Delhi court sets aside conviction of 2 in theft case

New Delhi, Jun 27 (PTI) A Delhi court has set aside the conviction of two men in a 2017 case of theft and retaining stolen property, observing the circumstantial evidence did not connect them with the crime.
     Additional sessions judge Ravindra Kumar Pandey was hearing the appeals filed by two convicts against the July 2023 order of a magistrate convicting them for the offences under Sections 380 (theft in a dwelling house) and 411 (dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property) of IPC.
     One of the convicts, Suraj, died after his conviction.
     The prosecution alleged that the trio stole Rs 59.8 lakh from a house in Gautam Nagar area in September 2017 following which about Rs 36.68 lakh was recovered from them.
     In an order on June 5, the court said neither the exact date of the alleged theft was known to the complainant, nor had the prosecution proved it.
     "As per the statement of the complainant, Meenu Garg, the complaint was lodged on September 29, 2017, and on the next day, the information was given by the police regarding recovery of the stolen amount to the complainant and thereafter, the complainant and her family members went to the police station and they saw that Rs 36.68 lakhs were recovered by the police," the order said.
     The court said despite the complainant not being a part of the process of the recovery, her signatures were obtained on the recovery memo.
     The accused persons, along with others, were employed as painters at the complainant’s house, but the contractor and the other daily wagers were not involved in the investigation, let alone examined as witnesses, the order noted.
     "No public witness or independent witness was associated at the time of the alleged recovery at the instance of the convict persons," it added.
     The order continued, "The only evidence regarding the alleged recovery of the stolen amount at the instance of the convict persons is the statement of police officials who were part of the investigation team at the time of alleged recovery, and no videography or photography was conducted at the time of alleged recovery at the instance of the convict persons."
     The court further observed the alleged place of recovery was a public place and the evidence of theft against the trio was based on Garg's suspicion and the purported disclosure statements of the accused post arrest.
     "The circumstantial evidence as relied upon by the prosecution and by the trial court for convicting the appellants, as well as Suraj, does not conclusively lead to the only irresistible conclusion that convicts Javed, Farman and Suraj were the perpetrators of the crime of theft and nothing else," the court held.

(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)