Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak on 28 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-09 (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Deepak
FIR No : 295/2014
U/s : 380/457/174A IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020177232017
: Between 16.11.2014 to
2. Date of commission of offence
18.11.2014
3. Date of institution of the case : 05.07.2017
4. Name of the complainant : Smt. Santosh
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Deepak
address S/o Hari Chand,
R/o H. no.103, Harijan
Chaupal, Surhera
Village, New Delhi
6. Offence complained of : 380/457/174A IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
: Acquitted u/S 380/457
8. Final order IPC and convicted u/S
174A IPC.
9. Date of final order : 28.03.2024
Argued by:- Mr. Pankaj Gulia, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Madan Lal, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Digitally signed
by Abhinav
Abhinav Ahlawat
FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 1 of 17 Ahlawat Date:
2024.03.28
16:36:03 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that between 16.11.2014 to 18.11.2014 in the house of Hari Chand, Surhera Village, New Delhi, accused trespassed and had stolen the valuable articles of complainant and later on accused was declared proclaimed offender due to non-appearance in the present case vide order dated 16.05.2017 and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 380/457/174A IPC, for which FIR no.295/14 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 380/457/174A IPC was framed against the accused on 20.03.2021. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 2 of 17 Ahlawat Date:
2024.03.28 16:37:35 +0530
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. Santosh PW-2 ASI Praveen Kumar PW-3 ASI Chander Bhan PW-4 HC Sumender PW-5 Retd. SI Jitender PW-6 ASI Manoj Kumar PW-7 HC Neeraj PW-8 HC Sandeep Kumar DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant Ex.PW4/A Tehrir Ex.PW5/A Scene of Crime Report Ex.PW6/A Arrest memo Ex.PW6/B Personal search memo ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.295/2014 alongwith certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.A2 DD no.28A dated 18.11.2014
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses, the same are as follows.
PW1 Smt. Santosh (complainant) deposed that her husband had got second marriage with her and accused Deepak was born from first marriage. On 16.11.2014, she had gone Gurgaon alongwith her son and when she came on 18.11.2014, she found Rs.1,70,000/- was missing which was kept by her in an iron box and some gold ornaments/articles. Her husband was present at house alongwith his son accused Deepak and he informed her that accused Deepak had asked him to leave the house, thereafter, he left the house. Her husband informed her that Deepak might have stolen the said articles and rupees. She had not seen the Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 3 of 17 Ahlawat Date:
2024.03.28 16:37:43 +0530 accused committing theft of the said articles and money. She had made complaint Ex.PW1/A on the presumption of character of the accused and his previous act. During investigation, no articles and rupees were recovered. During investigation, police had inquired from her and she had made suspicion on the accused in the circumstances in which the offence was happened. Nobody could have access in the room of her house. In the cross- examination, she stated that accused was her step son and he was also residing in the above-mentioned house alongwith her and her son Gaurav.
5. PW2 ASI Praveen Kumar deposed that on 21.07.2016, the present case file was marked to him for investigation. He collected the file from MHCR alongwith original complaint and computerized copy of FIR. During investigation, he made search for accused but could not succeed therefore he took NBW from the concerned court. He got initiated the proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. and the accused was declared as absconder. In the meantime, he was transferred and the case file was deposited to MHCR. In the cross-examination, he stated that the complainant was the step mother of accused. He stated that he had visited the house of accused in process of execution of NBWs against accused and he had seen the house of accused. He had not seen the staircase of that house. He had not specifically inquired about the work of the accused from the complainant and had only visited the house of accused during execution of process of 82 Cr.P.C.
6. PW3 ASI Chander Bhan deposed that on 21.06.2017, the present case was marked to him for investigation. The accused was already declared absconder, therefore, he prepared the Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 4 of 17 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.03.28 16:37:51 +0530 charge-sheet after completion of investigation keeping the accused in column no.11 as proclaimed offender and same was filed before concerned court after recording the statement of witnesses.
7. PW4 HC Sumender deposed that on 18.11.2014, upon receiving DD no.28A by ASI Prabhu Dayal, he along with him went to the spot i.e. H. no.103, near Harizan Chaupal, Village Surhera, New Delhi, where he saw that the door to the inner room was opened and an iron trunk was kept inside the room and its lock was in broken condition. The household articles were scattered in the room. Thereafter, IO ASI Prabhu Dayal called the crime team at the spot and ASI Jitender along with his staff came at the spot and investigated the spot. IO ASI Prabhu Dayal recorded the statement of complainant Santosh W/o Sh. Hari Chand and prepared the tehrir Ex.PW4/A upon her statement and got the FIR registered through him. They searched for the thief and the stolen articles but could not find the same. Thereafter, he along with the IO went to Rawta Mor, where they met two persons who told them that it could be the work of the son of Hari Chand from his first wife whose name was disclosed to be Deepak. Thereafter, they searched for Deepak but he was not found. Inspector Krishan was also accompanying them. Thereafter, they went to Malka Ganj where the complainant Santosh stated that the bua of Deepak resided but he was also not found at Malka Ganj.
Thereafter, They came back to the police station. In the cross- examination, he stated that he remained at spot of incident for about 1 to 1 ½ hours. The gate of the room was in opened condition and the lock of the trunk was in broken condition. Smt. Santosh had disclosed to the IO that Deepak resided nearby.
Digitally signedAbhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 5 of 17 Ahlawat Date: 2024.03.28 16:37:59 +0530 Crime team might have seized the broken lock. He did not remember colour of the said trunk. The hight of the trunk was about 2 ½ to 3 feet and the width of the trunk was about 3 to 4 feet. The clothes and other household of the articles were scattered in the room. He did not notice whether there were stairs going to the roof in the said house or not. He did not remember the name of the public persons whom they met at Rawta Mor and IO had recorded the name of those public persons.
8. PW5 Retd. SI Jitender deposed regarding search of finger prints in the house on wooden door, box etc. but no clue was found and he prepared his report Ex.PW5/A.
9. PW6 Retired SI Manoj Kumar deposed that on 21.10.2020, he had received information from secret informer that accused Deepak had absconded from his house after committing theft. He checked the record wherein the accused was declared proclaimed offender on 16.05.2017. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep and secret informer went to BDO Office, Najafgarh, New Delhi and the secret informer pointed towards one house and stated that he was residing there. The secret informer then went away. He went to the house alongwith Ct. Sandeep and met the brother-in- law of accused namely, Ram Kumar @ Nepali, who told them that the accused had gone to Chhawla Stand Park. Thereafter, they took photographs of accused from his brother-in-law and Ram Kumar told them that accused was residing with him for last 8-9 months. Then, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep proceeded to Chhawla Stand Park and when they entered the park, they saw that the accused was sitting on a bench and they apprehended the accused and inquired about his name, which was revealed as Deepak. Thereafter, they took him and handed over him to SHO Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 6 of 17 Ahlawat Date:
2024.03.28 16:38:08 +0530 at police station. Upon the direction of SHO concerned, they produced the accused before IO HC Neeraj and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A. The accused was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW6/B. IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW6/C. The information of his arrest was given to his sister Jyoti and Ct. Sandeep took the accused to hospital for medical examination. In the cross-examination, he stated that there was no public witness when the accused was arrested.
10. PW7 HC Neeraj deposed that on 21.10.2020, HC Manoj and Ct.
Sandeep apprehended accused Deepak Kumar from Chhawla Stand Najafgarh who was a declared proclaimed offender by the court of Sh. Dheeraj Mor, Ld. MM, Dwarka Courts vide order dated 16.05.2017 and the accused was produced before him at the PS J. P. Kalan. He interrogated the accused, recorded his disclosure statement, arrested him and personally searched him. The information regarding the arrested of the accused was given to his sister Jyoti. Thereafte, the accused was produced before the Ld. Duty MM at Tihar Jail, Court Complex and the accused was later on released on court bail. During investigation, he tried to search for the stolen case property/money but the same could not be found and the same was stated to be already spent by the accused. He concluded the investigation and prepared the supplementary charge-sheet and the presented the same before the Court. The witness correctly identified the accused. In the cross-examination, he stated that he never went to the spot from where the accused was apprehended by HC Manoj and Ct. Sandeep. He never joined any public person from the spot of Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 7 of 17 Ahlawat Date:
2024.03.28 16:38:15 +0530 incident during the investigation and no case property/money was recovered from or at the instance of the accused.
11. PW8 HC Sandeep Kumar deposed on the lines of PW6 SI Manoj Kumar. In the cross-examination, he stated that they did not went to any other place in search of accused prior to the secret information given by the secret informer. They reached at the house which was pointed out by the secret informer at about 12:00 pm and they remained at the said house for about 10 minutes.
12. 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
13. 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 16.08.2023 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 as he is the step son of complainant and he was asking for his share in the property for which complainant instituted the present case. He further stated that he was not staying at the address and for the same reason he was not aware about the date of proceedings due to which he was declared absconder. He further stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence.
Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 8 of 17 Ahlawat Date:
2024.03.28 16:38:23 +0530 FINAL ARGUMENTS
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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
17. The allegations levelled against accused are segregated into three parts:
Firstly, that accused trespassed into the house of complainant on 16.11.2014 and stole valuable articles from the house of complainant and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 457 IPC. Secondly, that accused on the said date stole the Digitally signed FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 9 of 17 by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.03.28 16:38:31 +0530 valuable articles of the complainant from the house of Hari Chand and thereby committed offence under Section 380 IPC and thirdly, that accused intentionally failed to appear or concealed himself despite various process issued against him including NBWs and publication of proclamation under Section 82 Cr, P. C. and thereby committed offence under Section 174A IPC.
18. Let us deal with the first set of allegation against the accused person regarding the offence punishable under Section 457 IPC. Before dwelling into merits of the case, it is appropriate to discuss the ingredients of offence for which the accused has been tried. Section 457 IPC provides for punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit any offence punishable with imprisonment.
Section 457 IPC 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.
19. To prove the abovementioned offence, prosecution examined complainant PW1 Santosh who stated in her cross-examination that accused Deepak was also residing in the abovementioned address alongwith her and her son Gaurav. Hence, offence under Section 457 of IPC is not made out against the accused.
As per Section 443 IPC, in order to constitute lurking house trespass, offender must take some active means to conceal his Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 10 of 17 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.03.28 16:38:39 +0530 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 zist of the offence of lurking house trespass. Trespass being the core of the provision, intention to commit an offence are the pre- requisite condition.
20. To prove the abovementioned offence, prosecution examined complainant PW1 who stated in her testimony that accused Deepak was born from the first marriage of her husband and that she is the second wife and that on 16.11.2014 she alongwith her son namely Gaurav went to Gurugram and that when she returned on 18.11.2014 she found her items missing. PW1 further stated that she was informed by her husband Hari Chand that his son Deepak had asked him to leave the house and that he had accordingly left the house and thereafter PW1 stated further that her husband informed to her that accused Deepak might have stolen the articles and money. Interestingly, PW1 in her cross- examination stated that accused Deepak was also residing at their house along with her and her other son namely Gaurav.
21. The main ingredient of Section 457 IPC is house tress-passing which is defined under Section 442 IPC which means that whoever enters into the property which is in possession of another with the intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. As PW1 herself has stated that accused Deepak used to reside with them which means that accused Deepak had the authority/permission to enter and exit the said property of the complainant at any time. Therefore, there is no case made out of Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 11 of 17 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.03.28 16:38:46 +0530 tress-passing and thereby aggravating form of tress-passing as stated under Section 457 IPC is not attracted. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 457 IPC and the accused is acquitted of the same.
22. The second set of allegations against the accused is regarding offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC. Now, theft is defined under section 378 PC and theft in dwelling house is defined under section 380 IPC. From the aforesaid the essential ingredients of theft are as under:
a) Moving of moveable property out of possession of a person
b) Absence of consent of the person
c) Dishonest intention in so moving and at the time of moving
23. It is settled law that in case of offence of theft, person must have removed movable property out of the possession of another dishonestly and without that person's consent. Property must be in the possession of the prosecutor. For the purpose of commission of offence of theft, it is sufficient if property is removed against his wishes from the custody of a person who has an apparent title, or even colour of right to such property. A movable thing is said to be in the possession of a person when he is so situated with respect to it, that it has the power to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other persons and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed to intend to do so in case of need.
24. In the present case, the criminal law was set into motion upon the complaint as filed by PW1 wherein she stated that when she returned on 18.11.2014, she found Rs.1,70,000/- missing which she had kept in iron box alongwith some gold ornaments. PW1 Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 12 of 17 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.03.28 16:38:53 +0530 further stated that she had not seen the accused committing the offence and she had made the complaint against the accused on the basis of suspicion based on his previous character. Admittedly, accused is the step son of PW1 who was residing with PW1 along with the father of accused namely Hari Chand and second son of Hari Chand namely Gaurav.
Further, complainant moved her complaint Ex.PW1/A on 18.11.2014 when information regarding theft was received by the duty officer vide DD no.28A dated 18.11.2014 Ex.A2. Thereafter, PW4 HC Samunder went to the spot i.e. House no.103, Village Surhera, where the door of inner room was opened and iron trunk was kept inside the room was found with its lock broken and the household articles were scattered in the room. PW4 further stated in his cross-examination that the crime team might have seized the broken lock. However, as per record no article was seized.
Furthermore, PW5 Retd. SI Jitender who also reached the spot after receiving information along with the Crime Team and searched for finger print in the house, wooden door and the box but he found no finger prints and he submitted his report Ex.PW5/A which is the report of scene of crime. PW5 also stated in his cross-examination that he did not remember seeing any broken lock at the house. Other PWs are not the witnesses who went to the crime scene and there is no material which was seized from the spot i.e. either the broken lock/box neither the complainant provided any key of the said box which was allegedly broken for stealing the articles. There is no witness of the incident neither any article has been recovered from the accused. As already stated, that PW1 has stated that she had moved the complaint against the accused on the basis of Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 13 of 17 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.03.28 16:39:00 +0530 suspicion and his previous character. It is an admitted case that no one has seen the accused committing the offence. As husband of the complainant could not be examined as he passed away, therefore, the testimony of complainant PW1 that accused asked his father to leave the house whereafter he committed the offence is not corroborated by any other evidence on record. Even, if the allegations of complainant PW1 are believed to be gospel truth, in the absence of material evidence, it cannot be convincingly held that accused committed the offence of theft in the house of complainant PW1.
25. Accused person cannot be convicted on presumptions or surmises, rather all ingredients as mentioned under section 380 IPC are required to be established. There is not even an iota of incriminating evidence against the accused to fix his liability under section 380 IPC and prosecution has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence against the accused person. Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 380 IPC and the accused is acquitted of the same.
26. The third set of allegations against the accused is regarding offence punishable under Section 174A of IPC. Section 174A IPC are as follows:
"174A .Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974.-- Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."Digitally signed by Abhinav
FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 14 of 17 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.03.28 16:39:07 +0530
27. Thus, Section 174A IPC imposes liability on the person who fails to adhere to the directions of proclamation which is issued in accordance with Section 82 Cr.PC. As per the latter provision, proclamation may be issued by Court against a person, who the Court has reason to believe, is absconding or concealing himself, so as to evade the execution of warrants issued by it, requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. In order to bring home the guilt of accused person under Section 174A IPC, the prosecution is further required to prove that such proclamation was issued strictly complying with the mandatory requirements enumerated under Section 82(2) Cr.P.C.
28. In order to prove the offence under Section 174A IPC, prosecution examined PW2 ASI Parveen who stated that he was investigating the case and when accused was not found anywhere he got initiated the proceedings u/s 82 Cr.PC and accused was got declared absconder. Further, PW6 ASI Manok Kumar stated that he received information from secret informer that accused Deepak had absconded from his house after committing theft who was declared proclaimed offender on 16.05.2017. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep and secret informer went to BDO Office, Najafgarh, New Delhi where secret informer pointed towards one house and stated that he was residing there. He went to the house alongwith Ct. Sandeep and met the brother- in-law of accused namely, Ram Kumar @ Nepali, who told them that the accused had gone to Chhawla Stand Park. Then, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep proceeded to Chhawla Stand Park and when we entered the park, they saw that the accused was sitting on a bench. Then, they apprehended the accused. Also, PW7 HC Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 15 of 17 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.03.28 16:39:15 +0530 Neeraj deposed that he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A and personally searched him vide personal search memo Ex.PW6/B and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW6/C. In the present case, accused was declared absconder vide order of the Court dated 16.05.2017 when process under S. 82 Cr. P. C. which was issued against the accused which was duly executed against him as per the procedure laid in the section itself including publication and public announcement. Vide the order dated 16.05.2017, upon being satisfied that accused was deliberately avoiding the process of Court, the statement of process server was recorded who stated that he visited the address of the accused as submitted by the accused and the statement recorded clearly stated that known person of the accused were made aware of the proclamation issued against the accused. Despite that accused failed to appear.
29. As per the order, predecessor of the Court had observed that accused Deepak was absent and recorded the statement of process server ASI Parveen Kumar and thereafter the Predecessor of the Court reached to the conclusion after going through the statement of process server that accused Deepak was absconding from the process of law and evading his appearance before the Court. Therefore, process under S. 82 Cr. P. C. was duly executed against accused Deepak as per the procedure laid in the section itself including publication and public announcement and the accused was declared absconder. Hence, it is proved that the process server who went to the address of the accused and thereafter duly executed the process under 82 Cr. PC including the publication of proclamation.
Digitally signed by FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 16 of 17 Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.03.28 16:39:26 +0530
30. Accused only stated in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. that he was not staying at the address and for the same reason he was not aware about the date of proceedings. Interestingly, the address where the process u/s 82 Cr. P. C. was executed is the same address which the accused has mentioned in his bail bonds. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission of the accused that he was not staying at the address where the process u/s 82 Cr. P. C. was executed. As such accused has not led any defence evidence thereby the statement as made by accused which was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is not the proof of the same. Accordingly, prosecution has proved the offence under Section 174A IPC against the accused and the accused is convicted of the same.
CONCLUSION
31. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offences u/S 380/457 IPC and holds the accused Deepak not guilty of commission of the said offences. Accused Deepak is thus, acquitted of the offences u/S 380/457 IPC and convicted for offence punishable under Section 174A IPC.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed on 28.03.2024 in the presence Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat 2024.03.28 Date:
of the accused. 16:39:35 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Metropolitan Magistrate-09, Dwarka, Delhi/28.03.2024 Note:- This judgment contains 17 pages and each page has been signed by me. Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.03.28 16:39:40 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Metropolitan Magistrate-09, Dwarka, Delhi/28.03.2024 FIR No. 295/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Deepak Page 17 of 17