Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit on 8 December, 2025
Digitally
RAJ signed
KUMAR by RAJ Cr. Case8968/2021
STATE Vs. ROHIT
SINGH KUMAR FIR No.233/2021
SINGH P.S.Nabi Karim
U/s:380/411 IPC
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case8968/2021
STATE Vs. ROHIT
FIR No.233/2021
P.S.Nabi Karim
U/s:380/411 IPC
DLCT020165522021
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 8968/2021
(b) Date of offence 29.07.2021
c) Complainant Vishal s/o. Sh. Rajender
Prasad
(d) Accused Rohit s/o. Sh. Ganga Ram
(e) Offence 380/411 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
(g) Final Order Acquitted
(h) Date of Institution 31.08.2021
(i) Date when judgment was 08.12.2025
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 08.12.2025
1. The accused Rohit S/o Ganga Ram was charged on 07.12.2021 for offences under Sections 380 and 411 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. During trial, on 05.12.2025 the complainant compounded the offence under Section 411 IPC. The compounding was Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR Cr. Case8968/2021 SINGH STATE Vs. ROHIT FIR No.233/2021 P.S.Nabi Karim U/s:380/411 IPC 2 accepted and the accused stood acquitted for Section 411 IPC. The case thereafter remained pending only for adjudication of the charge under Section 380 IPC.
3. Prosecution alleges that on 29.07.2021 between about 4.15 a.m. and 7.45 a.m., theft of three mobile phones, certain documents and ₹4,000 occurred at the dwelling house of PW-1 Vishal at H. No. 6735, Qila Kadam Sharif, Nabi Karim. A CCTV clip from the vicinity was collected. The accused was later apprehended and police claim recovery of some documents and ₹4,000 from his house.
4. On 02.09.2024 the accused, by a statement under Section 294 CrPC read with Section 330 BNSS, did not dispute the genuineness of the endorsement on rukka, FIR, Section 65B certificate, crime inspection report, ten photographs, and the fact of deposit and release of case property. This admission was confined to genuineness and did not admit any incriminating allegation.
5. On 05.12.2025 PW-1 Vishal and PW-2 Nisha were examined. Both proved the fact of loss from their house, but each categorically failed to identify the accused in Court. Neither witnessed the theft. The pen drive on record containing a CCTV clip dated 29.07.2021 around 6.42 to 6.43 a.m. was played. The Court noted that the face of the person in the clip is not visible and only the back portion is seen. Photographs of the spot were exhibited as Ex. P-1 (colly). The defence did not dispute identity of the articles already released on superdari, but no witness stated that any article was recovered from the Digitally Cr. Case8968/2021 RAJ signed STATE Vs. ROHIT KUMAR by RAJ FIR No.233/2021 SINGH KUMAR P.S.Nabi Karim SINGH U/s:380/411 IPC 3 accused in their presence.
6. The learned Substitute APP fairly submitted that both public witnesses have not supported identity, the CCTV does not reveal the face, and the remaining witnesses are only police or formal. No eyewitness to the act of theft exists. In these circumstances, further evidence would be only to complete formalities.
7. The Court is mindful of the dictum in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, 1996 JCC 507, that where there is no reasonable prospect of conviction, valuable judicial time ought not be expended in completing mere formalities. Considering the record and submissions, further examination of formal witnesses was unwarranted and prosecution evidence was closed.
8. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC read with Sections 316 and 351 BNSS. He denied the allegations and chose not to lead defence evidence.
9. To sustain a conviction under Section 380 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that theft occurred in a building used for human dwelling and that the accused committed that theft. Identity of the offender is central. Documentary admissions under Section 294 CrPC dispense with formal proof, but do not admit incriminating facts.
10. The factum of loss is proved, but participation of the accused is not. Both PW-1 and PW-2 failed to identify him. No circumstance places him at the scene at the relevant time. The CCTV does not show a face and therefore does not connect the Cr. Case8968/2021 STATE Vs. ROHIT FIR No.233/2021 P.S.Nabi Karim U/s:380/411 IPC 4 accused to the act.
11. The materials admitted for genuineness show that a case was registered, the scene was inspected, photographs were taken, and property passed through the malkhana. They do not prove that the accused committed the theft. The chain of proof on identity and participation is thus broken. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must prevail.
12. The accused Rohit S/o Ganga Ram is accordingly acquitted of the remaining charge under Section 380 IPC. The earlier acquittal on Section 411 IPC on account of compounding already stands.
13. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
14. The judgment be uploaded as per rules. Announced in open court on 08.12.2025 (Dr. Raj Kumar Singh) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/08.12.2025 Note: This judgment contains four (4) pages and having my signature on each page.
(Dr. Raj Kumar Singh) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/08.12.2025 RAJ Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJ KUMAR SINGH SINGH