Delhi District Court
State vs Ashish on 14 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. Komal Garg
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS- 03 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLWT020028542016
FIR No.1240/2015
PS - Nihal Vihar
State Vs. Ashish
U/s 457/380/511 IPC
JUDGMENT
(a) ID number of the case 66671/2016
(b) Date of commission of 1.9.2015 offence(s)
(c) Complainant Sh. Vipin Kumar
(d) Accused person(s) (1) Ashish S/o lt. Sh. Girdhari Lal, R/o B-55A, Laxmi Park, Nangloi, Delhi.
(e) Offences U/s 457/380/511 IPC (f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilt (g) Final Order Accused person acquitted. (h) Date of institution 2.6.2016 (i) Date of judgment 14.3.2026 JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01:09 2015 at G-11A, 21/22. Adhyapak Nagar, Nangioi Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Nihal Vihar, accused committed house breaking in night in order to commit and accused tried to Digitally signed by KOMAL KOMAL Date:
GARG State vs. Ashish FIR No.1240/2015 GARG 2026.03.14 18:17:08 Page No. 1/13 +0530 commit theft and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 457/380/511 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred as Cr.PC. for brevity]. The accused person were arrested. Relevant record was collected. The final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., was prepared against the above named accused person and challan was presented in the Court.
3. Copy of challan and relevant documents were supplied to the accused free of costs as envisaged under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4. A prima facie case under Section 457/380/511 IPC was found to be made out against the accused person. Charge was framed upon the accused person accordingly on 5.11.2016. The accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined 05 witnesses. The testimony of all the witnesses are reproduced hereunder for ready reference and the relevancy and admissibility of said testimony will be dealt with at the later part of the judgment :
6. Testimony of PW1 Sh. Vipin:
Digitally signed by KOMAL KOMAL Date:
GARG GARG 2026.03.14 18:17:15 State vs. Ashish FIR No.1240/2015 +0530 Page No. 2/13 "I am residing at the above said address. On 01.09.2015, at about 04:00 am, when I returned to my home from office, I found the lock as well as Kunda of the main gate of my house was broken. I also found accused who name later on revealed as Ashish was inside my house and he accumulated articles of my house at one side. When I apprehended him, accused started beating me and thereafter, I raised alarm of ' Chor- Chor' and after hearing my alarm, my neighbours were came at my house. Thereafter, I along-with the help of my neighbours, I apprehended him and my neigbours beaten up the accused. I made 100 number call. Police came at my house. I narrated whole incident to the IO. My statement was recorded which is Ex.PW1/A, bearing my signature at point 'A'. IO prepared site plan at my instance Ex.PW1/B, bearing my signature at point 'A'. IO also made efforts to find the lock as well as Kunda which were broken by the accused, but the same was not found. Accused present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness)." He was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
7. Testimony of PW2 ASI Jai Bhagwan :
"On 1/09/15 I was posted at PS Nihal Vihar as HC. On that Digitally signed by KOMAL KOMAL Date:
GARG GARG 2026.03.14 State vs. Ashish FIR No.1240/2015 18:17:21 +0530 Page No. 3/13 day my duty hours were from 8.00AM to 8.00PM. On that day HC Dalbir Singh called me to join the investigation of the present case as I was assigned the duty of JWO and as per directions I went to Adhyapak Nagar Nangloi where I met with HC Dalbir and accused person was also present there who has been apprehended by the public persons and given beatings by them. (Accused is present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness.) HC Dalbir called the mother of accused namely Ashish at the spot and also inquired the accused. On inquiry the accused was found a juvenile and thereafter I prepared the relevant documents that is the undertaking document vide Ex. PW2/A bearing my signature at point A and also prepared social report of juvenile in conflict with law vide Ex. PW2/B bearing my signature at point A. I also apprehended the accused vide apprehension memo vide Ex. PW2/C and also recorded the version of the child in conflict with law and both bearing signatures at point A respectively. Thereafter the accused handed over into the custody of his mother and thereafter I returned to PS." He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. Testimony of PW3 Rtd. SI Dalbir Singh :
Digitally signed by KOMAL KOMAL Date:
GARG GARG 2026.03.14 State vs. Ashish FIR No.1240/2015 18:17:28 +0530 Page No. 4/13 "On 01.09.2015, I was posted at PS Nihal Vihar as HC. On that day, I was on emergency duty from 8:00pm to 8:00am. In the morning time, I received a call regarding catching hold of thief at a house. Accordingly, I visited at the spot i.e. Adhyapak Nagar where I met with the caller namely Vipin Kumar. He stated to me that he had put the lock outside the house and then he went somewhere on the day before. He further stated that he had received a call from his neighbour regarding the entry of thief at this house accordingly he returned back to his house. He saw that the kundi (lock) was put outside the main door of the house by public persons from neighbourhood. Thereafter, he pointed out the said locked house to me. We both unlocked the house and entered into the house and saw that the household articles were gathered at the one place. We caught the said person present in the said house. On inquiry he revealed his name as Ashish. I inquired him his age and he replied 17 years. I informed the child welfare officer of the PS namely ASI Jai Bhagwan who accordingly reached at the spot. We called mother of accused with the help of staff and she reached at the spot. I inquired her about the age proof but she replied that she had no age proof of the accused. JWO/ASI Jai Bhagwan recorded the version of the accused. We got Digitally signed by KOMAL KOMAL GARG State vs. Ashish FIR No.1240/2015 GARG Date:
2026.03.14 Page No. 5/13 18:17:33 +0530 medically examined him and produced before the JJB concerned court. Accused Ashish is present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness." He was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
9. Testimony of PW4 ASI Udham Singh :
"On 09.12.2015 I was posted at PS Nihal Vihar as Constable. On that day, I joined the investigation in the present along with HC Inderaj. I along with HC Inderraj went at H no B-55A Laxmi Park, where we found accused Ashish present in the house. Thereafter IO interrogated Ashish. After interrogation accused Ashish was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B bearing my signature at point A. IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW4/C bearing my signature at point A. Accused was sent to lock up after medical examination. On the same day accused was produced before the court and from there he was sent to JC. Accused Ashish is present in the court and correctly identified by the witness." He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
10. Testimony of PW5 SI Inder Raj :
Digitally signed by KOMAL KOMAL Date:
GARG GARG 2026.03.14 18:17:40 +0530 State vs. Ashish FIR No.1240/2015 Page No. 6/13 "I am the IO in the present case. The present case has been marked to me on 18.11.2015. On 09.12.2015 the present case was registered and after the bone ossicification test of the accused. Thereafter on 09.12.2015 he was arrested by me assisted by Ct. Udham Singh. After the registeration of FIR I met the complainant and visited the spot and prepared the site plan at his instance the same is Ex PW5/A bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter medical examination of the accused was done and he was produced before the court and from there he was sent to JC and I prepared the chargesheet and submitted before the court. Accused is present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness." He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
11. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED Thereafter, statement of accused U/s 294 Cr.P.C. recorded on 10.1.2025 wherein he admitted genuineness of documents without admitting the contents thereof. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused person is recorded under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Incriminating evidence is put to him. He denied all the allegations and stated that it is a false case and police has Digitally signed by KOMAL KOMAL Date:
GARG GARG 2026.03.14 State vs. Ashish FIR No.1240/2015 18:17:46 +0530 Page No. 7/13 planted him and arrested him from his house ie Shri Ram Park and has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused person opted not to lead defence evidence.
12. I have heard the Ld. APP and carefully perused the record in extenso. It is submitted by the learned defence counsel that the accused person has been charged for the offences punishable under section 457/380/511 of IPC but prosecution failed to prove the same as no neighbour/ public witness has been examined by the investigating officer.
13. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
14. Before discussing the testimonies of the witnesses, it would be prudent to briefly discuss the legal position involved in the present case.
The provisions of section 457 IPC is reproduced below :-
Lurking house trespass or house breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment The provisions of section 380 IPC is reproduced below :-
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.
The provisions of section 511 IPC is reproduced below :- Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with Digitally signed State vs. Ashish FIR No.1240/2015 KOMAL by KOMAL GARG Page No. 8/13 GARG Date:
2026.03.14 18:17:52 +0530 imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
15. In the present case, PW1 Vipin is the victim of alleged house breaking and attempt to theft by the accused Ashish. Perusal of his testimony reflects that he has stated that he has found the lock of his house as broken on 1.9.2025 at around 4:00am when he has returned to his house. Thereafter, he found accused Ashish inside the house and it is alleged that accused had accumulated articles of his house at one side. He apprehended the accused and raised alarm. Then, neighbours gathered there. Thereafter, police came after he made 100 number call. It is also revealed that police did the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. In the present charge-sheet, there is no public witness except PW1 Vipin.
16. On perusal of testimony of PW1 Vipin, it has been revealed that the alleged lock which is stated to be broken by accused was not recovered. No photograph of the accumulated articles by accused is taken by the police officials or PW1 Vipin. No list of accumulated articles was prepared by IO or any police official nor such list was given by PW1 Vipin. Thereafter, witness from PW2 to PW5 were examined and they all are Digitally signed by KOMAL KOMAL Date:
GARG GARG 2026.03.14 State vs. Ashish FIR No.1240/2015 18:17:58 +0530 Page No. 9/13 police witnesses who had participated in the investigation.
17. After going through the testimonies of PW1 to PW5, it is observed that there is a major contradiction as to the apprehension of accused in the testimony of PW1 and PW3.
PW1 had stated that he had found the accused in his house when he returned and thereafter, neighbours gathered after he raised alarm. On the contrary, PW3 had stated that PW1 received a call from his neighbour regarding the entry of thief at his house, accordingly, he returned back to his house.
18. Further, prosecution has failed to file any proof that accused had broken upon the locks as no such broken lock was recovered at the spot. Further, no photograph of the gate through which accused had entered the house of complainant after breaking open the locks is on record. Also, prosecution has failed to take any photographs/ prepare the list of the alleged accummulation of articles by accused after breaking open the locks of house of complainant in order to commit theft.
19. Further, despite presence of neighbours at the spot, no neighbour has been examined by the police officials. Failure on the part of the police officials to make sincere effort to join Digitally signed by KOMAL KOMAL GARG State vs. Ashish FIR No.1240/2015 Date: GARG 2026.03.14 Page No. 10/13
18:18:03 +0530 public witnesses for the proceedings when they may be available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. Reference can be taken from the decision of Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under;
"It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."
20. It is a well settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100(4) of the Cr.PC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable person of the society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation.
21. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and finding, I am of the considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove their guilt for offence u/s 457/380/511 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Digitally
signed by
KOMAL KOMAL GARG
Date:
GARG 2026.03.14
18:18:10
+0530
State vs. Ashish FIR No.1240/2015 Page No. 11/13
22. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused. It is the cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence, that the accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution is under legal obligation, to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. At the conclusion of the trial, the prosecution can succeed only on discharging its burden of proving the case against the accused. Strongest of suspicion, does not constitute the proof required.
23. Keeping in view the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Therefor, I give benefit of doubt to the accused and Digitally signed by KOMAL KOMAL GARG GARG Date:
2026.03.14 18:18:16 +0530 State vs. Ashish FIR No.1240/2015 Page No. 12/13 accordingly, the accused viz. Ashish is acquitted of the charge framed u/s 457/380/511 IPC.
File be consigned to record room. Pronounced in open Court, on this Day of 14th March, 2026. Digitally This judgment consists of 13 signed pages. signed by KOMAL KOMAL GARG GARG Date:
2026.03.14 (Komal Garg) 18:18:22 +0530 JM First Class-03 West/THC/Delhi/14.3.2026 State vs. Ashish FIR No.1240/2015 Page No. 13/13