IMPORTANT POINT
The testimony of the complainant as the victim should be accorded great weightage unless there are strong grounds for rejection.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Kumar Jain, J. - The present appeal is filed under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') read with section 482 of the Code to impugn the judgment dated 25.01.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned judgment') passed by the court of Sh. M.R. Sethi, ASJ-03, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court') whereby the respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 397/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. The factual background of the case is that Nitin (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') on 14.06.2016 at about 07:30 pm was going back to his house after playing and reached Basant Chowk, Sultanpuri, Delhi where one boy caught hold of him and tried to snatch his mobile phone. The complainant resisted snatching of mobile and then said boy put a knife on the abdomen of the complainant and snatched his mobile phone make Intex Aqua Power Plus IMEI nos. 911442503949912 and 911442503944920 and ran towards E-Block, Sultanpuri. The complainant went to his house and narrated the entire incident to his cousin namely Amar and also made a call on 100 number. The complainant along with his cousin Amar and 2-3 boys went towards E-Block, Sultanpuri in search of that boy and reached Shani Bazar Road where they apprehended the said boy. The public persons also gathered there. On search, mobile phone of the complainant was recovered from the right pocket of the pant of the boy. HC Maheshwar and Ct. Roshan Lal who were on emergency duty also reached there and the said boy identified as Tarvinder @ Poly (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') along with the mobile phone was handed over to them. SI Amit (hereinafter referred to as 'the Investigating Officer') after receipt of DD no. 73B along with HC Satish also reached there. One buttondar knife was also recovered from right hand side dub of pant of the respondent. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of the complainant and also seized the mobile phone and buttondar knife. Rukka was also prepared and FIR bearing no. 0357/2016 was got registered under sections 392/397 IPC and sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The respondent was arrested. The Investigating Officer conducted further investigation.

2.1 The Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet after conclusion of the investigation in the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. The concerned Metropolitan Magistrate after taking cognizance and complying with section 207 of the Code, committed the case to the Court of Sessions as per section 209 of the Code. The court of Sh. Kanwal Jeet Arora, Additional Sessions Judge-03, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi vide order dated 29.09.2016 framed the charges for the offences punishable under sections 397 IPC and 411 IPC and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case, examined seven witnesses including the complainant as PW2 and the Investigating Officer as PW7. The statement of the respondent was recorded under section 313 of the Code wherein he denied incriminating evidence and pleaded false implication and innocence. The respondent stated that the complainant had taken money from him and the complainant has falsely implicated him in present case when he demanded money back from the complainant.

2.2 The trial court vide the impugned judgment had acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under sections 397/411 IPC and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. The appellant/State being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, filed the present appeal and challenged the impugned judgment on the grounds that the impugned judgement is not sustainable and is based on imagination, presumption, conjectures and surmises. The impugned judgment is not based on the factual