Delhi District Court
State vs Girdharilal@Sonu on 28 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Preeti Rajoria, DJS
Cr. C No. 9995/2022
CNR No.: DLCT020360122022
FIR No. 330/2022
PS. Subzi Mandi
u/S 380/454/411 IPC
STATE VS. GIRDHARI LAL @ SONU
1) The date of commission of offence : 24.06.2022
2) The name of the complainant : Amit Kathuria
3) The name, parentage & add. of accused : Girdhari Lal @ Sonu, S/o
Sh. Sita Ram, R/o H. No.
2035, Church Lane, Subzi
Mandi, Delhi-110007.
4) Offence complained of : Section 380/454/411 IPC
5) Offence charged with : Section 380/454 IPC and
in alternative u/S 411 IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Conviction for offence u/s
380/454 IPC and acquittal for
offence u/s 411 IPC
Date of Institution : 18.07.2022
Judgment reserved on : 21.08.2025
Judgment announced on : 28.10.2025
Digitally signed
by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
Date:
RAJORIA 2025.10.28
18:13:42
+0530
Cr. C No. 9995/2022 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 330/2022 State vs. Girdhari Lal @ Sonu 1/11
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution against the accused Girdhari Lal @ Sonu is that on 24.06.2022 at about 04:00 pm, the complainant heard a noise from the backside of his house, so he went there and he found that one person was carrying away his old bicycle and geyser which was installed on the ground floor of the building, and thereafter, he raised alarm and called his other family members and neighbours and the said person was apprehended by the neighbours after which, he made a call on 100 number and handed over the custody of the said person to the police official upon arrival of the PCR and his bicycle and geyser were recovered from the accused. On the basis of said complaint, the present FIR was registered.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused on 18.07.2022, and cognizance was taken of offence u/S 380/454/411 IPC on 23.07.2022. Copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, on 23.07.2022, charge was framed against the accused u/S 380/454IPC and alternatively u/S 411 IPC to which he had pleaded not guilty and opted to face trial.
3. In support of its version, prosecution has examined five witnesses. Vide separate statement of the accused recorded u/S 294 CrPC on 24.02.2025, accused has admitted the genuineness of registration of the present FIR without admitting to the contents of said document. Resultantly, the corresponding witness was dropped from the list of witnesses.
4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI RAJORIA RAJORIA Date:
2025.10.28 18:13:49 +0530 Cr. C No. 9995/2022 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 330/2022 State vs. Girdhari Lal @ Sonu 2/11 was recorded separately wherein accused have claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations against them. Accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
6. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are being touched upon, in brief, as follows:-
PW- 1 Amit Kathuria has deposed that on 24.06.2022 at about 04:00 pm, when upon hearing the noise from the backside of his house, he went there, he found that one person was carrying away his old bicycle and geyser which was installed on the ground floor of the building, and thereafter, he raised alarm and called his other family members and neighbours and the said person was apprehended by the neighbours after which, the complainant made a call on 100 number and handed over the custody of the said person to the police official upon arrival of the PCR and then his statement was recorded by the police officials, which is Ex. PW-1/A. He has further deposed that his bicycle and geyser were recovered and upon his instance, the site plan was prepared by the IO and the recovered articles were taken into the possession by the IO of the case and the accused was arrested by the police. Witness had correctly identified the case property, i.e., the bicycle and the geyser as well as the accused before the Court. Witness had been duly cross examined by the learned legal aid counsel for the accused.
PW- 2 Sh. Vikas Chaudhary has deposed that on 24.06.2022, at about 04:00 pm he some noise (chor chor) from outside after which he came outside and saw that the one person, i.e., the accused was carrying away one bicycle Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI RAJORIA RAJORIA Date:
2025.10.28 18:14:02 +0530 Cr. C No. 9995/2022 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 330/2022 State vs. Girdhari Lal @ Sonu 3/11 and geyser belonging to his neighbour Amit Kathuria, after which, he along with the help of complainant, apprehended the accused and later on, it came to his knowledge, that the accused is named Girdhari Lal and then Amit called at 100 number and police officials reached the spot and they produced the accused and the case property before the police officials and police officials recorded the statement of his friend Amit, the complainant. He has further deposed that the police officials prepared some documents at the spot and recorded his statement. Accused and the case property was correctly identified by the witness before the Court. Witness has been duly cross examined by the learned legal aid counsel for the accused.
PW-3 HC Satish has deposed that the on 24.06.2022, when he was posted at Constable at PS Subzi Mandi, and was on emergency duty, he received DD No. 70A, so he along with SI Nikhil went to House No. 13, Malka Ganj, Subzi Mandi, where they met with the complainant who produced one blue colour cycle and one geyser to them and he informed them that he had caught the accused, when he was taking away the said articles from his house, after which detailed statement of the complainant was recorded and the case property was taken into possession by the IO and upon the basis of the statement of the complainant, rukka was prepared and was handed over to PW-3 to get the FIR registered and accordingly, PW-3 went to the PS, got the FIR registered and came back to the spot with the copy of the FIR and SI Rajender Prasad to whom the further investigation was marked. It has been further deposed that thereafter IO SI Rajender seized both the case property vide separate seizure memo which are Ex. PW-3/A and PW-3/B, and then the IO interrogated the accused and the accused made his disclosure which was recorded by the IO, and on the basis of the same, the accused was arrested vide memo dated Ex. PW-3/C. He has further deposed that his statement was Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI RAJORIA Date: RAJORIA 2025.10.28 18:14:14 +0530 Cr. C No. 9995/2022 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 330/2022 State vs. Girdhari Lal @ Sonu 4/11 recorded by the IO where the abovesaid facts were recorded. Witness had correctly identified the accused before the Court and was duly cross examined by the learned legal aid counsel for the accused.
PW-4 Retd. SI Rajender Prasad has deposed that on 24.06.2022, when he was posted as ASI at PS Subzi Mandi, investigation in the present case was marked to him after SI Nikhil and the copy of the FIR was handed over to him for investigation, after which, he visited the house of the complainant, and the accused was also found there, and then he interrogated accused, who had disclosed his involvement in the present case, the case property was recovered and taken into possession, the accused was arrested and personally searched vide different memos which are Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B, respectively, after which the accused was produced before the Court and sent to judicial custody. It has been lastly deposed that after completion of the investigation, he had filed the chargesheet in the Court after duly recording the statements of the cited witnesses. Witness had correctly identified the accused before the Court and was duly cross examined by the learned legal aid counsel for the accused.
PW-5 SI Nikhil has deposed that on 24.06.2022, when he was posted as SI at PS Subzi Mandi, one DD NO. 70A was received regarding theft at House No. 13, Malka Ganj, Subzi Mandi, Delhi and he along with HC Satish went to the said spot where they met with the complainant who had already apprehended the accused with the stolen articles, and the complainant was present with his neighbour namely Vikas Chaudhary, and then he narrated the incident to PW-5, his statement was recorded and he made efforts to inquire about the facts from other neighbours, however, none of them agreed to join the investigation, after which he took the possession of the stolen articles/case property and that the geyser was bearing mark of Mini Storage Heater, and the case property was then duly seized by him vide separate seizure memos. It has Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI RAJORIA RAJORIA Date:
2025.10.28 18:14:28 +0530 Cr. C No. 9995/2022 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 330/2022 State vs. Girdhari Lal @ Sonu 5/11 been further deposed that he had also inspected the place from where the geyser was detached. It has been further deposed that upon the statement of the complainant, rukka was prepared by him which is Ex. PW-5/A and was handed over to HC Satish for registration of FIR, who got the FIR registered at the PS and came back to the spot with SI Rajender to whom the further investigation was marked and accordingly, he handed over the custody of the accused and the case property to SI Rajender for further action. Witness was duly cross examined by the learned legal aid counsel for the accused.
7. Statement of accused was recorded u/S 313 CrPC, on 24.02.2025, in which all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused. Accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated by the police officials and that he has no connection with the alleged case property, that had been planted upon him. Accused has opted to not lead any evidence in his defence.
8. Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Ld. legal aid counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the present case is a false one and that the IO did not even visit the house of the complainant as has been deposed by the complainant It has been further submitted that the PW-2 had deposed that a video was made by him but the same was neither provided by him to the IO nor the IO made any efforts to collect it, deliberately. It has been further argued that the IO had deposed that he could not collect any CCTV footage of the alleged incident or recovery from the accused while the recovery was already effected from the accused before the Police could reach the spot. It has been further argued that no ownership documents of the alleged stolen articles were seized from the complainant or filed along with the chargesheet. Thus, it has been lastly argued that the accused is entitled for an acquittal in the present case since the Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI RAJORIA Date: RAJORIA 2025.10.28 18:14:37 +0530 Cr. C No. 9995/2022 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 330/2022 State vs. Girdhari Lal @ Sonu 6/11 investigation conducted by the police has been improper and does not point at the guilt of the accused.
Per contra, Sh. Krishan Murari, Ld. APP for the State has argued that the prosecution has examined five witnesses in total, including the complainant as PW-1, PW-2 Sh. Vikas Chaudhary and three police witnesses, who have go on to prove the case of the prosecution that the accused has lurked into the building of the complainant, and stolen his old bicycle and geyser affixed on the ground floor of the building. It has been further submitted that the testimony of the complainant and PW-2 is quite reliable, inspire truthfulness and remained without blemish despite being cross examined on behalf of the accused. It has been further submitted that no reason came into defence that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the testimonies of PW Complainant and PW-2 corroborates with each other and they have both identified the accused before the Court. It has been laslty submitted that no defence is forthcoming from the cross examination or the statement of the accused recorded u/S 313 CrPC. Further, since the case of the prosecution is corroborated that the accused entered into the house of the complainant unauthorisedly, committed theft of the geyser installed on the ground floor and his old bicycle and since the accused was apprehended with the stolen case property at the spot, it has been prayed that accused Girdhari Lal @ Sonu be convicted for the commission of offence u/S 454/380 IPC.
9. Heard. Record perused.
10. At the outset, the relevant provisions of law/Sections with which the accused has been charged, are hereby reproduced.
Section 380 IPC is reproduced hereunder: Digitally
signed by
PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA
RAJORIA Date:
2025.10.28
18:14:48
+0530
Cr. C No. 9995/2022 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 330/2022 State vs. Girdhari Lal @ Sonu 7/11
"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."
Section 454 IPC is reproduced hereunder:
"Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
And if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to ten years."
Section 411 IPC is reproduced hereunder:
"Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
11. Now coming to the facts of the present case and appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, being the natural witnesses to the incident and residents of the same area being neighbours, are consistent and corroborates each other in all material particulars. Nothing is brought on record to indicate that there has been any enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused by the complainant or PW-2 Vikas Chaudhary. Rather, their testimonies are further corroborated by the prompt arrival of police officials (PW-3 HC Satish and PW-5 SI Nikhil), recovery of stolen articles from the possession of the accused, and absence of any contradiction in the said chain of events. It has been proved by the Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI RAJORIA Date:
RAJORIA 2025.10.28 18:14:59 +0530 Cr. C No. 9995/2022 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 330/2022 State vs. Girdhari Lal @ Sonu 8/11 testimonies of the witnesses that the accused was apprehended at the spot itself, and the recovery of the stolen bicycle and geyser was made in the presence of public witnesses, one of them having been examined as PW-2 by the prosecution. It would not be wrong to say that the accused has failed to discredit the testimony of PW-2 and his statement as an independent eye witness as to the apprehension of accused and subsequent recovery of the stolen articles from the accused. Further, the seizure memos of the case property and arrest memo of the accused have been duly proved and the defence could not elicit any inconsistency in the cross-examination or suggest any false implication as pleaded by the accused.
In view of the above discussion, the recovery of stolen articles from the possession of the accused, immediately after the theft and at the spot of occurrence, clearly establishes the ingredients of Section 380 IPC, i.e., theft in a dwelling house. It is pertinent to note that the essential ingredients of theft as defined under Section 378 IPC are "the dishonest intention", "the taking of movable property out of the possession of another", and "without that person's consent", and once these ingredients are proved, the offence under Section 380 IPC is complete. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled K.N. Mehra vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 369, wherein it was held that,"Theft is complete the moment a person dishonestly takes any movable property out of the possession of another without his consent, even though the offender may not have had the opportunity to remove it completely from the premises." Similarly, in case titled Pyare Lal Bhargava vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that, "It is not necessary that the intention to permanently deprive the owner of property must be proved; if the intention was to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss, it is sufficient to constitute theft."Digitally signed by PREETI
PREETI RAJORIA RAJORIA Date:
2025.10.28 18:15:11 +0530 Cr. C No. 9995/2022 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 330/2022 State vs. Girdhari Lal @ Sonu 9/11 Thus, applying the law laid down in the above-cited cases, since the accused was caught red-handed carrying away the bicycle and geyser belonging to the complainant, the essential ingredients of Section 380 IPC stand satisfied and the charge under Section 380 IPC stands proved against the accused.
Coming to the charge under Section 454 IPC, the prosecution must show that the accused committed house-trespass or house-breaking with intent to commit theft or another imprisonable offence. In case titled State of Maharashtra vs. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar, AIR 2002 SC 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that, "to sustain conviction under Section 454 IPC, the prosecution must establish that there was house-trespass with intent to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment, and there was either house-breaking or lurking involved."
In the instant case, even though, there is no direct evidence that the accused broke open or entered the house of the complainant forcibly, the chain of circumstances as discussed above is complete and points at the guilt of the accused. It is pertinent to note that the defence did not lead any evidence nor offered any plausible explanation for the presence of the accused at the spot near the house of the complainant with the stolen articles. The recovery made upon the accused was proximate in time and place of the occurrence, and thus, it is established beyond doubt that the accused has effected house-breaking with the intent to commit theft of the old bicycle and geyser of the complainant and therefore, the charge under Section 454 IPC stands proved against the accused.
Now coming to the alternative charge under Section 411 IPC, it is settled position of law as held in case titled Sanwat Khan vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1956 SC 54 that,"to sustain a conviction under Section 411 Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI RAJORIA Date:
RAJORIA 2025.10.28 18:15:24 +0530 Cr. C No. 9995/2022 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 330/2022 State vs. Girdhari Lal @ Sonu 10/11 IPC, the prosecution must prove not only that the property was in possession of the accused but also that he knew or had reason to believe it was stolen."
Since the charge under Section 380 IPC has been proved against the accused, he cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 411 IPC since a person who himself commits theft cannot be convicted under Section 411 IPC as receiver of stolen property. Therefore, conviction of the accused under Section 411 IPC cannot be sustained.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in my considered opinion, the prosecution has been able to establish a coherent and credible chain of circumstances proving that the accused had committed theft in the complainant's dwelling house. Accordingly, accused Girdhari Lal @ Sonu is held guilty and convicted under Section 380/454 IPC. The accused is acquitted of the alternative charge under Section 411 IPC.
It is certified that this judgment contains 11 pages and each and every page has been signed by me.
Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI RAJORIA
Announced in the open court RAJORIA
Date:
2025.10.28
18:15:39
on 28.10.2025. +0530
(Preeti Rajoria)
JMFC-07/Central District
Delhi/28.10.2025
Cr. C No. 9995/2022 PS Subzi Mandi FIR No. 330/2022 State vs. Girdhari Lal @ Sonu 11/11