing of two diamond studded gold rings, Rs. 80,000/-, three mobile
phones. He deposed that his gold chain that was worn by him was
also taken. He deposed that accused persons ran away along with
-- 9 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 10 of 18
his servant Ramu after they locked themselves in the room. He
identified the accused persons present in the Court that day. He al-
so identified the case properties i.e. one gold chain, one diamond
ring and one mobile phone make Samsung, which were taken by
him on superdari and proved the same as Ex. P-1 to P-3 respective-
ly. He also proved the original bills of Samsung phone, gold chain
and diamond ring as Ex. PW-3/B. The authenticity of the bills of
the mobile phones were corobborated by PW-13 Sh. Vivek Bansal,
owner of Kanhaiya Watch Company Chandni Chowk by his record
and copy of the said bills of the mobile phones were proved as Ex.
PW-13/A and Ex. PW-13/B respectively. The case property, after
its recovery was subjected to TIP proceedings and same were
proved as Ex. PW-11/A by Ld. MM, who was not cross-examined
by the accused persons.
23. Despite having been cross-examined, at length nothing in favour
of defence could be elicited from PW-3/complainant, who stood
firm on his testimony regarding identity of the accused persons and
the case property. He detailed about hte sequence of events that un-
folded after the accued persons entered his house. He denied the
suggestion that the accused persons were identified at the instance
of IO after being seen in the Court on last 2-3 dates. No suggestion,
leave apart any motive of any animosity of him with the accused
persons thus the appellant was given. Though, not required as such
but he proved the owner of the case property, through the original
bills. Moreover, the accused persons had denied participating in
TIP proceedings Mark L, M and N. The reasons mentioned in the
-- 10 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 11 of 18
TIP proceedings is that their photographs were taken at PS and
were shown to the witnesses. However, the complainat/PW-3 was
given such suggestion but he has seen the accused persons in the
Court itself. The same is sufficient to draw an adverse inference
against them.
24. PW-10 Sh. Sanjeev Singhania, son of the complainant and PW-12
Ms. Madhu, daughter in law of the complainant have supported a
case of the complainant. They deposed that they were out for din-
ner and the complainant, his wife, the maid and Servant
Ramu/Chhotu were at home and when they reached home, they
found some articles scattered and the complainant and his wife in
frightened condition. They deposed that they were narrated about
the incident that happened.
25. PW-14 IO Inspector Anand Singh deposed that after following the
standard drill of collecting evidence, including calling crime team
on the spot, on the basis of call detail of record of accused Ramu,
he came to know that he was in touch with two other mobile nos.
8800608921 and 9873217032 which as per location chart, were at
the same place of the incident at the relevant time i.e. 9:00 PM.
The said deposition was corobborted by the testimony of PW-4 Sh.
Israr Babu and PW-5 Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer of Vodafone
and Airtel Ltd. The documents including CDRs of the aforeaid
mobile numbers, the CAF record and the locational charts which
were proved by them as Ex. PW-4/A to Ex. PW-4/E and Ex. PW-
5/A to Ex. PW-5/H confirms the presence of the aforesaid mobile
phones at the same place of incident. No suggestions were given to
-- 11 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 12 of 18
the witnesses at the aforsaid numbers do not belong to the accused
persons and that they have no relation with the persons to whom
the aforesaid numbers have been allotted. The SIMs of Airtel were
recovered from the accused Manoj Yadav, Laxman Yadav and also
from accused Suresh Yadav in their personal searches. The sugges-
tions were given to IO that the aforesaid numbers do not belong to
the accused persons but no positve evidence was brought on record
that if not these then what numbers were being used by the accused
persons at the relevant time and they had no connection with the
persons to whom the same were allotted.
26.As such, the presence of the accused persons at the spot at the rele-
vant time stands proved in view of the inter se corroboration of
PWs vis-a-vis the document produced by Nodal Officers of the
concerned telecom companies.
27. The recovery of the case property has also been proved through
the testimonies of PW-2 Sh. Amit Kumar, PW-9 SI Vikram Dahiya
and PW-14 IO SI Anand Singh.
28.The testimony of the complainant, being that of an eye-witness,
carries great evidentiary value. It is a settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of
a trustworthy eye-witness if it inspires confidence. In the present
case, the complainant has withstood cross-examination and has
consistently identified the accused persons in Court. No material
contradiction or improvement has been elicited which would ren-
der his testimony unreliable. His version stands duly corroborated
by PW-10 Sh.Sanjeev Singhania, his son and PW-12 Ms.Madhu,
-- 12 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 13 of 18
his daughter in law MM as well as by the recovery of stolen prop-
erty. There is nothing on record to suggest any prior enmity or mo-
tive for false implication. Significantly, no complaint whatsoever
has been made by the accused persons alleging false implication at
any stage.
29.The conduct of the appellants/accused persons is also relevant. No
plea of alibi has been taken by any of them, nor has any defence
evidence been led. The prosecution evidence, therefore, remains
largely unrebutted. Even the material aspects such as CDR analysis
and location of mobile numbers connecting the accused persons
with the place of incident have gone unchallenged in cross-
examination. In such circumstances, the accused have failed to
probabilise any alternative version or to create any reasonable
doubt in the prosecution case.
30.The recoveries effected in the present case further lend strong as-
surance to the prosecution story. Stolen articles, including mobile
phone, jewellery and cash, have been recovered from the posses-
sion of the accused persons. The recovered property corresponds to
the very property robbed from the complainant, and the same has
been duly identified, with supporting documents such as bills
placed on record. The recoveries have been affected on the basis of
technical surveillance and investigation, including call detail rec-
ords, which connect the accused persons with each other and with
the place of occurrence. The testimony of police officials in this
regard cannot be discarded merely on the ground of their official
status, particularly when no material contradiction or motive for
-- 13 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 14 of 18
false implication has been shown. It is well settled that police wit-
nesses are as competent and reliable as any other witnesses unless
their testimony is shown to be untrustworthy.
31.The testimony of the complainant Bishan Dass@Kishan Dass, an
elderly witness aged about 80 years, clearly establishes that three
persons armed with knives forcibly entered his house, threatened
him and his wife, and took away jewellery, cash and mobile
phones. The element of fear of instant hurt is thus clearly made
out. The presence of deadly weapons and the manner of commis-
sion leave no manner of doubt that the act amounts to robbery pun-
ishable under Section 392 IPC.
32.The participation of the appellants/accused persons in the commis-
sion of the offence, acting in concert and with pre-arranged plan, is
evident from the manner in which the crime was executed. Their
coordinated entry, use of weapons, and collective escape along
with the servant clearly establish that the act was done in further-
ance of their common intention, thereby attracting Section 34 IPC.
33.The conviction has been assailed on multiple grounds; however,
none of them create any dent in the otherwise cogent and reliable
prosecution case.
34.The contention that the complainant could not specify as to with
which family member or entity the driver PW-2/Sh. Amit was at-
tached is wholly inconsequential. The presence of the driver was
only in the context of assisting the police team in reaching the na-
tive place of the accused persons and such a peripheral detail has
no bearing on the core incident of robbery or the subsequent recov-
-- 14 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 15 of 18
ery. Minor lapses of memory, particularly from an elderly witness,
are but natural and do not affect the substratum of the prosecution
case.
35.The argument that the police officials did not prove their arrival
and departure entries is also not fatal. These are procedural aspects,
and in the absence of any suggestion of fabrication or manipula-
tion, non-production of such entries does not by itself render the
entire investigation doubtful. Similarly, the alleged gap of about
one hour in reporting the incident to the police stands reasonably
explained in the facts of the case. The victims were elderly persons
who had just undergone a traumatic incident involving threat to life
with deadly weapons, and some delay in composing themselves
and informing their family members cannot be termed as unnatural
or fatal.
36.The non-joining of public witnesses and the absence of notice to
such persons is another ground raised, which also does not per-
suade this Court. It is a matter of common experience that public
persons are generally reluctant to join police proceedings. In the
present case, the recovery has been duly proved through the testi-
mony of police officials, which has remained largely unchallenged.
PW-14/IO Inspector Anand Singh had stated that he had asked by
passersby to join the investigation but none agreed. There is no
material on record to suggest any animus or motive for false impli-
cation. Merely because no independent witness was joined, the
otherwise reliable evidence cannot be discarded.
-- 15 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 16 of 18
37.The contention that one of the police witnesses could not state the
model number of the recovered Samsung mobile phone is again a
trivial omission. What is material is the factum of recovery and its
identification as part of the stolen property, which stands duly es-
tablished through other evidence, including documentary proof and
identification by the complainant. Such minor discrepancies are
bound to occur and do not affect the credibility of the recovery.
38.The argument that no photographs were taken at the time of recov-
ery is also of no consequence. There is no legal mandate requiring
that every recovery must be photographed. The recovery proceed-
ings have been duly proved through oral testimony, and in the ab-
sence of any material contradiction, the same cannot be disbelieved
on this ground alone.
39.As regards the discrepancy pertaining to the purchase of the train
ticket of driver PW-2 , Amit, whether it was purchased by the
complainant or by the police officials, the same is a minor incon-
sistency which does not go to the root of the prosecution case.
Such variations are natural when different witnesses depose after
passage of time and do not affect the core prosecution story.
40.In totality, the grounds raised by the appellants are either trivial,
procedural, or relate to minor inconsistencies which do not strike at
the foundation of the prosecution case. The evidence on record,
particularly the consistent testimony of the eye-witness, corrobo-
rated by recovery of stolen property and technical evidence, re-
mains intact and trustworthy. The defence has failed to point out
any material contradiction or circumstance which would create a
-- 16 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 17 of 18
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the challenge to the conviction on
these grounds is rejected.
41.Insofar as the applicability of Section 411 IPC is concerned, the
same does not sustain in the facts of the present case. Section 411
IPC contemplates dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property
knowing it to be stolen. However, where the accused persons
themselves are proved to be the perpetrators of the robbery and the
recovery of stolen property is a direct consequence of such offence,
they cannot simultaneously be held liable as receivers of the same
stolen property. There is no evidence to suggest that the accused
received the stolen property from any independent source. Accord-
ingly, their possession of the stolen articles is part and parcel of the
offence of robbery itself and not a distinct offence under Section
411 IPC.
42.It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecu-
tion is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; howev-
er, this does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. What is re-
quired is the exclusion of reasonable doubt, and not every fanciful
or imaginary doubt. The doubt must be real, substantial and such as
would appeal to a prudent mind. At the same time, it is equally
well settled that there is no such thing as a perfect investigation.
Investigation being a human endeavour is bound to suffer from
certain lapses or omissions, and such defects by themselves do not
vitiate the prosecution case unless they go to the root of the matter
and cause prejudice to the accused. Conversely, where the investi-
gation appears to be unnaturally flawless or tailored, the Court
-- 17 of 18 --
CA 187/2023 	Suresh Yadav Vs. The State 	Page No. 18 of 18
must exercise greater caution and subject the evidence to closer
scrutiny.
43.Ultimately, it is not the perceived imperfections in investigation or
absence of independent witnesses, but the intrinsic quality, credi-
bility and reliability of the evidence on record which must satisfy
the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
44.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt insofar as the offence under Sections 392/34 IPC is con-
cerned. The testimony of the eye-witness/complainant/PW-3 is re-
liable and duly corroborated, the recoveries are credible and duly
proved, and the defence has failed to raise any plausible doubt.
However, the conviction under Section 411 IPC is not legally sus-
tainable and is accordingly set aside. The conviction of the accused
persons under Sections 392/34 IPC is upheld, and the appeal stands
dismissed to that extent.
45.The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.
46.The order of sentence is consequentially set aside and now the mat-
ter be listed for arguments on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court
(Judgment contains 18 pages)
(Bhupinder Singh)
ASJ-05, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
27.03.2026
-- 18 of 18 --