Delhi District Court
State vs Noor Alam on 18 May, 2026
THE COURT OF SH. UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN,
CIVIL JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE v. NOOR ALAM
FIR No. -: 138/2018
Police Station -: Madhu Vihar
Section(s) -: 380/451/411 IPC
Cr. Case No. -: 6535/2018
1. CIS number : DLSH020116752018
2. Name of the complainant : Sh. Heera Singh
S/o Sh. Kishan Pal
R/o US-254, School Block,
Chander Vihar, Delhi-110092.
3. Name of the accused, : Noor Alam
parentage & residential S/o Sh. Mehboob Khan
address R/o H.No. A-45, Gali No. 6,
Chander Vihar, Mandawali
Delhi-110092.
4. Offence complained of or : 380/451/411 IPC
proved
5. Date of commission of : 04.04.2018
offence
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Final Judgment : Convicted: u/s 380/451 IPC
Acquitted: u/s 411 IPC
8. Date of judgment/order : 18.05.2026
Date of Institution: 19.12.2018
Date of Reserving Judgment: 25.04.2026
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment: 18.05.2026
Duration: 7 year 4 months
30 days
Argued by: Sh. Kapil Sharma, Ld. APP for the State.
Digitally signed
UDBHAV by UDBHAV
Ms. Geeta Bharti, Ld. Counsel for accused. KUMAR JAIN
KUMAR Date:
2026.05.18
JAIN 14:58:47
+0530
FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam Page no. 1 of 15
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 04.04.2018 at about 06:00am at H.No. US-254, School Block, Chander Vihar, Mandawali, Delhi, one boy entered into the house of complainant Heera Singh unlawfully and stole his mobile phone. He called the emergency number 100 and when police came, person apprehended revealed his name as Noor Alam S/o Sh. Mehboob Khan. As such, it is alleged that the accused Noor Alam committed the offence under Sections 380/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") for which FIR No. 138/2018 was registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of FIR, the investigating officer (hereinafter 'IO') conducted investigation and on culmination of the same, chargesheet against the present accused Noor Alam for the alleged commission of offences u/s 380/454/411 IPC was filed. Ld. Predecessor of this Court took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 07.09.2019. After taking cognizance of the offence, accused was supplied the copy of documents relied upon in the charge sheet in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC").
3. Since prima facie offence against the accused was made out, Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 27.08.2020 framed charge against accused Noor Alam for the offence punishable u/s 380/451 (para
ii) and additionally u/s 411 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signedUDBHAV by UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN KUMAR Date:
2026.05.18 JAIN 14:58:54 +0530 FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam Page no. 2 of 15 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:
ORAL EVIDENCE Prosecution Name of witness Description Witness No. PW-1 Sh. Heera Singh Complainant PW-2 HC Sharvan Kumar Police witness PW-3 HC Bhupender Singh Police witness PW-4 Retd. SI Moolchand IO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Exhibit Description of Document The Witness who Number proved or attested the document Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant PW-1 Ex.PW1/B Seizure Memo PW-1 Ex.PW1/C Apprehension Memo PW-1 Ex.PW1/D Personal Search Memo PW-1 Ex.P-1 Case property PW-2 Ex.PW3/A Arrest Memo PW-3 Ex.PW3/B Personal Search Memo PW-3 Ex.PW3/C Disclosure statement of accused PW-3 Ex.PW4/A Statement of Juvenile PW-4 Ex.PW4/B Tehrir PW-4 Ex.PW4/C Site Plan PW-4 Ex.PW4/D Statement of Juvenile PW-4 ADMITTED DOCUMENTS U/S 294 CrPC Ex.A1 FIR No.138/2018 dated 15.05.2018 Ex.A2 DD No.50A Digitally signed UDBHAV by UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN KUMAR Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18 14:59:00 +0530 FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam Page no. 3 of 15
5. Heera Singh (PW-1) in his examination-in-chief deposed that he is a resident of H.No. US-254A, Mandawali, Chander Vihar, Delhi-110092. On 04.04.2018, at approximately 06:00 AM, when the complainant was at his house, he saw a person going upstairs who was not his tenant. The complainant followed him and entered the room located on the first floor, where he saw that the boy had taken the complainant's mobile phone and placed it in his pocket. The complainant then apprehended the boy. Afterward, neighbors gathered outside the complainant's house and beat the said boy. The complainant immediately called the police at the 100 number, and the police arrived at the scene. The accused then revealed his name as Noor Alam. The complainant presented the accused to the police officials, who recorded his statement exhibited as Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. Based on the complainant's statement, the aforementioned FIR was registered. The police seized the stolen mobile phone through a seizure memo exhibited as Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. The police also prepared the apprehension memo as Ex.PW1/C and personal search memo as Ex.PW1/D both bearing his signature at point A. The Investigating Officer (IO) prepared the site plan at the complainant's request marked as Mark X. Identity of the case property was not disputed. The accused present in Court was correctly identified by the witness.
5.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, witness deposed that he was on the first floor when the incident occurred. He saw the accused taking his mobile phone and apprehended the accused along with the mobile phone. The complainant did not remember the exact time, but the police arrived at the scene between 06:30-07:00 AM. He called the police using a keypad mobile phone, but did not recall the phone number from which he made the call. The phone belonged to the Digitally signed by FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam UDBHAV UDBHAV Page no. 4 of 15 KUMAR JAIN KUMAR Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18
14:59:08
+0530
complainant, although at that time, his wife was using it. Witness admitted that neighbours gathered after the incident. The police did not record the statement of any of the neighbours. The complainant did not present the bill for the mobile phone because he did not have one. The complainant denied the suggestions that he never apprehended the accused, that the accused never entered his house, that nothing was recovered from the accused's possession, that the recovery shown was false and fabricated to implicate the accused in the case or that all the paperwork was completed by the IO while sitting at the police station.
6. HC Sharvan Kumar (PW-2) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 3/4.04.2018, he was posted as Ct. in PS Madhu Vihar. On that day, IO SI Mool Chand received DD No. 14A, and he, along with 10 others, went to US 254, School Block, Mandawali, Delhi. The complainant Heera Singh was present at the scene with a person named Noor Alam. The accused present in the court was correctly identified by the witness. The accused also produced a mobile phone along with himself. Thereafter, the IO recorded the statement of the complainant. He also interrogated the accused, Noor Alam, and during the interrogation, the accused stated that his age was 17 years. Afterward, he, along with the IO and the accused, went to a tea stall near the PS where the IO called JWO SI Nipender. After some time, SI Nipender arrived and interrogated the accused, recording his version. Following this, JWO SI Nipender prepared an apprehension memo, exhibited as EX.PW-1/C, bearing his signature at point B. He also conducted the personal search of the accused vide memo exhibited as EX.PW-1/D bearing his name at point A. The accused was then sent for a medical examination. IO ASI Mool Chand took possession of the recovered mobile phone. Later, he went to the house of the accused, at House No. A-45, Chander Vihar. Upon Digitally signed FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam UDBHAV by UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN Page no. 5 of 15 KUMAR Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18
14:59:15 +0530
reaching, no one was found at the accused's house at that time. He then returned to the PS, and IO ASI Mool Chand recorded his statement regarding the visit. When MHC(M) produced a mobile phone with details related to the case, MUD1573/18, upon seeing the mobile phone, witness correctly identified it as the case property Ex. P1.
6.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, witness deposed that he did not make a departure entry when leaving the PS. He voluntarily stated that IO made the departure entry in this regard. They reached the spot between 06:00-06:30 PM. The IO inquired about the make and model of the mobile phone. He admitted that the mobile phone was not recovered from the accused in his presence and volunteered that when they reached the spot, the complainant handed over the accused to IO, along with the mobile phone. He denied that he never went to the spot or that that he never joined the investigation in this case or that all paperwork was done by the IO while sitting in the PS or that he falsely implicated the accused in the present case at the instance of the complainant or that he was deposing falsely as a police witness.
7. HC Bhupender Singh (PW-3) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 16.05.2018, he was posted as HC at PS Madhu Vihar. On that day, he was present at the PS and joined the investigation of this case along with ASI Mool Chand. He, along with the IO ASI Mool Chand, went to Seva Kutir, Kingsway Camp. After completing the formalities, he alongwith the IO and accused Noor Alam went to KKD Courts Complex and produced the accused before the Court along with an application for interrogation and arrest. After obtaining permission, IO arrested the accused vide the arrest memo exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A bearing his signature at point A. The IO also conducted the personal search of the Digitally signed by FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam UDBHAV UDBHAV Page no. 6 of 15 KUMAR JAIN KUMAR Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18
14:59:20
+0530
accused vide the personal search memo exhibited as Ex. PW-3/B bearing his signature at point A. The IO also interrogated the accused and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused exhibited as Ex. PW- 3/C bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, the accused was again produced before the Court, and he was sent to JC. They then took the accused to the lock-up of KKD Courts. Afterward, the IO recorded his statement in this regard. The accused, present in the court, was correctly identified by the witness.
7.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, witness denied the suggestions that he never went to the Seva Kutir and KKD Courts Complex, that the accused was not arrested in his presence, that the IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused as per his own wish or that he was deposing falsely as a police witness at the instance of the IO.
8. Retd. SI Moolchand (PW-4) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 04.04.2018, he was posted as ASI at PS Madhu Vihar. On that day, he was on night emergency duty, and his duty hours were from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. At approximately 07:00-07:15 AM, ASI received DD No. 14A regarding the apprehension of a thief at H. No. US-20054, School Block, Chander Vihar. Upon receiving the DD, ASI, along with Ct. Shrawan, proceeded to the location. Upon arrival, they met the complainant, Hira Singh, who had brought the accused along with a mobile phone recovered from him. Hira Singh explained the entire incident to ASI. ASI recorded the statement of Hira Singh, which was marked as Ex.PW1/A. ASI also prepared the site plan at the complainant's request, which was marked as X and later entered as Ex.PW4/C bearing his signature at point A. Afterward witness along with the accused, went to the PS. On the way, the accused disclosed that Digitally signed by FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam UDBHAV UDBHAV Page no. 7 of 15 KUMAR JAIN KUMAR Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18
14:59:26
+0530
he was a juvenile. He then contacted JWO SI Nipender, who inquired about the matter and recorded the accused's statement as Ex.PW4/A bearing his signature at point A. SI Nipender also prepared the apprehension memo. Witness took possession of the mobile phone and seized it through a seizure memo Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point B. The mobile phone was deposited in the malkhana. Subsequently, the accused underwent a medical examination and was presented before the JJB. From there, he was sent to Seva Kutir. The age of the CCL was later verified, and an order from the JJB Board, dated 02.05.2018, was received, declaring the CCL not to be a juvenile. The copy of the JJB order was marked as X-1. Afterwards, ASI prepared the tehrir, which was entered as Ex.PW4/B bearing his signature at point A. On 16.05.2018, witness, along with HC Bhupender, went to the KKD Courts Complex. Following interrogation, ASI formally arrested the accused and recorded the arrest memo Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point B. Witness also conducted the personal search of the accused vide personal search memo Ex.PW3/B bearing his signature at point B. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded as Ex.PW3/C bearing his signature at point B. Afterward, the accused was produced before the court and sent to JC by the court. He recorded the statements of all the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet before the court. The accused present in the court was correctly identified by the witness.
8.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, witness deposed that when he received the DD, he was present at the PS. He did not make any separate departure entry when leaving the PS. He travelled to the spot on his personal bike. The distance between the PS and the spot was approximately 1 km. He could not recall the exact time of arrival but Digitally signed FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam UDBHAV by UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN Page no. 8 of 15 KUMAR Date:
2026.05.18 JAIN 14:59:32 +0530 mentioned it took about 10 minutes to reach. He prepared the site plan with scale and was carrying the IO kit at that time. He did not lodge any DD entry regarding receiving the IO kit from the PS. Witness admitted that the mobile phone was not recovered in his presence from the accused. Witness had requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation, but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names or addresses. No written notice could be given to any of them due to a lack of time. Witness denied the suggestions that he never went to the spot or that all the paperwork was completed by ASI while sitting at the PS, that he falsely implicated the accused at the complainant's request or that witness was deposing falsely as a police witness and the IO of the case.
9. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed on 28.01.2026.
STATEMENT AND DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
10. On 07.03.2026, whatever incriminating evidence were available on record and brought forth by the prosecution, were put to the accused and statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded whereby accused chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
ARGUMENTS
11. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. While Ld. APP for the State submitted that the guilt of the accused is duly proved and there is no contradiction or material discrepancy in the case of the prosecution rather the presence of the accused on the spot is also admitted; Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt as accused did not enter the house of the complainant and there is no public witness to prove Digitally signed by FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam UDBHAV UDBHAV Page no. 9 of 15 KUMAR JAIN KUMAR Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18 14:59:38 +0530 the same. It was also claimed that in the absence of any eyewitness, complainant is only an interested witness. Accused has been falsely implicated in this case.
12. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material available on record.
POINT OF DETERMINATION
13. After going through the record and considering the material available on record, the only point of determination left is whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed offences punishable under sections 380/451/411 IPC.
LAW AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED
14. Section 380 IPC prescribes punishment for theft in a dwelling house while Section 378 IPC defines theft. The offence of theft has following requisites:
a. dishonest intention to take property; b. the property must be movable;
c. it should be taken out of the possession of another person; d. it should be taken without the consent of that person; and e. there must be some moving of the property in order to accomplish the taking of it.
For the offence of section 380 IPC in the present case, it is to be proved by the prosecution that the offence of theft was committed by the accused in a building used for the purpose of human dwelling.
15. Section 411 IPC provides that whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. It means mere possession of stolen property is not and FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam Page no. 10 of 15 Digitally signed UDBHAV by UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN KUMAR Date:
2026.05.18 JAIN 14:59:44 +0530 cannot be an offence. In order to be an offence, it must be received or retained dishonestly, and with the knowledge, or sufficient cause for belief that it was stolen property. To be liable under Section 411 of the IPC, it must be proved that the accused either dishonestly received the property or having received honestly, dishonestly retained it. In both the cases the accused must receive it from another. The mere recovery of stolen property certainly is not enough for conviction under section 411 of the IPC.
16. For bringing home the guilt of the accused under Section 451 IPC, the prosecution must prove that :
a) that the accused committed criminal trespass;
b) that such criminal trespass was committed by entering into, or remain- ing in, a building, tent, or vessel;
c) that such building, tent, or vessel, was used as a human dwelling or as a place of worship, or as a place for the custody of property.
d) the intention was to either commit an offence punishable by imprison-
ment or to commit offence of theft.
17. The general burden of proof, which is a non-shifting burden, on the prosecution is to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that point only towards the guilt of accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE Digitally signed by UDBHAV UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN KUMAR Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18 FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam 14:59:52 +0530 Page no. 11 of 15 Offence u/s 451 and 380 IPC
18. The complainant was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused; however, no such fact or contradiction or material discrepancy has surfaced in the cross-examination of the complainant which could falsify the contents of the examination-in-chief of the complainant. From the written complaint of the complainant Ex. PW1/A to FIR and the testimony of PW-1, it is not disputed that accused was caught on the spot by the complainant after he took the mobile phone of the complainant from his house. After the accused was apprehended by the complainant, accused was found in possession of the mobile phone of the complainant which could not have been removed without illegally entering in the house of the complainant.
19. The offence u/s 451 IPC pertains to house trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment. Thus, it is required to be proved that whether the house trespass was made with the intent to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment and the aggravated form of the same is when the intention was to commit an offence of theft. Such intent of the accused can only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case.
20. For the offence of theft the actus reus is mere moving of the property and it is not necessary that accused should take away such property. Complainant as PW-1 has correctly identified the accused and merely because the offence of theft was committed in the house of the complainant, it cannot be said that he is an interested witness rather his testimony is reliable as no public person/victim would implicate some stranger falsely.
Digitally signed by UDBHAV UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam KUMAR Date: Page no. 12 of 15 JAIN 2026.05.18 14:59:59 +0530
21. Nothing has come in the cross-examination of PW-1 which contradicts the presence of the complainant as well as the accused on the spot. The presence of the accused on the spot is further confirmed by the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3. PW-2 went with the IO PW-3 to the spot after receiving PCR call and both these witnesses also correctly identified the person who was caught on the spot by the complainant. It is also not in dispute that once the accused was caught on the spot, the electric water motor of the complainant was recovered from the possession of the accused which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C which also bears signature of complainant. In fact, the spanner used by the accused in the commission of the offence was also seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Edmund S. Lyngdoh v. State of Meghalaya, (2016 (15) SCC 572), while appreciating the evidentiary value of the statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC held that:
"21. Where the accused gives evasive answers in his cross-examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., an adverse inference can be drawn against him. But such inference cannot be a substitute for the evidence which the prosecution must adduce to bring home the offence of the accused. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not evidence. In Balwant vs. State of U.P. (2008) 9 SCC 974, this Court held that conviction of the accused cannot be based merely on his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which cannot be regarded as evidence. It is only the stand or version of the accused by way of explanation explaining the incriminating evidence/circumstances appearing against him. The statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to other evidence led by the prosecution. Statements made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. must be considered not in isolation but in conjunction with the other prosecution evidence."
23. Now in the present case, the answers given by the accused to the questions pertaining to incriminating evidence led by the prosecution against him, fails to come to the rescue of the accused. He has given merely self-serving/generic answers. Neither any substantive defence Digitally signed by FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam UDBHAV UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN Page no. 13 of 15 KUMAR Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18
15:00:06
+0530
was taken by the accused during the whole trial, nor any questions or suggestions were put to PW-1 (complainant) or PW-4 (IO) supporting the version of accused.
24. Thus, neither there is any inconsistency or contradiction in the testimony of any of the witnesses nor anything has come on record which creates doubt on the version of the complainant. With the testimony of the witnesses and answers given by the accused in statement u/s 313 CrPC, prosecution has successfully proved that the accused is liable for the offence punishable under sections 380 and 451 IPC.
Offence u/s 411 IPC
25. As regards Section 411 IPC, the section does not apply to the actual thief. The offence (from Section 411 to 414 IPC) is not directed against the principal offender but against the class of persons who trade in stolen articles and are receivers of the stolen property. The principal offender is therefore outside the scope of this section. Reliance here is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sunil Mashi@ Silly vs State NCT of Delhi (14.10.2014-DELHC):
MANU/DE/3768/2014.
CONCLUSION
26. In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the ingredients of the offence punishable under sections 380/451 IPC are duly proved against the accused and prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Noor Alam is hereby convicted of offence under section 380/451 IPC.
27. As regards offence under section 411 IPC, no offence is made out against the accused as he himself has been proven to be a thief by the Digitally FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam UDBHAV signed UDBHAV by Page no. 14 of 15 KUMAR JAIN KUMAR Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18
15:00:14
+0530
prosecution. Accordingly, accused Noor Alam stands acquitted of the offence under section 411 IPC.
Let copy of the judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
Convict be now heard on quantum of sentence before the concerned court.
A copy of this judgment be uploaded on the official website of the District Court.
Announced in open court today i.e., 18.05.2026.
Digitally signedUDBHAV by UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN KUMAR Date:
2026.05.18 JAIN 15:00:20 +0530 (UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN) CJ-02:SED:SAKET COURT (Previously JMFC-04:SHD:KKD) This judgment contains 15 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
FIR No.138/2018 State vs. Noor Alam Page no. 15 of 15