Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul on 2 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-09 (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Rahul
FIR No : 90/2018
U/s : 382/457 IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020463632021
2. Date of commission of offence : 03.06.2018
3. Date of institution of the case : 23.09.2021
4. Name of the complainant : Smt. Soni
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Rahul
address S/o Satbir
R/o H. no.P-85, Rawta
Mor, Dabar Enclave,
Delhi
6. Offence complained of : 382/457 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
: Acqitted u/S 382 IPC
8. Final order and convicted u/S 453
IPC
9. Date of final order : 02.05.2024
Argued by:- Mr. Pankaj Gulia, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Dushyana Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Digitally signed
by Abhinav
Abhinav Ahlawat
Date:
FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 1 of 18 Ahlawat 2024.05.02
17:25:52
+0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that between 03.06.2018 between 09:30 pm to 10:00 pm, accused committed lurking house trespassed by night by entering into the house no.49, Gali no.18, Dabar Enclave, Near Om Farm House, Jafarpur Kalan, Delhi which was in possession of complainant Soni to commit the offence of theft. Further, accused dishonestly removed the case property i.e. Rs.10,000/- and Mangalsutra belonging to complainant Soni having made precaution in order of committing such theft and in order to affecting his escape after committing such theft and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 382/457 IPC, for which FIR no.90/2018 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, charge under Sections 382/457 IPC was framed against the accused on 20.03.2022. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 2 of 18 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.05.02 17:26:00 +0530 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Smt. Soni PW-2 HC Ramesh Kumar PW-3 HC Virender PW-4 HC Dinesh PW-5 SI Virender Singh DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant Ex.PW1/B Arrest memo Ex.PW3/A Disclosure statement Ex.PW3/B Personal search memo Ex.PW5/A Tehrir Ex.PW5/B Site plan ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.90/2018 alongwith certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.A2 DD no.03A dated 04.06.2018 Ex.A3 DD no.32A dated 03.06.2018
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses, the same are as follows.
PW1 Smt. Soni (complainant) deposed that on 03.06.2018, he alongwith his son Suraj were at the house of Baij Nath (her jeth). When she came to her house alongwith her son, at first her son Suraj saw someone standing at the gate of the room and he told her the same. When she saw herself, she saw Rahul was getting out from her room. She raised voice at the same time. He thrown her child inside the room and ran away from there. She called at 100 number. Rahul had entered into his room through an electric pole. When she saw Rahul it was about 08:30pm. Police came Digitally signed FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 3 of 18 by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.05.02 17:26:07 +0530 from PS J.P. Kalan and remained present there till the morning. She found mangalsutra and Rs.10,000/- missing from her box. She also found that lock of the box was broken. Police recorded her statement vide Ex.PW1/A. She did not remember the date of arrest of Rahul but police had called her at PS when Rahul was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B. Nothing was recovered in the present case. While accused was running from her house at that time, he pushed her and she fallen on road. She sustained injury and her medical was got conducted at RTRM hospital. In the cross-examination, she stated that statement of her son was not recorded by the police. She had stated about her son in her statement vide Ex.PW1/A. After the incident, her jeth and jethani came to her room but police had not recorded their statement. She stated in her statement that the lock of box was broken. She had locked the doors of her house. She stated that at a distance of 50 feet, there was CCTV camera installed there. Police had not taken CCTV camera. When she raised voice, neighbors gathered but she did not know whether police had recorded the statement any of them as she had gone to hospital. Her husband arrived in morning at about 04:00am. Police had taken her for her treatment at about 09:30 pm. She called at 100 no from her mobile. She had given her statement as per her husband and she had signed only.
She had not read over the same before signing the same. She stated that at that time it was 08:30pm and it was dark on the street and the gali was closed in which accused ran away. She stated that there was warning plate on the electric pole that if anybody climb on the pole would be dangerous to his life.
5. PW2 HC Ramesh Kumar deposed that in the intervening night of 3/4.06.2018, he was on emergency duty with ASI Virender Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 4 of 18 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.05.02 17:26:15 +0530 Singh and upon receiving DD no.32A, he along with ASI Virender Singh went to the spot of incident i.e. H. no. 49, Gali No.18, Dabar Enclave, near Om Farm house but the caller was not present at the house and the house was found locked. Upon inquiring from the neighbours, it was revealed that the caller was taken to RTRM hospital by the PCR. Thereafter, he along with ASI Virender Singh went to RTRM hospital where ASI Virender Singh received MLC no.2803/18 of the caller but the caller was not found at the hospital and was revealed that the caller had already went to her house. Thereafter, he along with ASI Virender came back to the PS and they along with W/Ct. Sushila went to the house of the caller Soni W/o Pappu where ASI Virender Singh recorded the statement of complainant and prepared a tehrir upon her statement and he got the FIR registered. In the cross-examination, he stated that the call was received by them on 03.06.2018 at about 9:30pm. He along with ASI Virender Singh went to the spot of incident in the private car of ASI Virender Singh. They reached at the house of the caller Soni at about 9:50/9:55pm. IO recorded his statement on his laptop on 04.06.2018 at the PS. The statement of complainant Soni was recorded in the intervening night of 3/4.06.2018, however, it was passed midnight. The statement of Soni was recorded by the IO in his own handwriting. At that time, husband of the complainant namely Pappu was also present there. IO did not record the statement of Pappu in his presence. He left the spot along with the rukka at about 12:55am. He reached at the PS along with the rukka at about 1:05/1:10am. He came back to the spot along with copy of the FIR and the original tehrir at about 01:30 am. He finally left the spot at about 01:45 am.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 5 of 18 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.05.02 17:26:22 +0530
6. PW3 HC Virender deposed that on 07.08.2020, he had joined the investigation of the present matter along with IO HC Dinesh Kumar. On that day, he was present along with IO at Om Farm Road where the complainant Smt. Soni pointed towards the accused and identified him as the accused Rahul who was then apprehended by the IO with his help. The IO interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/A. The accused was arrested and he was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW3/B. In the cross-examination, he stated that did not know whether the house of the accused was situated at Om Farm House Road. He along with HC Dinesh were on foot when they apprehended the accused. HC Dinesh had recorded the statement of complainant Soni on the said day.
7. PW4 HC Dinesh deposed that on 18.04.2019, the investigation of the present matter was handed over to him. During investigation, on 07.08.2020 he arrested the accused Rahul at the instance of complainant Soni and he was personally searched. He Interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement. The accused was got medically examined at RTRM hospital and thereafter produced before the Ld. MM at Tihar Jail Complex. After concluding the investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the Court. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the court. In the cross- examination, he stated that the accused was arrested by him at Om Farm Road. The intimation regarding the arrest of the accused was given his father. The complainant was with him at that time.
8. PW5 SI Virender Singh deposed on the lines of PW2 HC Ramesh. In the cross-examination, he stated that he received Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 6 of 18 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.05.02 17:26:29 +0530 DD no. 32A at about 09:58 pm and reached at the spot at about 10:15pm by government gypsy. He did not recorded the statement of the person who shared information with him that injured already shifted RTRM hospital by the PCR van. No eye witness was found at the spot. No CCTV camera was installed at the spot. He along with Ct. Ramesh and W/Ct. Sushila reached at the house of the complainant between 11:45 to 12 midnight. He stated that the house of the accused and complainant were located in the same gali. He did not remember whether the husband of the complainant was present when he recorded the statement of complainant. During the investigation, he did not recorded the statement of complainant's son.
9. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined, hence, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
10. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence 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 on 20.09.2023 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC, wherein he has stated that he is innocent and complainant has wrongly instituted the present case against him. He further stated that he is the neighbor of complainant and due to some previous quarrel between them he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 7 of 18 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.05.02 17:26:36 +0530 FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
12. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
13. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it . As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
14. The allegations levelled against the accused are segregated into two parts:
Firstly, on 03.06.2018 between 09:30 pm to 10:00 pm, accused committed lurking house trespassed by entering into the house of complainant and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 457 IPC. Secondly, on the same date and time, accused Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 8 of 18 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.05.02 17:26:43 +0530 dishonestly removed the case property i.e. Rs.10,000/- cash, ear rings and Mangalsutra belonging to complainant Soni as mentioned in her complaint having made preparattion in order to committing such theft and in order to affecting the escape after committing such theft and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 382 IPC.
15. Let us deal with the first set of allegations against the accused regarding offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC which is an aggravated form of Section 456 IPC which is lurking house trespass or house breaking committed at night. For establishing the offence under Section 457 IPC, the following ingredients needs to be established:
1. There was lurking trespass / house breaking at night.
2. House trespass/ house breaking in order to commit an offence.
16. As per Section 443 IPC, in order to constitute lurking house trespass, offender must take some active means to conceal his presence from someone who has right to exclude him. Thus, the mere fact that a house trespass was committed by night does not make the offence one of lurking house trespass. Therefore, actively concealing his presence by taking precautions is the gist of the offence of lurking house trespass. Trespass being the core of the provision, intention to commit an offence are the pre- requisite condition.
17. To prove the abovementioned offence, prosecution examined complainant PW1 Soni who stated that on.... when she along with her son Suraj came to her house, at first her son saw Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Date: FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 9 of 18 Ahlawat 2024.05.02 17:26:51 +0530 someone standing at the gate of the room and when she herself saw, accused rahul coming out of her room and when she raised her voice, accused Rahul grabbed her child and threw him inside the room and ran away from there. While running away from her house, accused Rahul pushed her due to which she sustained injuries. Complainant correctly identified accused in her testimony and further stated that she called at 100 number and police came there and remained at the spot till morning.
18. PW1 further stated that upon checking the room she found her mangalsutra and Rs.10,000/- cash missing from her box. She also found the lock of the box to be broken. In her cross-examination, she stated that she had locked the door of her house and when she came back, she had not opened the lock of the same. PW1 further admitted that there was a CCTV camera installed at a distance of 50 feet away. However, the police had not taken the footage of CCTV camera. PW1 further stated that her husband arrived in morning at about 04:00am and she had given her statement as per her husband. She further stated that at the time of 08:30pm, when she saw accused Rahul came out of her room and as per her accused must have entered into her premises by way of climbing through electric pole.
19. Perusal of the record shows that accused was apprehended later on 07.08.2020 from Om Farm Road after complainant pointed out towards the accused to be person who had entered into her room. PW4 HC Dinesh arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that although accused had not led any defence evidence, however, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C., accused stated that he is neighbor of complainant and due to some previous Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 10 of 18 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.05.02 17:26:57 +0530 quarrel, he was implicated falsely in the present case. The Court is conscious of the fact that the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. is not a substantive piece of evidence but merely an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances against him. Reliance can be placed upon the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sumeti Vij Vs. Paramount Tech Feb Industries (CRA 292/21) LL 2021 SC 149, "The statement of the accused recorded under 313 of the Code is not substantive evidence of defence, but only an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution case of the accused".
20. Therefore, it is clear that complainant and accused are known to each other and it was on the pointing of complainant that the accused was apprehended later on. Ld. counsel for accused has vehemently argued that prosecution has not proved the present case beyond reasonable doubt and neither the son or husband of the complainant has been examined nor any article which was allegedly stolen was recovered or seized from the possession of accused.
21. It is clear that the two items which the complainant stated in her complaint to be missing from her room i.e. Rs.10,000/- in cash and her Manglasutra were never recovered. Furthermore, the lock of the room which was broken for entering into the room of complainant was never seized nor the same has been tendered into evidence to be the same belonging to the complainant. Further, husband of complainant has also not been examined by the prosecution.
Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat Date: FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 11 of 18 Ahlawat 2024.05.02 17:27:08 +0530
22. It is settled law that short comings into the investigation should not be attributed to the complainant. Another factor which needs to be taken care of was to why would the complainant falsely implicate the accused in the present case. It is not the fault of complainant that IO did not include the neighbours and other persons during investigation nor collected the CCTV footage from the camera installed nearby. The investigation cannot be called faulty but at the same time it is also not thorough. As held in the case of Karnel Singh vs State of M.P. AIR 1995 SC 2472: (1995) 5 SCC 518: 1995 SCC (Cri) srr. 1995 Crl. L.J 4173, the loopholes in the investigation were left to help the accused at the cost of the poor prosecutrix, a labourer. To acquit solely on that ground would be adding insult to injury.
23. It is a settled law that, if the prosecution case is established by the evidence adduced, any failure or omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot render the case of the prosecution doubtful. In the present case, complainant has specifically identified the accused to be the person who had entered into her house and that she was pushed away by the accused when accused was running away with the stolen items. Further accused was apprehended on 07.08.2018 as evident from arrest memo Ex.PW1/B which bears the signatures of complainant at point A. PW1 stated that she was called in the police station when accused Rahul was arrested. One point which needs to be taken note of is that complainant moved her complaint regarding the incident by specifically naming the accused as he was her neighbour. The Court testimony of complainant remains untainted and complainant withstood the test of cross-examination.
Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat Date: FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 12 of 18 Ahlawat 2024.05.02 17:27:25 +0530 Although as per the settled provision of law, when the identity of accused is unknown and complainant as per their statements states that they could identify the accused, then the provision of test identification parade is resorted to by the investigating agency. In the present case, complainant has by name stated the accused to be the person who had entered into her premises taking away her items and who was apprehended about two months after the date of incident. PW1 has also stated that accused Rahul was not found at this house when he was searched by the police after the incident. Thereby, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of complainant.
24. The accused has not led any defence evidence and only version which has come from the side of accused is that he is the neighbour of complainant and due to some previous quarrel he has been falsely implicated. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence although he could have brought material to show that complainant had reasons to falsely implicate him. Some convincing and cogent ground and evidence was required from the side of defence to discard the evidence of the complainant. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witness or falsify the claim of the complainant given against the accused. Accused was known to the complainant being her neighbour and he was found standing at the gate of the room when he was seen by complainant and her son at about 08:30 pm on the date of incident. Thereafter, accused ran away by pushing away both the complainant and her son. Although the broken lock has not been seized by the IO and none of the items of the complainant were recovered from the accused, the fact remains that accused was found to have entered Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 13 of 18 Ahlawat Date:
2024.05.02 17:27:33 +0530 into the premises of complainant during the night time for the purpose of committing offence. Although there is no material or evidence to show that accused had taken precautions to conceal his identity, therefore, offence of lurking house trespass is not made out but accused was found in the premises of the complainant during the night time and he had no permission or consent from the complainant to enter into the possession of the premises of complainant.
25. As per section 445 IPC, fifthly, wherein it is provided that , person is said to commit "house-breaking" who commits house- trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described, that is to say-
(Fifthly)-- If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault or by threatening any person with assault.
26. In the present case, neither the broken box or the broken lock of the door of the room has been seized nor there is anything on record to show that accused that broken anything to effect his entry in the house of the complainant however, the fact that he entered into the house of the complainant in the night time and thereafter upon being found he escaped by pushing aside both complainant and his son is well established, therefore the act of the accused is squarely covered in the definition of house breaking as provided in section 445 IPC fifthly which is punishable under section 453 IPC.
As accused person in the present case is charged for the offence punishable u/s 457 IPC for causing the lurking house Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 14 of 18 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.05.02 17:27:40 +0530 trespass or house breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, it is required that prosecution proves the main ingredients of the same.
27. A person may trespass or break into another's house for a multitude of reasons and with any intention. It is for the prosecution to specifically allege and prove any such reason or intention. Though intention may not be susceptible to any direct proof, yet there must be at least some circumstantial evidence to prove that intention of the accused in breaking into the house of complainant was the one as alleged. However, in the instant case, no such evidence, either direct or circumstantial, has been led by the prosecution to prove that intention of the accused in breaking into the house of complainant was to either commit theft or was to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that accused had committed the offence punishable under section 457 IPC.
28. Furthermore, the offence punishable u/s 453 IPC which is a minor offence of section 457 IPC and therefore by invoking the provisions u/s 222 (2) Cr. PC1 accused person can be convicted for the offence u/s 453 IPC, although the accused person was not charged with it. Thereby, as per the evidence led by prosecution, act of accused being found in the premises of the complainant 1 222. When offence proved included in offence charged.
(1)When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.
(2)When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
(3)When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.
(4)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.Digitally signed by Abhinav
FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 15 of 18 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.05.02 17:27:51 +0530 during the night time establishes that he has criminally trespassed into the premises of complainant although neither the broken lock or items being stolen has being recovered or there is any material to show that accused took steps to actively conceal his identity therefore, offence punishable under Section 457 IPC is NOT made out against the accused. However, the act of the accused is squarely covered under the definition as provided under section 445 IPC which is punishable under section 453 IPC and accordingly, accused is convicted for offence under section 453 IPC.
29. The second set of allegations against the accused regarding offence punishable under Section 382 of IPC. For offence of Section 382 IPC, prosecution must the following:-
(i) The accused removed any movable property from out of possession of another person;
(ii) That he did so with dishonest intention; and
(iii) He did so with preparations to cause death (hurt or restraint) or fear of death (hurt or restraint) while committing theft.
30. To bring home an offence under section 382 IPC, prosecution has to prove the basic ingredients of offence of theft as provided under section 379 IPC.
Further, it is a settled law that it is not necessary that the person who files the complaint of theft should establish that he was the owner of the theft property. However, when evidence about the possession of de facto complainant of the theft property is never collected during the investigation or produced during the Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Date: FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 16 of 18 Ahlawat 2024.05.02 17:27:59 +0530 trial conviction in the charge of theft cannot be sustained as held in Bhuta Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 1985 WLN (UC) 378.
31. Furthermore, it is not necessary for offence of theft that items should be recovered however, in the present case, nothing was procured by the IO during the investigation about the details of the either mangalsutra or Rs 10,000/- in cash which was allegedly taken away by the accused person from the premises of the complainant. The details of the mangalsutra was not procured nor the complainant stated any detail about the same during her deposition. Complainant merely stated that she found her mangalsutra and Rs 10,000/- missing however, the same cannot lead to the presumption that the said amount or item must have been stolen by the accused. No such amount was recovered from the possession of accused after his apprehension even after his arrest by the police. Since there is neither any witness who had seen accused committing theft of above said items nor any recovery of the said items from the possession of accused, thereby the basic ingredients of the offence of section 382 IPC are not made out and accordingly, accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 382 IPC.
Conclusion
32. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution evidence, both oral and documentary, including the surrounding circumstances leads to the only conclusion that accused person committed the offence of house breaking as he was found in the premises of the complainant and he effected his departure from the said premises by using criminal force thereby prosecution has Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 17 of 18 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.05.02 17:28:07 +0530 been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the ingredients of Section 445 IPC which is punishable under Secrtion 453 IPC.
33. In the light of above discussions, the Court is of the view that prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of the accused and accordingly accused Rahul is hereby convicted for offence punishable u/S 453 IPC and acquitted for offence u/S 382 IPC.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed on 02.05.2024 in the presence Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat 17:28:14 Date: 2024.05.02 of the accused. +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Metropolitan Magistrate-09, Dwarka, Delhi/02.05.2024 Note:- This judgment contains 18 pages and each page has been signed by me. Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.05.02 17:28:24 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Metropolitan Magistrate-09, Dwarka, Delhi/02.05.2024 FIR No. 90/2018, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Rahul Page 18 of 18