Delhi District Court
State vs Nikhil on 30 June, 2025
IN THE COURT SH. ROHIT KUMAR JMFC- 04
NORTH : ROHINI COURT : NEW DELHI
Cr. Case 5291215/2016
STATE Vs. NIKHIL
FIR No. 1025/2014
U/s 454/380/411 IPC
PS Prashant Vihar
JUDGMENT
A Registration Number 5291215/2016 B Name of the Sh. Nem Dutt Sharma complainant C Name of the accused & Nikhil his parentage and S/o Sh. Parmanand address R/o P-6/21 Mangol Puri, Delhi.
D Offence Complained of 454/380/411 IPC/174 A IPC (209 BNS) E Date of commission of 04.09.2014 offence.
F Date of Institution 01.11.2014 G Offence Charged 454/380/411 IPC H Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty. person I Order Reserved on 28.05.2025 J Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 K Final Order Accused Nikhil is acquitted for the offence u/s 454/380/411 IPC and convicted u/s 174A IPC/209 BNS.
Vide this judgment, the accused is being Nikhil of the offence punishable under Section 454/380/411/174 A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") and in this case FIR No. 1025/2014 Police Station Prashant Vihar for the reasons mentioned below:
1. PROSECUTION'S CASE:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 04.09.2014 at about 5:30 PM, at House No. G-4/66, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi, accused Cr. Case 5291215/2016 STATE Vs. Nikhil FIR No. 1025/2014 Page 1 of 11 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.06.30 16:36:24 +0530 was accused herein stolen Water Tap from the said house , by house breaking in order to the committing theft and thereby he had committed an offence u/s 380/454/ IPC.
Secondly, on the above said date and place accused was found in possession of the above said stolen water tap as per the seizure memo mark -A which he has received or retained knowingly or having reason to believe that the same is a stolen property and thereby he had committed an offence punishable u/s 411 IPC.
That based on these facts, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused is stated to have committed an offence u/s. 454/380/411, which led to registration of FIR No. 1025/2014 at PS Prashant Vihar.
That vide order dt. 13.01.2025, accused was declared PO and therefore, accused has been charged u/s 409 BNS (earlier 174 A) of IPC also.
2. CHARGE:
In compliance of the procedural mandate u/s. 173 Cr.P.C, charge-sheet against the accused was filed in the present matter, upon completion of investigation.
Accused was summoned to face trial and was supplied with the copy of the charge-sheet as per Section 207 CrPC.
On the basis of the charge-sheet, a charge for the offences punishable u/s. 454/380/411 Act was framed against the accused vide order dated 13.08.2015, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and vide order dt. 14.05.2025, he was also charged with the offence u/s 209 BNS (earlier 174 A IPC) Cr. Case 5291215/2016 STATE Vs. Nikhil FIR No. 1025/2014 Page 2 of 11 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.06.30 16:36:30 +0530
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE: -
3(a). PW ASI Ashok Kumar deposed that on 04.09.2014, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar as duty officer from 4 p.m. to 12 p.m. On that day at about 6 p.m. he received a rukka sent y SI Arvind through Ct. Arvind and on the basis of which he registered FIR No. 1025/14 Ex. PW-1/A. Copy of the FIR was handed over to Ct. Arvind and made an endorsement Ex. PW-1/B on the tehreer. The certificate u/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act , 1872 is Ex. PW-1/C. 3(b). PW V.K.Pushkaran deposed that he was residing at house no.27/16, Shakti Nagar, Delhi along-with his family. The residencc and the house bearing number G-4/66. Sector 11.
Rohini is in the name of his wife. The above said residence was lying vacant and he had asked Nem Dutt Sharma to take care of the above said residence in his absence as he was the neighborer. He further deposed that on 04.09.2016, he got the information that Nem Dutt Sharma has apprehended the accused person namely, Nikhi who had entered into his house and had stolen water taps and was later caught red handed. On this information he went to PS Prashant Vihar where he had seen the taps and he was told that the same was seized by the IO and was kept with them.
3(c). PW Sh. Nemdutt Sharma, deposed that In the year 2014, he was residing at the address G-4/65, ground floor, Sector 11. Rohini and he was working as a property dealer. Further deposed that he was the neighborer of Sh. VK Pushkarna. Further deposed that in the year 2014 however, he is not aware about the date of incident but it was in the month of September 2014. Further Cr. Case 5291215/2016 STATE Vs. Nikhil FIR No. 1025/2014 Page 3 of 11 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 16:36:35 +0530 Date: 2025.06.30 deposed that on the date of incident at early morning he saw one unknown person who had entered into the house of V.K. Pushkarna at house no. G-4/66, Sector 11, Rohini and that time the house was lying vacant. Further deposed that on that day, he was also present at his house and he heard some noise from the house of V.K. Pushkarna and upon suspicious he saw that the window had jali and that was broken. Further deposed that he raised his voice and asked as to who is there in the house later, he saw one person who was having one bag and was having stolen taps which was stolen from the house of V.K. Pushkarna. Further deposed that he does not know the name of the accused and he cannot identify the accused today in the court. Further deposed that he called at 100 number and later police officials came at the spot and handed over the accused and the recovered taps to the police officials. Further deposed that the IO recorded his statement vide memo Ex. PW-3/A bearing his signature at point A. 3(d). PW Insp. Arvind deposed that on 04.09 2014, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar as SI. Further deposed that on that day, he received DD No pursuance thereof, he along with Ct. Arvind went to the spot as mentioned in DD i.e. G-4/66, Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi where complainant was found present. Further deposed that he produced one boy and told that he has been apprehended while committing theft in the house and produced one bag containing several water taps and thereafter he recorded his statement which is ExPW-3/A bearing his signature at point C. Further deposed that on the said statement, he prepared tehrir from Point X to XI which is Ex. PW-4/A. Thereafter, he sent Ct. Arvind along with the rukka to the PS for registration of the FIR and after sometime, Ct. Arvind came back to the spot and handed Cr. Case 5291215/2016 STATE Vs. Nikhil FIR No. 1025/2014 Page 4 of 11 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 16:36:41 +0530 Date: 2025.06.30 over to him original rukka and copy of FIR registered under section 380/454/411 IPC. Thereafter, he prepared site plan which is now Ex. PW-4/B bearing his signature at point A. Further deposed that subsequently, he seized the case property which was stated to be recovered from the possession of the accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/3 bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he arrested accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/C bearing his signature at point B. Further deposed that he also carried out personal search of the accused vide memo Ex. PW- 4/C bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he recorded the disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW-3/D bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he produced him before the L.d. MM and he was sent to judicial custody. During investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses under section 161 CrPC. Thereafter, he concluded the investigation and filed the charge- sheet in the court. Accused present in the court and correctly identified by the witness.
4. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
In order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded without oath under Section 313 CrPC wherein he deposed that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case and at the time of the incident, he was at his house. He does not want to lead defence evidence.
It is pertinent to mention that no statement was recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 174 A IPC/209 of BNS because accused vide order dt. 14.05.2025 had pleaded guilty for the said offence.Cr. Case 5291215/2016 STATE Vs. Nikhil FIR No. 1025/2014 Page 5 of 11
ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 16:36:48 +0530 Date: 2025.06.30
5. Ld. APP for the State argued that accused himself could not lead any plausible defense. Hence, accused should be convicted for the charges framed against him.
On the other hand, Counsel for defense has argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter.
This being the factual, evidentiary and the legal position of the present case, let us analyze whether the prosecution has been able to successfully prove the guilt of the accused on the touchstone of "beyond reasonable doubt".
6. APPLICABLE LEGAL PROVISIONS:
At this juncture, it would be pertinent to lay bare the relevant legal principle pertaining to the alleged offence.
• Section 380 IPC. Theft in dwelling house, etc.--
Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine • Section 454 IPC. Lurking house-trespass or house-
breaking: Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, • Section 411 IPC. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.--
Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three Cr. Case 5291215/2016 STATE Vs. Nikhil FIR No. 1025/2014 Page 6 of 11 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.06.30 16:36:53 +0530 years, or with fine, or with both.
• Section 174 A IPC/209 BNS Whoever falls to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under Sub-section(1) of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both and where a declaration has been made under Sub-Section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
7. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND MARSHALLING OF THE FACTS:
7(i). Brief allegations of prosecution against the accused person are that on 04.09.2014 at about 5:30 pm at H No. G-4/66C, Sector-11 Rohini, Delhi, accused had stolen water tap from the said house by breaking in order to commit the theft and stolen property and said stolen water tap were recovered from the possession of the accused. Accordingly, accused has committed the offence u/s 380/454/411 IPC.
It is pertinent to mention that during the trial, accused was declared absconder vide order dt. 13.01.2025 on his non- appearance and subsequently when accused was arrested in this case again on the execution of PO proceedings, accused was charged for the offence u/s 209 BNS/174A IPC vide order dt. 14.05.2025. It is pertinent to mention that while framing the charge u/s 209 BNS/174A IPC vide order dt . 14.05.2025, accused has pleaded guilty for the said offense.
In this matter, prosecution has examined 04 witnesses Cr. Case 5291215/2016 STATE Vs. Nikhil FIR No. 1025/2014 Page 7 of 11 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 16:36:59 +0530 Date: 2025.06.30 before the court including the complainant namely Nemdutt Sharma and witness V.K. Pushkarna. IOs of the case were examined before the court as PW3 and PW2.
During the examination of PW Nmedutt Sharma as PW3, it was deposed by the witness in his examination in chief that in the year 2014, he was residing at G-4/65 address and was working as a property dealer. Further deposed that he was the neighbour of witness V K. Pushkarna. Further deposed that he is not aware about the date of the incident but the incident was happened in the month of September 2014. He further deposed that on the day of the incident at early morning, he saw one unknown person who had entered into the house of V K Pushkarna bearing no. G-4/66, Sector-11, Rohini and at the time, house was lying vacant. On that day, he was also present at his house and heard some noise from the house V K. Pushkarna and on suspicious he saw that window of the said house which was having Jali, was broken. Further deposed that he raised his voice and saw that one person was having one bag and stolen taps stolen from the house of V K Pushkarna.
It is pertinent to mention that during the examination in chief, witness has failed to identify the case property and he deposed that he does not remember the make and number of taps. He also deposed that he cannot identify the accused today before the court.
It is pertinent to mention that even on the pointing out by the ld. APP for the State during the cross-examination done by the State, witness failed to identify the accused person before the court.
In this matter, main victim namely V K Pushkarna was examined before the Court as PW2. It was deposed by PW2 before the court that resident bearing G-4/66 Sector-11 Rohini, Cr. Case 5291215/2016 STATE Vs. Nikhil FIR No. 1025/2014 Page 8 of 11 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 16:37:05 +0530 Date: 2025.06.30 Delhi was lying vacant and the said property is in the name of his wife. Further deposed that he had asked Mr. Nemdutt Sharma to take care of said property in his absence as he was his neighbour. Further deposed that on 04.09.2014, he got the information from Mr. Nemdutt Sharma that he has apprehended the accused Nikhil who had entered in his house and stolen the water taps.
It is pertinent to mention that deposition of PW2 in his examination in chief is suggesting that he was not the eye witness to the alleged incident. PW2 has come into picture only when he was informed by PW Nemdutt Sharma regarding the alleged theft in his house, meaning thereby he was a hearsay witness in the present case.
It is also pertinent to mention that in this matter, when case property was produced before the court same was in unsealed condition without any particulars and same was opened before the court. This procedural lapse on behalf of the IO for not doing the sealing of case property properly has raised the question on the case property. It is again pertinent to mention that when during the examination in chief, the said property was shown to the witness, witness failed to identify the same.
PW V K Pushkarna was cross-examined by the ld. LAC for the accused before the court and witness has deposed in his cross-examination that he has not seen the accused as he was not present at his house. This deposition clearly suggest he was not the eye witness to the alleged incident.
In this matter, PW4 Inspector Arvind was examined before the court who was the IO in this case. He deposed in his examination in chief that on 04.09.2014, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar as Sub Inspector. He deposed that on that day, he received DD no. 37A and accordingly in pursuance to the same, he along-with Ct. Arvind went to the spot i.e. G-4/66, Sector-11, Cr. Case 5291215/2016 STATE Vs. Nikhil FIR No. 1025/2014 Page 9 of 11 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 16:37:12 +0530 Date: 2025.06.30 Rohini, Delhi and where he found the complainant. Further deposed that complainant produced one boy and told him that he has been apprehended while committing the theft in the house and one bag was also produced containing several water taps. Thereafter, he seized the case property vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-3/B bearing his signature at point B. It is pertinent to mention that perusal of seizure memo dated 04.09.2014 exhibited as Ex. PW-3/B also clearly reflected that the said stolen property was only kept in one bag and was not sealed with any seal of any police official. This procedural lapse has questioned the sanctity of the case property. Since there was no proper sealing of the case property, therefore, possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ignored.
It is pertinent to mention that as per the seizure memo, case property was handed over by PW Nemdutt Sharma to the IO. However, PW Nemdutt Sharma himself has failed to identify the said property before the court during his examination before the court.
A cumulative reading of the entire deposition of PWs would demonstrate that they had failed to establish the the allegations against the accused. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have failed to link the alleged actus reus of the charged offence to the accused person. Main witnesses have completely failed to corroborate with the allegations of the prosecution and they have failed to identify the accused person and case property before the court. Furthermore, sanctity of the case property is also questionable and due to the procedural lapse, the said case property cannot be believed to be recovered from the possession of the accused person.
In view of the observation, court is of the view that accused is Nikhil is entitled for the acquittal u/s 454/380/411 IPC. It is Cr. Case 5291215/2016 STATE Vs. Nikhil FIR No. 1025/2014 Page 10 of 11 ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR 16:37:18 +0530 Date: 2025.06.30 pertinent to mention that during the trial accused has done the pleaded guilty for the offence u/s 209 BNS/174A IPC. Therefore, he has been convicted vide this judgment for the said offence.
8. CONCLUSION:
The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Considering the above discussion, the unequivocal conclusion that comes forth is that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused on the touchstone of "beyond reasonable doubt". To bring home the charge under s. 454/380/411 IPC, the onus was on the prosecution to establish the case against the accused. Accordingly, the accused Nikhil is entitled for benefit of reasonable doubt and is hereby found not guilty. He is hereby acquitted of the offences under Section 454/380/411 IPC and since accused has pleaded guilty for the offence u/s 174A IPC (209 BNS), accordingly, he is convicted for the offence u/s 174A IPC (209 BNS).
Copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost Digitally signed ROHIT by ROHIT Announced in open KUMAR KUMAR 16:37:22 Date: 2025.06.30 +0530 court on 30.06.2025 (ROHIT KUMAR) JMFC-04 (North) Rohini Courts Delhi/30.06.2025 Certified that this judgment contains 11 pages and ROHIT Digitally signed by each page bears my signature.
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.30
16:37:26 +0530
(ROHIT KUMAR)
JMFC-04 (North) Rohini Courts
Delhi/30.06.2025
Cr. Case 5291215/2016 STATE Vs. Nikhil FIR No. 1025/2014 Page 11 of 11