Delhi District Court
State vs Pritam Singh on 23 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWATI SHARMA,
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
CNR No.DLSH020059922016
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.06/15, PS Vivek
Vihar[Cr. Case
No.87759/16]
b Date of the commission of : 17.11.2014
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : Sh. G.B.S. Chauhan
d Name of accused person and : 1. Pritam Singh
his parentage and residence S/o Sh. Khajan Singh
(Proceedings abated vide
order dated 04.01.2025).
2. Karamvir
S/o Sh. Pritam Singh
3. Sudesh
S/o Sh. Pritam Singh
All R/o H.No.103, Asgarpur
Jagir, District Gautam Budh
Nagar, UP.
e Offence complained of : 452/323/341/506/34 IPC
f Plea of the accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted
h Order reserved on : 23.05.2025
i Order pronounced on : 23.05.2025
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Factual matrix and trial proceedings
FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar
State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.1/ 16
1.Briefly stated the facts of the Prosecution case are that on 17.11.2014 at about 02:00 pm at Kothi No.99, Savita Vihar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Vivek Vihar, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention have committed house trespass into the above said premises belonging to complainant Gurbachan Singh with the preparation to cause hurt and thereafter threatened the complainant to kill by showing the kattas and again on 08.12.2014, in furtherance of their common intention, accused persons wrongfully restrained the complainant and thus, committed the offence u/s 452/323/506/341/34 IPC. Hence, the present case.
2. Chargesheet in this matter was filed in the court on 05.09.2016 for the offence u/s 452/323/341/506/34 IPC against accused whereupon Cognizance was taken and upon appearance of accused persons, copy of chargesheet and relevant documents attached with it were supplied to the accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr. P.C.
3. Moving further, vide order dated 10.11.2017, charge was duly served upon the accused persons under section u/s 452/506/341/34 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is pertinent to mention that during trial, accused Pritam Singh has expired. Consequently, proceedings against accused Pritam Singh stand abated vide order dated 04.01.2025.
5. Subsequently, prosecution evidence was led and in order to prove its version, prosecution examined three witnesses i.e., FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.2/ 16 PW-1 Gurbacharan Singh Chauhan, PW-2 Sagar Kapoor, PW-3 Insp. Kulbir Rana and PW-4 HC Upender.
Brief of the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses is given in the following paragraphs:
5.1. PW-1 Sh. Gurbacharan Singh Chauhan: He is the complainant in the present case. He deposed that on 01.10.2011, he had purchased a plot at measuring 600 meters from accused Pritam Singh under a scheme, however, he failed to remember the area of the said plot. He further deposed that GPA, letter of possession and other documents pertaining to the same were executed between him and accused Pritam Singh, however, the possession of the said plot was not given and the said GPA was got cancelled by accused Pritam Singh and thereafter, he had contacted him several times and accused Pritam Singh had assured him to make the payment. He further deposed that on 17.11.2014 at around 2:00 pm, accused Pritam Singh, Karamvir and Sudesh came to his house in a white colour car and they were having two kattas in their hands and forcefully entered into his house and accused Karamvir told that "aaj inko plot dete hain...
sabak sikhate hain" like that. He further deposed that they told himthat "you Delhi wale used to call at 100 number and if you call at 100 number then he will be killed" and thereafter, they left his house. He further deposed that on 08.12.2014, at around 1:00 pm, while he was going to his showroom from his house and had covered the distance of about 500-600 meters from his house, in the meantime, all three accused persons came and started the same thing, they asked him not to demand for the said plot and threatened him I called to police on which police assured him to FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.3/ 16 look into the matter, however, police did not take any action. He further deposed that on 02.1.2015, he went to the office of the then DCP and gave complaint Ex.PW1/A and on the directions of DCP office, FIR was got registered. He further deposed that he was inquired about the spot by police at his house where he narrated the same and he had given documents pertaining to the said plot which was executed between them and accused Pritam Singh which was taken by police vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He further exhibited the original documents Ex.PW1/C(colly)(OSR).
During his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that he is Graduate and is a member of the Minority Commission. He further stated that he know all the accused persons since October, 2011 through property dealer. He failed to remember the exact date of meeting. He further stated that he had given the complaint at PS Preet Vihar for the first time in the month of August, 2014, however, he did not know the name of the IO who was given the complaint of August, 2014 and no action was taken by the police official PS Preet Vihar on the first complaint. He admitted that Savita Vihar, where he resides is a posh area and at the time of incident, no CCTV cameras were installed in Savita Vihar Colony. He further stated that he President of RWA Savita Vihar from 2011 to 2014. He admitted that on the main gate of Savita Vihar society, security guards are now deputed, however at the time of incident, no such security guards were deputed. He further stated that his driver Sagar Kapoor is an eye-witness to the alleged incident besides him. He admitted that the said fact is not mentioned in his initial complaint. He was asked whether any member of Savita Vihar FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.4/ 16 society is an eye-witness to the alleged incident? He replied in negative and voluntarily said that the same incident took place inside his house. He further stated that the distance between showroom is away from his house is about 3-4 km and their showroom is opened either by his son and his staff during summer vacation at around 10:30 am and during winter at about 11:00 am. He further stated that their showroom is in the jurisdiction of PS Preet Vihar and their house comes under the jurisdiction of PS Vivek Vihar. He further stated that he has copy of complaint duly stamp in the month of August, 2014, Mark X (running into two pages) and both the parties have signed on the agreement Ex. PW1/C before the sub-registrar, Noida. He admitted that it was in his knowledge that this property will be allotted to the accused. He denied the suggestion that he had to bear the expense of allotment. He admitted that the agreement amount Rs. 18,50,000/- is mentioned in the agreement (vol. other balance cash part was given through broker Rajeev which was not mentioned in the agreement Ex.PW1/C). He further stated that it is not in his knowledge whether the said plot have been allotted till date to the accused persons or not and they have not disclosed this fact to him till today and not they have returned him the payment till today. He further asked that the above-said plot is not allotted till now, is it correct or not? He replied that he is not aware. He further stated that the possession letter of the above-said property was prepared by the accused Pritam Singh through his Advocate, which is part of Ex.PW1/C and he cannot say whether accused Pritam Singh is educated or not. He denied the suggestions that he had prepared above-said document. He admitted that possession letter/ affidavit / settlement deed was FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.5/ 16 signed by accused Pritam Singh does not bear signatures of witnesses and he is ready to take full payment i.e. DD as well as cash plus 18% p.a. till date and not ready to receive the part payment Rs. 18,00,000/- mentioned in the Ex.PW1/C. He further stated that the cash payment will be checked from his Accountant and he will tell him the cash payment within a week and no criminal case is pending between him and accused Pritam Singh. He further stated that one civil suit relating to recovery of plot/ payment is pending between him and accused Pritam Singh at Noida Court. He was asked that can he produce the copy of the plaint of the above-said civil suit pending before the Noida Court? However, question was declined being irrelevant in the present case. He further stated that on the date of incident none of his family members were present at his residence except his driver Sagar. He failed to remember the make of white colour car, however it was like make of ambassador and the accused persons remained at the place of incident for about 6-7 minutes. He further stated that he had given a written complaint in the PS Vivek Vihar on the same day. Again said, it was not on the same day and the date is not known. He further stated that he had not made any 100 number call on the day as the accused persons had threatened saying "tum delhiwale used to call 100 number and in case you dialed 100 number they will kill you". He denied the suggestions that he had not made call at 100 number or made any written complaint on the same day as no such incident took place. He further stated that on 08.12.2014 he was going to his showroom from his house at 1 pm and the confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A wherein it is not so recorded and on 08.12.2014, he was going to his showroom from his house on his FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.6/ 16 foot. He denied the suggestions that the place where incident took place on 08.12.2014 was not a public place and he cannot tell the make of the car, however, it was white colour. He further stated that on 08.12.2014, he had not made call at 100 number as he did not have mobile phone. He further stated that he had asked for mobile phone from a public person to make a call on 100 number, however he refused. He admitted that he had not mentioned the said fact either in his complaint given in the PS concerned or in his testimony before the court. He further stated that besides him, there is no other eye-witness to the incident dated 08.12.2014 and voluntarily stated that it was a lonely road. He further stated that the police officials did not visit the spot of the incident dated 08.12.2014 with him and he is not aware about the documents prepared by the police during investigation of incident dated 08.12.2014. He failed to remember the date when the information regarding cancellation of GPA was given to him by accused Pritam Singh, however he himself informed him. He further stated that he had not sent a legal notice to the accused persons in this regard and voluntarily stated that however it was given to Noida Authority. He denied the suggestions that he has falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case or that accused persons never entered Delhi or committed any offence on the dates alleged by him.
5.2 PW-2 Sh. Sagar Kapoor: He deposed that in the year 2014, he used to work as a driver and on 17.11.2014, at time about 2:00 pm, he was present at the house i.e. H.NO.99, Savita Vihar, Delhi, of complainant namely G.B.S. Chauhan. He further deposed that accused persons namely Karambeer, Sudesh and FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.7/ 16 Pritam Singh entered in the above said house of complainant and accused Karamabeer and Sudesh were having Katta(country made pistol) in their hands and pulled towards complainant G.B. S. Chauhan in his house. He further stated that all accused persons were saying "agreement cancel karo nahi to jaan se mar denge", thereafter, accused persons run away from the spot. He correctly identified the accused Karambeer in the court and identity of accused Sudesh and Pritam was not disputed by the Ld. Defence counsel.
During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that he is 8th class passed and was working under G.B. S. Chauhan as a driver since 2012 till 2016. He further stated that he knows the accused persons since 2012-2013. He failed to remember how many times he visited the house of accused persons. He admitted that above-said house of complainant G.B.S. Chauhan situated in the posh area and no CCTV cameras were installed nearby neighbour of complainant G.B.S. Chauhan and at the time of incident no guard were present at the entry gate of the colony. He was asked did any neighbor/public person besides him saw the accused persons entering the colony/house of complainant at the time of incident? He replied that he cannot say as he was inside the house. He further stated that the complainant was running a jewelry showroom at the time of incident and the jewelry showroom of the complainant is at a distance of about 8/10 Kms from his house. He further stated that the complainant goes to his showroom by car and there are 11 family members in the house of complainant and at the time of incident, no family members of the complainant was present in FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.8/ 16 the house. He did not know where the family members of the complainant had gone at the time of incident, however, the wife of the complainant had gone to the market. He further stated that the incident took place in the drawing hall of the complainant's house. He failed to remember colour of fabrics of accused persons wearing at the time of incident. He further stated that he used to carry mobile phone at the time of incident and he did not make call at 100 number. He further stated that complainant did not make call on 100 number in his presence and complainant might have called his son regarding the incident but he cannot tell how many times complainant called his son. He further stated that the accused remained at the spot for about 5 to 7 minutes. He admitted that no scuffle took place between the complainant and accused persons at the spot. He further stated that he have never visited the PS. 5.3 PW-3 Inspector Kulbir Rana: He stated that on 02.01.2015, as per the direction of the concerned SHO the duty officer handed over to him copy of FIR and original tehrir of the present case and investigation was marked to him. He further stated that he proceeded to the house of the complainant i.e. H.No. 99, Savita Vihar where he met the complainant and prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/A at his instance. He further deposed that he recorded the supplementary statement of complainant and the complainant disclosed that his driver Sagar was also present during the incident and thereafter, he proceeded to record the statement of Sagar u/s 161 Cr. P.C. He further deposed that the complainant handed over him the photocopy of the documents of the property which was the bone of contention between the FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.9/ 16 parties and he seized the documents vide seizure memo already Ex-PW1/B. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses and filed the charge-sheet after completion of the investigation He during his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that he had recorded the statement of the complainant on 02.01.2015. He did not know how many family members are there in the family of the complainant and in regard to the investigation of this case, he might have gone to the house of the complainant 2-3 times. He further deposed that he had no idea regarding the area measurement of the house of the complainant, however it might have been will up to three floors. He did not know how many entry exit gates are there in the house of the complainant and as told by the complainant, the incident had taken place at the ground floor. He denied the suggestions that he had no knowledge as to where exactly on the ground floor the incident took place and he had inquired in the locality of the complainant, however no CCTV footage could be recovered pertaining to the incidence. He further deposed that he had not conducted any inquiries from the guard of the colony or neighbours of the complainant and he is not aware as to whether initially the complaint was filed in PS Preet Vihar and he did not remember as to whether he had taken out the mobile locations of the accused persons and the complainant at the time of the incident or not, he had conducted inquiries from the complainant regarding the car as mentioned in the testimony of the complainant, however no details could be found as it was stated that the number plate was dirty and filled with mud. He admitted that in the original complaint, complainant did not mention FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.10/ 16 anything about the driver and he did not conduct any inquiries in the neighborhood with respect to the incident of 08.12.2014. He admitted that no 100 number call was made by the complainant after any of the incident and that FIR in the present matter has been got registered after approximately one month of the alleged incident. It is correct that he did not visit Noida authority for verification of any documents pertaining to the present case. He denied the suggestions that the present case is false and fabricated or that accused persons have never committed the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He denied the suggestions that he is deposing falsely.
5.4. PW4 HC Upender: He deposed that on 02.01.2015 at about 4:45 p.m, SHO Inspector Ram Sunder handed over to him one tehrir for registration of FIR and thereafter, he made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW4/A and thereafter, he registered the FIR no. 06/15 PS Vivek Vihar Ex. PW4/B (OSR). He further deposed that thereafter, certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act was issued Ex. PW4/C. He further deposed that he handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO/SI Kulvir Rana.
He during his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel denied the suggestion that he had not issued certification U/s 65 (B) Indian Evidence Act or that he had not registered the abovesaid FIR.
6. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons namely Sudesh and Karamvir was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 22.01.2025 wherein they claimed to be innocent and denied allegations against them. They stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.11/ 16 present case. They further stated that the plot was not allotted till now.
Despite opportunity, accused persons opted to not lead any Defence Evidence. Accordingly, bringing the trial to an end, final arguments were heard from Ld. Counsel for the accused as well Ld. APP for the State.
Final Arguments
7. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that the significant delay in lodging the FIR i.e. over six weeks after the alleged first incident without any satisfactory explanation severely undermines the prosecution's case. This delay suggests afterthought and possible fabrication. PW2, the driver, was not named in the FIR or in any initial complaint and was only introduced later, raising suspicion of tutoring and planting. The lack of independent witnesses, despite the alleged crime occurring in a residential colony, and the failure of the IO to examine guards or neighbours further reflects poor investigation. It is further argued that there was also no recovery of weapons or identification of the vehicle, and the testimony of PW1 and PW2 contains several inconsistencies. Therefore, it is prayed that as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the accused persons deserve acquittal.
8. Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for complainant have jointly submitted that the complainant's testimony is clear, consistent, and credible, and sufficiently supported by PW2, an eyewitness. Delay in FIR is reasonably explained by the complainant's fear due to armed threats. Non-naming of PW2 in FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.12/ 16 the FIR is not fatal, as the FIR is not meant to contain exhaustive details. It is further submitted that Lack of recovery or CCTV footage does not negate credible oral evidence. It is further argued that there is no motive for false implication, and the accused persons have failed to rebut the prosecution's case. Hence, the prosecution prays for conviction of accused persons under Sections 452, 506, 341, and 34 IPC.
9. In the present case, the prosecution has charged the accused persons, namely Sudesh and Karambir, under Sections 452, 506, 341 read with Section 34 IPC, based on the complaint of complainant Gurbachan Singh (PW1). The complainant has alleged that on 17.11.2014, the accused persons along with co- accused Pritam Singh (now deceased), forcibly entered his residence at Sarita Vihar, armed with kattas issued criminal threats to his life, and left without causing physical harm. It is further alleged by him that a second incident occurred on 08.12.2014, wherein the accused persons allegedly intercepted him on the road and again threatened him. However, despite the grave nature of these allegations, it is an admitted fact that the complainant did not register an FIR immediately after either of the incidents. The FIR was ultimately lodged only on 02.01.2015, after he allegedly approached the office of the DCP. There is no reasonable or convincing explanation provided by the prosecution for this delay of more than six weeks between the first incident and the registration of the FIR.
10. The law is well-settled that unexplained or unreasonable delay in lodging an FIR cast a serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution story. Delay, particularly in cases involving FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.13/ 16 allegations of serious offences such as criminal trespass and threats at gunpoint, assumes greater significance. It provides scope for embellishment, deliberation, or false implication. In this case, the complainant claims he did not report the incident on the same day because of the threats issued to him by the accused, but this explanation rings hollow, especially considering that the complainant is a person of considerable standing. He is an educated individual, former President of the RWA and now a member of the Minority Commission. He could have at least made a complaint through someone else or reported the incident once he felt safe. The delay, coupled with the complainant's conduct in not even making a 100 number call or approaching the police station in the intervening period significantly weakens the prosecution's case and casts doubt on the authenticity of the events described.
11. Another important aspect is the belated introduction of PW2 Sagar Kapoor, the complainant's driver, as an eyewitness. In the FIR and the initial complaint made to the police, there is no mention whatsoever of any eyewitness to the incident. It was only in the supplementary statement of the complainant, recorded on 02.01.2015 i.e., after the FIR was registered and the IO prepared the site plan, that the name of PW2 was disclosed. This sequence of events creates a serious doubt about the spontaneity and genuineness of his presence at the scene. PW2, being a domestic servant and long-standing employee of the complainant, cannot be treated as an independent witness. His omission from the initial version of events and sudden appearance as an eyewitness in a supplementary statement after a delay of more than six weeks raises a clear inference of tutoring FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.14/ 16 and afterthought. His testimony, therefore, must be scrutinized with greater caution. The fact that he failed to take any initiative himself to report such a serious incident, despite allegedly witnessing armed accused persons entering his employer's home, further erodes the credibility of his testimony. His explanation that he did not call the police, and that no complaint was made by him only deepens the suspicion that his account is not natural or truthful.
12. The deficiencies in the investigation is also of great importance. The IO has deposed that he prepared the site plan on 02.01.2015 and recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant on the same day, wherein PW2 was named for the first time. He also recorded the statement of PW2 on the same date. He admitted that no efforts were made to examine any neighbors of the complainant or any security personnel from the colony, nor were any CCTV cameras checked even though the complainant resided in a posh locality. He further admitted that although inquiries were made about the vehicle allegedly used by the accused, no concrete information was gathered because the number plate was said to be dirty and unreadable by the complainant. This explanation appears tenuous and points to a lack of serious or diligent investigation. Such lapses in investigation become even more crucial in a case where there is no medical evidence, no recovery of weapons, and no corroborative material evidence to support the prosecution's story.
13. Furthermore, several material contradictions emerge from the testimonies of PW1 and PW2. For example, PW1 stated that he was alone at home during the incident, and that the accused FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.15/ 16 stayed for 6-7 minutes. However, he failed to report the incident to any neighbors or guards, and could not state the make of the car used. He also admitted that his driver Sagar was an eyewitness but omitted to mention this in the original complaint or FIR. PW2 on the other hand, claimed to have been inside the house during the incident yet made no attempt to call for help or inform the police. He too failed to recall basic details such as the attire of the accused and did not report the matter to anyone.
14. The prosecution case rests primarily on the oral testimony of the complainant and his employee, both of whom are interested witnesses. Their evidence is riddled with unexplained delays, material omissions, and inconsistencies. No independent witness or corroboration exists. The investigation has been demonstrably lacking in diligence. In criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is bound to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must therefore go to the accused.
15. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Sudesh and Karambir. Accordingly, they are acquitted of all charges under Sections 452, 506, 341 read with Section 34 IPC. Digitally signed by Swati Swati Sharma ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN Sharma Date:
2025.05.23 17:04:05 COURT ON 23.05.2025 +0530 (Swati Sharma) Chief Judicial Magistrate(Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [This judgment contains 16 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] FIR No.06/15 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Pritam Singh etc. Page No.16/ 16