Delhi District Court
State vs Gurudev on 19 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-03,
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Nidhi Singh, DJS
Cr. Cases : 1614/2018
CNR No. : DLST020112762018
Police Station : Safdarjung Enclave
FIR No. : 31/2018
Section(s) : Sections 457/380/511 IPC
In the matter of:
STATE
VERSUS
GURUDEV
S/o Sh. Ishwar Lal
R/o 332, Sector 12, RK Puram, New Delhi
...... Accused
Offence Charged of Sections 457/380/511 IPC
Plea of Accused person Not Guilty
Date of commission of offence 30.01.2018
Date of registration of FIR 30.01.2018
Date of filing of Chargesheet 01.04.2018
Date of Judgment 19.05.2025
Final Order ACQUITTAL
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI
NIDHI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.05.19
17:19:40
+0530
State vs. Gurudev FIR No. 31/2018 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 1 of 11
-: BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX AND REASONS FOR DECISION :-
1) It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.01.2018, upon receipt of DD no. 7A
SI Suresh Kumar and Ct. Ramdas reached the spot i.e. A-2/9, Safdarjung Enclave,
Top Floor and met the complainant. They all went to the terrace and found one
person hiding. Ct. Ramdas apprehended him and his name was revealed to be
Gurudev. Upon his cursory search, an iron plier and an iron screwdriver were
recovered from his possession which he had concealed towards the right back side of
his wearing pants. Both the items were seized and sealed with the seal of the IO/SK.
Accused was unable to provide a satisfactory reason for his presence on the terrace
of the complainant and that too along with iron pliers and screwdriver. Complainant/
Pradeep Kumar Gupta gave a complaint in writing stating that he was asleep in his
house however at around 3:00 AM he woke up when he heard some person talking
on phone at the terrace. Thereafter he heard some banging noise (khat-khat), he felt
scared and made a 100 number call. Police arrived at the spot and went alongwith
him to the terrace and found one person hiding on the terrace. Upon his search, an
iron plier and an iron screwdriver was recovered from him and it appears that he had
climbed on the terrace in order to commit theft in his house. On its basis, present
FIR No. 31/2018 was registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave u/s 457/380/511 of Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC')
2) Investigation was carried out and upon completion of investigation, charge
sheet was filed u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
'Cr.P.C.') under Section 457/380/511 IPC against accused and cognizance was taken
on 25.05.2018. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance
with Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3) After considering the record and hearing the arguments, charge u/s
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI
NIDHI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.05.19
17:19:49
+0530
State vs. Gurudev FIR No. 31/2018 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 2 of 11
457/380/511 IPC was framed against the accused/Gurudev on 20.01.2020 to which
he pleaded "not guilty" and claimed trial.
-:PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:-
4) The accused admitted the genuineness of certain documents- the FIR 31/2018
PS Safdarjung Enclave(without contents, Ex. A-1), Certificate u/s 65 B Indian
Evidence Act (without contents, Ex. A-2), endorsement by duty officer vide DD no.
12A dated 30.01.2018(without contents, Ex. A-3), and DD no. 7A dated 30.01.2018
(without contents, Ex. A-4). Therefore formal examination of the corresponding
witness 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) In order to prove its case beyond the scope of reasonable doubt, the
prosecution has examined 3 witnesses.
a) PW-1/ Pradeep Kumar deposed that on 30.01.2018, he was residing at A2/9, S.J.Enclave,
Top Floor, New Delhi. In the intervening night of 29.1.2018 and 30.1.2018, around 3AM,
while he and his family members were sleeping, he heard some noise. He woke up and felt that
someone was upstairs on the roof. Thereafter he made a PCR call, after which police officials
came and along with them he went upstairs and opened the door of the roof and found that one
boy was present there whose name was later revealed as Gurudev. During his personal search,
one screwdriver and one plier were recovered from his possession. He gave his statement to
police which is Ex PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. Police prepared a site plan Ex
PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. The recovered screwdriver and plier were seized by
the police vide seizure memo Ex PW1/C bearing his signature at point A. Accused was
arrested vide memo Ex PW/D and he was personally searched vide memo Ex PWI/E bearing
his signature at point A. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the Court. MHCM
produced one sealed pulanda, sealed with the seal of SK. Same is broken open, with the
permission of the Court and the same was found containing one screwdriver and one plier.
After seeing the same, the witness identified the same, as the one, recovered from the
possession of the accused. Case property is Ex Pl and P2 respectively. Witness was duly
cross-examined.
b) PW-2/ Retd. SI Suresh Kumar deposed that on 30.01.2018, he was posted as SI at PS SJE.
On that day, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. During the emergency
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI
NIDHI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.05.19
17:19:55
+0530
State vs. Gurudev FIR No. 31/2018 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 3 of 11
duty, he received DD No. 7A dated 30.01.2018 regarding a theft. He, along with Ct. Ram Das,
reached the spot i.e., A-2/9, Top Floor, SJE. There, they met the complainant, namely, Pradeep
Gupta. The complainant informed them that someone was on the roof of his house and was
talking on the phone. The complainant had heard the sound. Thereafter, he, along with
complainant Pradeep Gupta, went upstairs and opened the door to the roof. They found that
one boy was present there, who was attempting to escape. He apprehended that boy with the
help of Ct. Ram Das and conducted his personal search. During the personal search, he
recovered one screwdriver, which was moulded from the front side, and one plier from the
pants of the boy. Thereafter, he inquired from the apprehended person, who revealed his name
as Guru Dev and stated that he resided at R.K. Puram. He then prepared the seizure memo of
the recovered articles. The seizure memo is already Ex. PW-1/C bearing his signature at point
B. Subsequently, he recorded the statement of the complainant, which is already Ex. PW-1/A,
bearing his signature at point B. He prepared the tehrir and handed it to Ct. Ram Das for the
registration of the FIR. After the registration of the FIR, Ct. Ram Das returned with the original
tehrir and a copy of the FIR and handed them over to him. Thereafter, he put the FIR number
on the seizure memo, already Ex. PW-1/C. He then prepared the site plan at the instance of the
complainant, which is already Ex. PW-1/B, bearing his signature at point B. Following that, he
arrested the accused vide arrest memo, which is already Ex. PW-1/D, bearing his signature at
point B. He also conducted the personal search of the accused vide personal search memo,
already Ex. PW-1/E, bearing his signature at point B. During the personal search, one mobile
phone (make Nokia, white in color) was recovered. Thereafter, he recorded the disclosure
statement of the accused, now Ex. PW-2/A, bearing his signature at point A. He sealed the
case property in a piece of white cloth and sealed it with the seal of "SK." After using the seal,
it was handed over to Ct. Ram Das. The seal handing memo is now Ex. PW-2/B, bearing his
signature at point A. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the complainant under Section
161 Cr.PC. Then, they brought the accused to the police station, and he prepared the age memo
of the accused. He deposited the case property in the PS Malkhana as per the seizure memo,
and the accused was sent for medical examination. After the medical examination, the accused
was produced before the Hon'ble Court, from where he was sent to Judicial Custody.
Thereafter, he recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.PC of witness Ct. Ram Das. Then,
he prepared the charge-sheet and submitted it before the Hon'ble Court. Accused and case
property Ex. P1 and P2 were correctly identified by the witness in the Court. Witness was duly
cross-examined.
c) PW-3/ Ct. Ramdass deposed that On 30.01.2018, he was posted as Constable at PS SJE. On
that day, he, along with SI Suresh Kumar, was on emergency duty from 08:00 PM to 08:00
AM. During the emergency duty, SI Suresh Kumar received DD No. 7A dated 30.01.2018
regarding a theft. He, along with SI Suresh Kumar, reached the spot, i.e., A-2/9, Top Floor,
SJE. There, they met the complainant, namely, Pradeep Gupta. The complainant informed them
that someone was on the roof of his house and was talking on the phone, and that he had heard
noises. Thereafter, they, along with the complainant Pradeep Gupta, went upstairs and opened
Digitally
signed by
NIDHI NIDHI
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.05.19
17:19:59
+0530
State vs. Gurudev FIR No. 31/2018 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 4 of 11
the door to the roof. They found one boy present there who was trying to escape. SI Suresh
Kumar apprehended the boy with his help and conducted his personal search. During the
search, they recovered one screwdriver, which was moulded from the front side, and one plier
from the pants of the boy. Subsequently, SI Suresh Kumar conducted an inquiry from the
accused, who revealed his name as Guru Dev and stated that he resided at R.K. Puram. SI
Suresh Kumar then prepared the seizure memo of the recovered articles. The seizure memo is
already Ex. PW-1/C, bearing his signature at point C. Thereafter, SI Suresh Kumar recorded
the statement of the complainant, which is already Ex. PW-1/A. He prepared the tehrir and
handed it to him for registration of the FIR. After the registration of the FIR, he returned with
the original tehrir and a copy of the FIR and handed the same over to SI Suresh Kumar. SI
Suresh Kumar then entered the FIR number on the seizure memo, already Ex. PW-1/C.
Following this, SI Suresh Kumar prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant,
which is already Ex. PW-1/B. He then arrested the accused vide arrest memo, which is already
Ex. PW-1/D, bearing his signature at point C. SI Suresh Kumar also conducted the personal
search of the accused, vide personal search memo already Ex. PW-1/E, bearing his signature at
point C. During the personal search, they recovered one mobile phone (make Nokia, white in
color). Thereafter, SI Suresh Kumar recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, which is
already Ex. PW-2/A, bearing his signature at point B. SI Suresh Kumar sealed the case
property in a piece of white cloth and sealed it with the seal of "SK." After using the seal, it
was handed over to him. The seal handing memo is Ex. PW-2/B, bearing his signature at point
B. After that, SI Suresh Kumar recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 161
Cr.PC. They then brought the accused to the police station, and SI Suresh Kumar prepared the
age memo of the accused. SI Suresh Kumar deposited the case property into the PS Malkhana
as per the seizure memo, and the accused was sent for medical examination. After the medical
examination, the accused was produced before the Hon'ble Court, from where he was sent to
JC. Thereafter, SI Suresh Kumar recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.PC of the
witness. Accused and case property Ex. P1 and P2 were correctly identified by the witness in
the Court. Witness was duly cross-examined.
6) After examination of above cited witnesses, PE was closed vide order dated
05.03.2024.
-:STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:-
7) Statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 26.03.2024, wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused, to which the accused asserted his innocence and simply stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He admitted that he was present at A-2/9, Top Floor, Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.05.19 17:20:04 +0530 State vs. Gurudev FIR No. 31/2018 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 5 of 11 Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi as a party of his friend/Sumit was taking place and that nothing was recovered from his possession. The accused chose to lead defence evidence and examined one witness :- DEFENCE EVIDENCE:-
8) DW-1/ Sapan deposed that on 30.01.2018, there was a birthday celebration of his friend Sumit at Safdarjung Enclave. Sumit had invited him, Gurudev, Mosif, and another person also named Sumit. They were all returning from the birthday party when they saw some boys playing cards near Safdarjung Enclave. In the meantime, some police officials arrived at the spot. During this, Gurudev had an argument with the police officials. Subsequently, all of them were taken to the police station. Gurudev was made to sit in a separate room, while he and the other friends were kept in a different room. Gurudev was charged with the offence of theft, whereas he and the other friends were charged with the offence of gambling.
Witness was duly cross examined by Ld. APP.
-:FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
9) In the final arguments, Ld. APP submitted that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt as the accused was caught red handed at the spot and complainant/PW-1 has also duly identified him in Court as well. No material contradiction has been brought forth by subjecting him to cross examination as well. Ld. APP has thus prayed that the accused be convicted of the offence u/s 457/380/511 IPC
10) Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the accused is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as he was found present near the place where gambling was taking place and police had arrived and apprehended the persons present there. He specifically pointed out the Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.05.19 17:20:10 +0530 State vs. Gurudev FIR No. 31/2018 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 6 of 11 registration of Gambling FIR No. 30/2018 on the same date at 2:30 AM concerning gambling at A-2/9, 3rd Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, and that while the accused Gurudev is not named in it, DW-1 Sapan is named. He argued that DD No. 7A (in this case) was received later at 3:40 AM, despite the complainant stating he woke up at 3:00 AM. He has argued that the complainant at behest of the IO has falsely implicated the accused and that he has committed no offence and has prayed for acquittal of the accused.
-:APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:-
11) 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. The bedrock of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt. If there are two possible views, the one favouring the accused must be adopted. The burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution. The accused is charged under Section 457 IPC (lurking house-trespass by night or house-breaking by night in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment) and Section 380 IPC (theft in a dwelling house) read with Section 511 IPC (attempt to commit offences).
12) The defence has brought to light a crucial piece of information: FIR No. 30/2018 that was registered on the same date (30.01.2018) at 2:30 AM under the Gambling Act. This FIR pertains to alleged gambling activities at "A-2/9, 3rd Floor, New Empire Hotel, Safdarjung Enclave." Significantly, DW-1 Sapan, the defence witness in the present case, is named as an accused in that gambling FIR.
a) Proximity of Location and Time: The address mentioned in the gambling FIR (A-2/9, 3rd Floor) is remarkably similar to the address in the present case Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.05.19 17:20:16 +0530 State vs. Gurudev FIR No. 31/2018 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 7 of 11 (A-2/9, Top Floor). While "Top Floor" and "3rd Floor, New Empire Hotel"
might denote slightly different parts of the same building or immediately adjacent premises, the "A-2/9, Safdarjung Enclave" part is identical. The timing is also critical as the gambling FIR was registered at 2:30 AM.
b) DW-1's Testimony and Link: DW-1 Sapan testified that he, accused Gurudev, and others were returning from a party when they encountered police near a gambling spot, and Gurudev had an argument. DW-1 stated he and others were booked for gambling, while Gurudev was booked for theft. The fact that DW-1 is an accused in the gambling FIR lends significant credence to his presence in that vicinity and his interaction with the police that night, related to gambling activities at or near A-2/9.
13) PW-1 Pradeep Kumar testified he woke around 3:00 AM due to noise on his terrace, yet DD No. 7A, recording his PCR call, was received only at 3:40 AM.
There is a 40-minute gap between PW-1 waking up and calling the police. A significant point of contention arises from the timeline of events. This 40-minute interval, during which an alleged intruder armed with tools (a plier and screwdriver) was supposedly present, is problematic for the prosecution's narrative. It defies logic that an individual intending to commit theft would remain on the terrace for such a substantial period without making any discernible attempt to force entry, especially when allegedly equipped to do so. Crucially, the prosecution has presented no evidence of any broken locks, damaged doors, or pry marks that would substantiate an actual attempt to break in. The "khat-khat" noise mentioned by PW-1 remains uncorroborated by any physical evidence of attempted forced entry. This prolonged period of alleged inactivity, coupled with the absence of any signs of a break-in, casts considerable doubt on the assertion that the accused's immediate intent upon reaching the terrace was to commit theft. This scenario lends more credence to the possibility that the accused's presence was linked to Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.05.19 17:20:21 +0530 State vs. Gurudev FIR No. 31/2018 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 8 of 11 other events, such as the earlier gambling raid at the same building complex (A-2/9), making his presence on the terrace perhaps an act of evasion rather than a direct, sustained attempt at burglary.
14) Further, the prosecution's case hinges heavily on the recovery of these iron plier and iron screwdriver from the accused. While PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 depose to this recovery, the circumstances surrounding the accused's initial encounter with the police become murky due to the gambling FIR. If there was indeed an altercation between Gurudev and the police near a gambling spot, as alleged by DW-1, the possibility of these common tools being planted on the accused to frame him in a more serious offence (attempted theft/house-trespass) cannot be entirely ruled out, especially if an argument had transpired. The IO (PW-2) did not make any independent public witness (apart from the complainant PW-1) a party to the recovery proceedings of the tools, which is a common and desirable practice to lend authenticity, though not fatal in itself. However, in a case with a plausible alternative narrative like the one emerging here, the absence of independent corroboration for the recovery from the accused's person assumes greater significance.
15) A significant discrepancy exists concerning the alleged recovery of a Nokia mobile phone. PW-2 SI Suresh Kumar and PW-3 Ct. Ramdas testified that during the personal search of the accused (Ex. PW1/E), a Nokia mobile phone (white in colour) was recovered. However, PW-1 Pradeep Kumar, the complainant, who was present during the apprehension and search on the terrace, makes no mention whatsoever of any mobile phone being recovered from the accused. His testimony focuses solely on the recovery of the screwdriver and plier. This omission by the prime public witness (PW-1) regarding a mobile phone, which police officials claim to have recovered, casts doubt on the accuracy and entirety of the recovery process narrated by the police. If a mobile phone was indeed recovered, it is highly Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.05.19 17:20:25 +0530 State vs. Gurudev FIR No. 31/2018 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 9 of 11 unusual that the complainant, who signed the personal search memo, would not mention it, especially since he earlier claimed to have heard someone talking on the phone.
16) Furthermore. PW-1 stated he heard "some person talking on phone at the terrace." This was a crucial lead. However, the investigating agency failed to corroborate this. Even if the Nokia phone mentioned by PW-2 and PW-3 was recovered from the accused, there is no record of its Call Detail Records (CDR) for the relevant period (around 3:00 AM on 30.01.2018) being obtained and placed on record. If the accused was indeed talking on the phone as alleged, his CDR could have potentially confirmed call activity and corroborated the complainant's testimony. The failure to collect and produce such vital corroborative evidence, which was well within the reach of the investigating agency, is a significant investigative lapse. This leaves PW-1's assertion about hearing someone talking on the phone uncorroborated by any independent evidence that could link the accused to this act.
17) In the present case, the evidence apparent on record is not sufficient for bringing home the guilt of the accused and the prosecution story suffers from material infirmities. In criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty, and the burden of proving the guilt of the accused solely rests upon the prosecution by leading positive evidence. Accused is not expected to prove his innocence to the hilt. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused. The guilt of the accused is not to be proved by mere preponderance of probabilities but it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from "may have" to "must have".
Suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot take the place of proof.
Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.05.19 17:20:29 +0530 State vs. Gurudev FIR No. 31/2018 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 10 of 11
18) Thus, in view of the foregoing analysis, this court is of the considered view that the aforesaid deficiencies in the case of the prosecution are sufficient to raise a doubt on the veracity of the entire prosecution case against the accused and the benefit of doubt is extended to him. Prosecution has failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Gurudev stands acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 380/457/511 IPC. Case property be confiscated to the State and be destroyed after expiry of the period of appeal.
Announced in open Court on this 19th day of May 2025. This Judgment consists of 11 pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally signed by NIDHI NIDHI Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.05.19 17:20:36 +0530 (NIDHI SINGH) JMFC-03, South District, Saket Courts,Delhi 19.05.2025 State vs. Gurudev FIR No. 31/2018 PS Safdarjung Enclave Page 11 of 11