Delhi District Court
State vs Bablu on 12 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-03,
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS,NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Nidhi Singh, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 3004/2024
CNR No. : DLST020142262024
FIR No. : 105/2024
Police Station : Safdarjung Enclave
Section(s) : Section 380/411/34 IPC & 53/116 DP Act
In the matter of:
STATE
VERSUS
(i) BABLU
S/o Sh. Satpal
(ii) KAILASH
S/o Sh. Dayaram
Both R/o Jhuggi No. 6, Green Park, Ganda Nala, Shamshan Ghat, New
Delhi
...... Accused Persons
Offence Charged of Section 380/411/34 IPC &
Section 53/116 Delhi Police Act
Plea of Accused Not Guilty
Date of commission of offence 11.04.2024
Date of registration of FIR 11.04.2024
Date of filing of chargesheet 26.04.2024
Date of Judgment 12.12.2025
Final Order ACQUITTAL
NIDHI Digitally signed
by NIDHI SINGH
Date: 2025.12.12
SINGH 05:17:37 +0530
State vs Bablu & Kailash FIR No. 105/2015 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 1 of 11
-:BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-
1. In brief, the story of the prosecution is that on 11.04.2024 ASI Jaiprakash and HC
Harchand were present for patrolling in Green Park Area vide DD no. 66 A.
During patrolling, they saw 2 persons holding a water motor and fleeing away. At
the same time, complainant/ Prashant Kumar Rahul came trying to find his water
motor and identified the same in the possession of both these persons. Both the
persons apprehended were identified as accused Kailash and Bablu. The
complainant also gave a written complaint about the theft of his watermotor from
his house. On its basis, the present FIR bearing no. 105/2024 was registered at
PS Safdarjung Enclave under Section 380/411/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC')
2. During investigation, it was further revealed that accused Bablu was subject to an
Externment Order dated 12.03.2024, passed by the Addl. DCP-I, South West
District, prohibiting his entry into Delhi. Upon completion of investigation, charge
sheet was filed u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
'Cr.P.C.') under Section 380/411/34 IPC qua both accused persons as well as
under Section 53/112 Delhi Police Act qua accused Bablu. Cognizance of offences
was taken and a copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons in
compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. After considering the record and hearing the arguments, charge u/s 380/411/34
IPC was framed against the accused Kailash and charge u/s 380/411/34 IPC and
u/s 53/112 Delhi Police Act was framed against the accused Bablu to which the
accused persons pleaded "not guilty" and claimed trial. The matter then was listed
for Prosecution Evidence (hereinafter referred to as, 'PE').
4. The accused persons admitted the genuineness of certain documents- the FIR
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI NIDHI
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.12.12
05:17:47
+0530
State vs Bablu & Kailash FIR No. 105/2015 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 2 of 11
105/2024, PS Safdarjung Enclave (Ex. A-1, without contents), Certificate u/s 65B
Indian Evidence Act (Ex. A-2, without contents), Endorsement by Duty officer
(Ex. A-3, without contents) and Externment order dated 12.03.2024 passed
against accused Bablu by Additional DCP-I, South West, Delhi (Ex. A-4, without
contents). Therefore formal examination of the corresponding witnesses was
dispensed with under section 294 Cr.P.C and the above said documents were
directed to be read in evidence without their formal proof.
5. During the trial, prosecution examined 3 witnesses to establish its case:
a. PW-1/ Prashant Kumar Rahul/ Complainant deposed regarding the
factum of theft and the immediate recovery of the property from the
hands of the accused. He identified the case property (Ex. P1) and the
accused in court.
b. PW-2 / ASI Jai Prakash/ IO) & PW-3/ HC Harchand deposed
regarding the investigation, patrolling, the apprehension of the accused
persons with the stolen property, the seizure memos, and the arrest of the
accused persons.
6. After examination of above cited witnesses, PE was closed vide order dated
28.01.2025.
7. To enable the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances
appearing in evidence against him, statement of accused persons/ Bablu and Kailash,
without oath, was recorded under Section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. In reply, the accused
persons asserted their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in
the present case at the behest of the investigating agency and recovery has been
planted upon them.They chose not to lead any evidence in their defence.
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI
NIDHI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.12
05:17:50
+0530
State vs Bablu & Kailash FIR No. 105/2015 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 3 of 11
8. Order of externment dated 12.03.2024 passed against accused Bablu mentioned that
"...Respondent is involved in in cases of punishment for theft, punishment for robbery,
voluntarily causing committing robbery, dishonestly receiving stolen property, assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, causing hurt by means of poison, etc. with intent to commit an offence, assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person, Arms Act. and Delhi Excise Act. A close scrutiny of the record clearly indicates that there are sufficient grounds to conclude that he is actively involved in these cases. Besides, the respondent is a Bad Character (B.C.) of Bundle-A of P.S. S.J.Enclave, Delhi and during the course of proceedings, he was found involved in more criminal cases. Due to his continuous and persistent activities, the Respondent is hazardous to the society. The subsequent conduct of the Respondent during Externment proceedings reflects that he is a habitual criminal....The habitual character of the Respondent is very much evident from the fact that even during the course of proceedings, Respondent was found engaged in commission of offences. Due to his continuous and persistent activities, the Respondent can be called a dangerous person. The subsequent conduct of the Respondent during Externment proceedings reflects his habitual nature for committing crime. I am of the view that his presence in the community is hazardous to society. The witnesses are unwilling to depose in public against him because of the apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person & property at the hands of the Respondent and his conduct definitely requires stringent view. Keeping in view the evidence brought on file i.e. notice, reply of the notice, statement of Prosecution Witness and other evidence adduced during the course of proceedings, I come to the conclusion that he is not likely to improve till stringent measures are taken against him. His activities in the area of N.C.T. of Delhi are causing and are calculated to cause alarm, danger and harm to the respectable citizens. His continuous presence in the area is leading to alarm and danger in the minds of Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI SINGH State vs Bablu & Kailash FIR No. 105/2015 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 4 of 11 SINGH Date:
2025.12.12 05:17:54 +0530 law-abiding citizens of the area who have a right to lead a peaceful life. I am of the view that his case is well within the scope of section 47 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 and he is a fit person to be externed from the limits of N.C.T. of Delhi. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested upon me under section 47/50 of D.P. Act, 1978 and conferred upon me by the order of Commissioner of Police, Delhi under section 8(ii) of the said Act, I, Kushal Pal Singh, Addi. Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, South West District, Delhi, hereby direct Bablu S/o Satpal R/o Green Park, Ganda Nala, Shamshan Ghat, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi to remove himself beyond the limits of N.C.T. of Delhi for a period of 2 years within seven days from the date of this order. The Respondent is further directed not to enter or return to the area of N.C.T. of Delhi within the said period without written permission of the competent authority. He is, however, permitted to attend the Court at Delhi/New Delhi on all the dates of hearing and shall immediately thereafter remove himself outside the limits of N.C.T. of Delhi and shall not visit any place other than the court premises. The relaxation is only for the date of hearing in court for coming and going out of limits of NCT of Delhi..."
9. The Ld. APP submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the accused persons were caught red-handed with the stolen property within thirty minutes of the theft, creating a presumption of guilt under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act that they are the thieves of the said property. Regarding the absence of independent public witnesses, the Ld. APP argued that the accused Bablu is a desperate and hardened criminal, as evidenced by the Externment Order which explicitly notes that witnesses are afraid to depose against him, hence, the non-joining of public witnesses was beyond the control of the IO.
Therefore, the non-joining of public witnesses was due to genuine fear and does not Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.12 05:17:58 +0530 State vs Bablu & Kailash FIR No. 105/2015 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 5 of 11 invalidate the reliable testimony of complainant supported by police officials. Ld. APP thus prayed that the accused persons be convicted of the offence charged with.
10. Per Contra, Ld. Legal Aid Defence Counsel for accused Bablu and Ld. counsel for the accused Kailash have argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated by planting the case property. They emphasized that the alleged spot of arrest was a public place yet the Investigating Officer failed to join any independent public witness, which casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation.He further argued that the complainant is an interested witness and his testimony should not be believed without independent corroboration. They argued that relying solely on police witnesses is unsafe. They further submitted that mere presence in the area does not prove theft and that the externment order violation is a separate administrative matter not connected to the theft. Ld. counsels finally submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that, therefore, the benefit of the same ought to be extended to the accused persons.
11. Submissions heard. Record perused carefully.
12. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record as well as the arguments. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apt to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In criminal law, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused exclusively lies on the prosecution which must prove the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused persons.Before proceeding to the reasoning, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant sections of law involved:
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 Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.12 05:18:02 +0530 State vs Bablu & Kailash FIR No. 105/2015 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 6 of 11 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 112, Delhi Police Act: Penalty for entering without permission area from which person is directed to remove himself "Whoever... enters or returns without such permission to the area... shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 114, Indian Evidence Act: Court may presume existence of certain facts. The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events... Illustration (a): That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.
13. Prosecution is required to prove its case against the accused persons beyond every reasonable doubt, and not beyond every doubt. The meaning of expression "Reasonable Doubt" has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 66 thus:
"... In our opinion, an ingenious mind can question anything and, on the other hand, there is nothing which it cannot convince. When you consider the facts, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the matter is proved or whether it is not a reasonable doubt in this sense. The reasonableness of a doubt must be a practical one and not on an abstract theoretical hypothesis. Reasonableness is a virtue that forms as a mean between excessive caution and excessive indifference to a doubt...."
14. After meticulous perusal of record, it appears that the prosecution case stands on firm footing for the following reasons:
15. Sterling Quality of PW-1/Complainant's Testimony: The cornerstone of the prosecution's case is the testimony of the complainant, Sh. Prashant Kumar Rahul.
Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date:
State vs Bablu & Kailash FIR No. 105/2015 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 7 of 11 2025.12.12 05:18:05 +0530 A reading of his deposition reveals that he has given a clear, coherent, and categorical account of the incident. He deposed regarding the missing motor, his immediate search, and his arrival at the spot where he found the accused persons in custody of his property. There is no ambiguity in his identification of the accused persons or the case property (Ex. P1). Crucially, nothing material has been elicited during his cross-examination to shake his credit or veracity. The defence failed to point out any significant contradiction between his statement to the police (Ex. PW-1/A) and his deposition in court. Further it is pertinent to note that no suggestion was put to PW-1 regarding any previous enmity or dispute with the accused persons. In the absence of any prior animosity, there is absolutely no reason for a private individual to falsely implicate two strangers by planting his own expensive water motor on them. The testimony of the victim stands on a high pedestal and inspires the confidence of this Court.
16. Presumption of Guilt regarding Theft (Section 380 IPC r/w 114(a Indian Evidence Act): The theft occurred around 06:30 PM and the accused persons were apprehended at 07:00 PM. The accused persons were found physically carrying the water motor/stolen corpus delicti within 30 minutes. The time gap is negligible. Applying Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the possession is so recent that the only logical inference is that the accused persons themselves committed the theft. In the examination of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons offered no explanation for their presence at the spot with the motor, other than a bald denial. They failed to offer any explanation as to how they came into possession of the motor or why they were present at the spot. The presumption, therefore, stands unrebutted and the only logical inference is that the accused persons themselves committed the theft. In Earabhadrappa @ Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330, the Supreme Court held that Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.12 05:18:09 +0530 State vs Bablu & Kailash FIR No. 105/2015 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 8 of 11 where the accused offers no explanation for possession of stolen articles immediately after the crime, the presumption is that he committed the theft, not merely that he is a receiver.
17. Non-Joining of Independent Public Witnesses and the "Fear Factor" : The defence argument regarding the absence of public witnesses is liable to be rejected when viewed against the specific backdrop of this case. In the present case, the reluctance of the public is not just a general theory but a documented fact. The Externment Order (Ex. A-4) against accused Bablu specifically records, "...The witnesses are unwilling to depose in public against him because of the apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person & property at the hands of the Respondent... Due to his continuous and persistent activities, the Respondent can be called a dangerous person...." If the Addl. DCP, in administrative proceedings, found that the accused is a "Bad Character" (BC) who terrifies the locality to the extent that no one dares to testify, it would be unreasonable for this Court to expect a random passerby at 07:00 PM to courageously join the arrest proceedings of such a person. The fear of the accused serves as a valid and reasonable explanation for the IO's inability to join public witnesses. Further the superior courts have long recognized the reluctance of the public to join police proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appabhai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696, observed that "...It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident... Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante..." The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Jawahar v. State (2007) IV AD (Del) 266, dealing with a similar situation involving a Bad Character, held that the testimony of police officials cannot be discarded merely because public witnesses Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.12 05:18:13 +0530 State vs Bablu & Kailash FIR No. 105/2015 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 9 of 11 were not associated, acknowledging the terror such accused create in the minds of the public. Therefore, the non-joining of public witnesses is satisfactorily explained by the prosecution as being a result of the genuine fear generated by the accused persons' criminal reputation.
18. Violation of Externment Order by Accused Bablu (Section 53/112 Delhi Police Act): Accused Bablu has admitted the existence of the Externment Order (Ex. A-4) which barred his entry into Delhi for 2 years starting 12.03.2024. He was arrested in Green Park, Delhi on 11.04.2024. The onus was on the accused to show that he had obtained permission from the competent authority to enter Delhi. He has failed to produce any such permission. Furthermore, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he completely failed to account for his presence in Delhi. He did not plead any emergency, medical ground, or inadvertence. His presence in Delhi was deliberate and in direct contravention of the lawful order. Since the accused Bablu could not justify his presence in the prohibited area, the offence under Section 112 of the Delhi Police Act is established beyond doubt.
19. The prosecution has successfully established a complete chain of events. The theft is proved by PW-1. The recovery is proved by PW-2 and PW-3. The common intention (Section 34 IPC) is evident from the joint act of carrying the stolen property. Since the theft was from a dwelling house, Section 380 IPC is attracted. As the accused persons are convicted for the commission of theft itself, a separate conviction u/s 411 IPC is not required as it merges into the graver offence. The link between the accused and the crime is established via the presumption under Section 114(a) Evidence Act. The defence plea of false implication is hollow, especially given the documented criminal antecedents of the accused Bablu which explains the lack of public participation. Resultantly, Accused Kailash and Bablu are CONVICTED for the offence punishable under Section 380 read with Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.12 05:18:17 +0530 State vs Bablu & Kailash FIR No. 105/2015 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 10 of 11 Section 34 IPC. Accused Bablu is further CONVICTED for the offence punishable under Section 53/112 of the Delhi Police Act. Announced in open Court on this 12th day of December 2025. This Judgment consists of 11 pages and each page bears my signature. Copy of the same be provided to the convicts free of cost.
Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.12.12 05:18:21 +0530 (NIDHI SINGH) JMFC-03, South District, Saket Courts,Delhi 12.12.2025 State vs Bablu & Kailash FIR No. 105/2015 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 11 of 11