Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu@Ravi on 22 March, 2025
State Vs. Sonu @ Ravi
IN THE COURT OF MS. PAYAL SINGAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09, CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
STATE vs. Sonu @ Ravi
FIR NO. : 1214/2023
U/S : 380/411 IPC
PS : Burari
Cr. Case No. : 14101/2023
JUDGMENT
1. CNR No. : DLCT02-029943-2023 2. Date of Commission of the offence : 16.10.2023 3. The name of the complainant : Sh. Chetan Dubey 4. Name & parentage of accused : Sonu @ Ravi, S/o Sh. Chhote Lal 5. Offence complained off : 380/411 IPC 6. Plea of the accused person : Pleaded not guilty. 7. Final order : CONVICTION Date of Institution : 16.11.2023 Date of Reservation : 10.03.2025 Date of Judgment : 22.03.2025 BRIEF FACTS:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the fate of the abovementioned FIR which was registered on 16.10.2023 on the complaint of Sh. Chetan Dubey qua the commission of theft into his house i.e. House No. 4266, Gali No. 110/4, B Block, Sant Nagr, Burari, on 16.10.2023 itself.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 16.10.2023 at about 10.00 pm at H.No. 4266, Gali NO. 110/4, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi within the Digitally signed PAYAL by PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date: 2025.03.22 16:45:43 +0530 FIR No. 1214/2023 PS Burari Page No. 1/10 State Vs. Sonu @ Ravi jurisdiction of PS Burari, the accused committed theft of one purse belonging to the wife of the complainant namely Chetan Dubey which contained Rs.1500/- cash and AADHAR card and one mobile make POCO C-51, blue in color from the house of the complainant and the said articles were recovered from his possession which he retained knowingly or believing the same to be stolen property. Thus, the accused has committed an offence u/s 380/411 IPC.
3. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court, upon which cognizance was taken and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), arguments on the point of charge were heard and the formal charge was framed u/s 380/411 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) against the accused Sonu @ Ravi on 14.12.2023 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was proceeded further for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
4. Before proceeding with the prosecution evidence, it is relevant to mention here that during the course of trial, the accused had admitted the copy of FIR No. 1214/2023 (Ex. AD1); endorsement made on rukka (Ex. AD2); Certificate U/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act (Ex. AD3) without admitting the contents of the said documents. Thus, the said witnesses were not summoned.
5. Accordingly, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the remaining 05 witnesses in support of its case i.e. PW-1 Sh. Chetan Dubey i.e. the complainant, PW-2 HC Kuldeep, PW-3 ASI Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
FIR No. 1214/2023 PS Burari Page No. 2/102025.03.22 16:45:55 +0530 State Vs. Sonu @ Ravi Parmod PW-4 Ms. Shivani, wife of the complainant and PW-5 Ms. Parmila, the mother of the complainant. Now, the testimonies of all these witnesses shall be discussed in detail one by one.
6. PW-1 Sh. Chetan Dubey deposed that he resides at H. No. 4266, Gali No. 110/4, B-Block, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi alongwith his family and on 16.10.2023 at about 10:00pm, he was present alongwith his father at ground floor of his house. PW-1 deposed that his mother and his wife had gone to market at that time and when his mother came back to house, she saw that one person was coming down stairs from the first floor of their house. PW-1 then deposed that he apprehended said person who was found in possession of one mobile phone of his father make Poco and one purse containing cash amount of Rs. 1500/- of his wife. Thereafter, PW-1 stated that he called at 100 number and police reached at the spot and the person apprehended was handed over to IO and IO also recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. PW-1 further stated that IO arrested and personally searched the accused vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C and he handed over the case property recovered from the possession of accused to the IO which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D and PW-1/E. The said witness correctly identified the accused and the case property in court.
7. PW-2 HC Kuldeep Kumar and PW-3 ASI Parmod deposed that at the intervening night of 16-17.10.2023, they were performing night emergency duty when a DD no. 177 A at about 10.00 pm was marked to ASI Parmod regarding theft and apprehension of the accused. Thereafter, both the police officials reached at H. No. 4266, Gali no. 110/4, Sant Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date:
SINGAL 2025.03.22 16:46:06 +0530 FIR No. 1214/2023 PS Burari Page No. 3/10 State Vs. Sonu @ Ravi Nagar, Burari where they met with the complainant Chetan Dubey, S/o Sh. Ram Narayan who produced the accused and also one red colour bag (purse) which contained Rs. 1500/- cash, one Adhar Card. Both PWs stated that there was one mobile phone POCCO C-51 which was also produced by the complainant which was recovered from the possession of the accused belonging to the father of the complainant whereafter, ASI Parmod recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared tehrir and handed over the same to HC Kuldeep for the registration of FIR. They stated that at about 11.45 pm, HC Kuldeep left the spot and went to PS Burari for the registration of FIR and after the registration of the same, he returned to the spot alongwith computerized copy of FIR and original tehrir which he handed over to ASI Parmod. Thereafter, ASI Pramod seized the purse with cash and ID vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D; IO/ASI Pramod also seized mobile phone vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E; IO/ASI Parmod arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B; IO/ ASI Parmod also conducted personal search of the accused Ex.PW1/C; IO also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, both these PWs stated that the accused alongwith case property was brought to the PS where the case property was deposited into the malkhana, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of all the formalities, the chargesheet was filed before the concerned court by ASI Parmod. The said witnesses correctly identified the accused and the case property in court.
8. PW-4 Shivani deposed that she did not remember the exact date, however the incident occurred in the time of Navratri which was happened in Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.22 FIR No. 1214/2023 PS Burari Page No. 4/10 16:46:15 +0530 State Vs. Sonu @ Ravi winter season year 2023 when she alongwith her mother-in-law returned from the market at about 7.30 pm, when they saw the accused was coming back from the 02nd floor and firstly her mother-in-law saw the accused and thereafter she also saw him. PW-4 stated that she raised an alarm and called her husband who was available in the room who then reached there and apprehended the accused. PW-4 stated that when they saw him i.e. the accused, he was carrying in his hand one mobile phone and after that, someone called the police official who reached at the spot and thereafter all the proceedings were done in the presence of her husband. The said witness correctly identified the photographs of the case property but she failed to identify the accused in court.
9. PW-5 Parmila Dubey stated that she was residing at H. No. 110/4, Sant Nagar, Burari with her family and the incident occurred 01 or 02 years ago when she alongwith her daughter-in-law was returning from the market. She stated that in between of 06 to 7.00 pm, the accused was coming down stairs and after seeing him, she asked him what he was doing in our house but he could not give any answer as he was seeming to be under the influence of Alcohol. PW-5 stated that she was the one who apprehended the accused with the help of her son Chetan Dubey who was available at the house and that the accused was found in a possession of one mobile phone and one purse which contained Rs. 1500/-. The said witness correctly identified the photographs of the case property but she failed to identify the accused in court.
10.All the witness were duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel wherein some material facts have come on record which shall be duly Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.22 FIR No. 1214/2023 PS Burari 16:46:27 +0530 Page No. 5/10 State Vs. Sonu @ Ravi dealt with in the reasoning part of the judgment.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED:
11.After recording the testimony of all the witnesses, the PE was closed and thereafter, the statement of the accused person was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w S.281 Cr.P.C on 10.03.2025. In the said statement, the accused person denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused person further stated that he did not want to lead any DE and accordingly, the matter came up for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
12.Arguments on behalf of the accused were advanced by ld. LAC Sh. Satish Kumar and by Sh. Rohit Lohat, Ld. APP on behalf of the State.
13.It was argued by Ld. APP for the state that the state had successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused person had entered the house of the complainant illegally and committed theft and was guilty of the offences u/s 380/411 IPC. It was argued that the testimony of PW-1 was very clear and when the same was accompanied by the testimonies of PW-4 & 5, who were all present there and apprehended the accused while in the said act and had also correctly identified the accused in court was sufficient to prove the allegations against the accused as no material contradictions had been brought in their testimony. It was further argued that the testimony of the said PWs was duly corroborated by PW-2 and 3 police witnesses and accordingly, it Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date:
SINGAL 2025.03.22 FIR No. 1214/2023 PS Burari Page No. 6/10 16:46:35 +0530 State Vs. Sonu @ Ravi was argued that the accused be convicted for offences u/s 380/411 IPC.
14.Per contra, it was argued by the Ld. LAC for the accused person that the accused person was completely innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. It was further argued that as per the testimony of the police officials, they had only recorded the statement of the complainant and no one else was available at the spot but the prosecution had also examined two other witnesses, being the mother and wife of the complainant. It was argued that both the said two additional witnesses had failed to identify the accused and since, they had been examined by the prosecution despite their absence as per the testimonies of police witnesses, the entire prosecution case was brought into doubt. It was further argued that there is no explanation as to why the statements of the said public person/s, if any, were not recorded. Accordingly, it was argued that the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case and he was bound to be acquitted of all charges levelled against him.
15.Arguments from both the sides have been heard and the record has been carefully perused.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:
16.It is settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence that it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution case appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of any and all doubt/s, necessarily has to go to the accused Digitally person/s.
signed by PAYAL PAYAL Date:
SINGAL SINGAL 2025.03.22 16:46:43 +0530 FIR No. 1214/2023 PS Burari Page No. 7/10 State Vs. Sonu @ Ravi
17.Now, before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the bare provisions of law which are to govern the reasoning behind the decision of the present case.
"380. 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."
"411. 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 years, or with fine, or with both."
18.In the case at hand, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused entered the house of complainant to commit theft and while he was leaving the house after committing theft, he was seen by the wife and mother of the complainant coming down from the stairs and was apprehended by the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of apprehension of the accused, he was found in possession of the stolen mobile phone of the father of the complainant and the purse of the wife of the complainant containing AADHAR card and Rs.1,500/- cash and the said case property was handed over to the police officials when they arrived at the spot.
19.In the case at hand, the prosecution has examined three independent witnesses i.e. PW-1 Sh. Chetan Dubey i.e. complainant; PW-4 Ms. Shivani i.e. wife of the complainant and PW-5 Ms. Parmila i.e. the mother of the complainant. Now, firstly coming to the testimony of PW-1, the said witness has given exemplary testimony of the events that transpired on the Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.22 FIR No. 1214/2023 PS Burari Page No. 8/10 16:46:52 +0530 State Vs. Sonu @ Ravi night of the incident i.e. on 16.10.2023, when he was available at his house with his father, his wife and mother who were returning from the market saw the accused coming down from the stairs of their house, him having apprehended the said person and having found the mobile phone of his father and the purse of his wife with him, him having called 100 number, police officials arriving at the spot, him handing over the accused and the recovered articles to them, police officials preparing the documents and completing the investigation in his presence. The said witness also correctly identified the accused and the case property in court. Moreover, no substantial contradictions were brought in the cross- examination of the said witness and he stood the test of the said. Now, although, the remaining two public persons i.e. his wife and mother failed to identify the accused in court but they too gave a clear-cut account of the events that transpired that night. Accordingly, merely the fact that they did not identify the accused does not bring into question their reliability as both of them stated that they could not remember the face of the person due to passage of time.
20.As far as the argument of the ld. LAC for the accused to the extent that as per the testimony of police witnesses, no one other than the complainant was available at the spot nor anyone else joined the investigation is concerned, the court is of the considered opinion that in light of the stellar testimonies of the said three witnesses as discussed above and the fact that PW-4 clearly stated that after calling the police, only her husband took part in the proceedings, the said fact is well explained and cannot be taken as a ground to raise doubt upon the prosecution case. It is very much Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date:
SINGAL 2025.03.22 FIR No. 1214/2023 PS Burari Page No. 9/10 16:47:00 +0530 State Vs. Sonu @ Ravi possible that PWs 4 and 5 left the spot or were elsewhere when the police arrived at the spot.
21.Thus, the court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of all the three witnesses, duly corroborated by the testimonies of the police witnesses, when taken together is sufficient to prove the allegations against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that he entered into the house of the complainant on 16.10.2023 at night and committed theft of one mobile phone make POCO, one purse containing Rs.1,500/- and one AADHAR card which were duly recovered from him in the presence of three public witnesses PWs 1, 4 and 5.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the court is of the opinion that as per the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence wherein an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of which never shifts and always lies upon the prosecution, in the case at hand, the prosecution has successfully discharged the said burden to prove the charges u/s 380/411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused person. Accordingly, accused Sonu @ Ravi stands convicted of the charges u/s 380/411 IPC.
23.Let the copy of judgment be supplied free of cost to the convict.
(Announced in open Court Digitally
signed by
PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL
On 22.03.2025 ) Date:
SINGAL 2025.03.22
16:47:08
(The judgment contains 10 pages +0530
and all the pages bear my signatures)
(PAYAL SINGAL)
JMFC-09/Central/THC
22.03.2025
FIR No. 1214/2023 PS Burari Page No. 10/10