Delhi District Court
State vs Kamal on 15 November, 2025
IIN THE COURT OF Ms. DEEKSHA RAO: THE
THEN JMFC-04/EAST/KKD, NOW MUNICIPAL
MAGISTRATE (JMFC) SOUTH-WEST/
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. Kamal
FIR No. : 222/2011
U/s : 380/454/411 IPC
P.S. : Shakarpur
JUDGMENT
a) CIS No. of the case : 7499/2016
b) Date of institution of the case : 30.05.2011
c) Date of commission of offence : 02.05.2011
d) Name of the complainant : Rashmi
W/o Sh. Manish Kumar
R/o H. No. D-83, 1st floor,
Shakarpur, Delhi.
e) Name & address of the accused : Kamal
S/o Sh. Shafi Mohd.
H. No. Village Chachula, PS
Dhankaur, Distt.
Gautambudh Nagar, U.P.
f) Offence charged with : U/s 380/454/411 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final order : Conviction u/s
380/454 IPC &
Acquittal u/s
411 IPC
i) Date of Judgment : 15.11.2025 Digitally
signed by
DEEKSHA
DEEKSHA RAO
RAO Date:
2025.11.15
16:06:10
State Vs. Kamal +0530
FIR No. 222/2011
PS Shakarpur Page no. 1 of 12
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 02.05.2011 at about 11:30 AM to 12:00 afternoon at H. No. D-83, 1st floor, Shakarpur, Delhi, accused committed theft of two pair of anklet, artificial necklace, ear ornament from the abovesaid house belonging to complainant. Further, accused committed house breaking by entering the said building which is in the possession of complainant/Rashmi and accused was found in possession of the said stolen articles alongwith an iron rod which he received/retained knowing or having reasons to believe that the property was the stolen property of complainant/Rashmi. Accused was alleged to have committed the offence punishable u/s 380/454/411 IPC. Investigation was carried out accordingly.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and accused was summoned. Pursuant to appearance of the accused, he was supplied with the copy of charge sheet in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the matter was listed for consideration on Charge.
3. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and on perusal of record, prima facie case for offence punishable u/s 380/454/411 IPC was found to be made out against accused. Accordingly, the Charge was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined following four witnesses:
i) PW-1 Smt. Rashmi- PW 1 deposed that on 02.05.2011, at about 11.30 am, she had gone to take her children from school after Digitally signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA RAO State Vs. Kamal RAO Date:
2025.11.15 FIR No. 222/2011 16:06:21 +0530 PS Shakarpur Page no. 2 of 12 putting a lock on the gate of her premises. After about 15 minutes, when she came back, she saw that the lock of her premises was broken. She pushed the gate of her premises and accused came out of her house. On being asked, accused told that he came there to take water. Accused pushed her on the stairs and ran from there. She tried to catch his leg but he gave her a kick blow. She raised alarm and public persons present in the street caught hold of the accused. The accused during enquiry told his name as Kamal. On checking, she found the lock of her almirah broken and her artificial garland, two pairs of anklets, one nose-pin, ring etc. were found missing from there. The accused was found in possession of her said articles. One iron rod was also recovered from the possession of accused. Police came there after sometime. Police recorded her statement Ex. PW1/1. She showed the spot to the police. Site plan was prepared. Her articles were taken in police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. Police also seized the broken lock from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. After registration of case FIR of the present case, the accused was arrested by the police vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/D and his personal search was also conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/E. The accused was interrogated by the police at length. His disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex. PW1/F. She correctly identified the spot via photographs which are Ex. P-1 to P-4. She further correctly identified the case property via photographs which are Ex. P-5 & P-6 and one sealed lock and iron rod which are Ex. P7 to P8. She also correctly identified the accused who was present in the court.
She was duly cross-examined by the accused. Digitally signed
by DEEKSHA
DEEKSHA RAO
RAO Date:
State Vs. Kamal 2025.11.15
16:06:36 +0530
FIR No. 222/2011
PS Shakarpur Page no. 3 of 12
ii) PW-2 Amit Kumar - PW 2 deposed that on 02.05.2011 at about 12 noon he received a telephonic call from one Virender or Nilesh regarding a theft having taken place at his residence when nobody was there. He immediately reached at the spot. He saw that accused was already caught hold by the neighbours.
Some jewellery i.e one child ring, one OM were recovered from the possession of accused alongwith one iron rod. Police came at the spot after being informed. They handed over the accused to the police with stolen property. They accompanied the police and accused to PS. Remaining jewellery was recovered by the police from his possession in PS. Lock of one Alhmirah could not be broken whereas one lock was broken by the accused while committing the incident. Police recorded his statement. PW-2 however later turned hostile in his deposition. He was then cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State. He was also duly cross-examined by the accused.
(iii) PW-3 M e e n a J a i n - PW 3 deposed that she did not know about the incident of present case. She did not give any statement to the police or any other person. She did not know as to who is the accused in the present case. Further, she did not want to say anything else. Thereafter, Ld. APP sought permission to cross examine the witness as she was resiling from her statement given to the police U/S 161 Cr.PC. In her cross- examination also she denied all the suggestions put forth by the Ld. APP and did not identify the accused.
(iv) PW-4 HC/Rakesh - PW4 deposed that on 02.05.2011, he was posted as constable at PS Shakarpur and on that day, he was present in PS on day emergency duty w.e.f 08:00 AM to Digitally signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA RAO State Vs. Kamal RAO Date:
2025.11.15 16:06:46 +0530 FIR No. 222/2011 PS Shakarpur Page no. 4 of 12 08:00 PM, during which he joined the investigation of present case with HC/ Devender Singh. He received DD NO. 23A in respect of which they reached H.No. D-83, first floor Shakarpur, Delhi. There were number of public persons who had caught hold of one boy. On inquiry the said boy told his name as Kamal. Public persons produced two pair of payal, one necklace, one nose pin, one pair of ears jhumki, one broken lock and one iron rod. IO took the said articles in his possession. IO recorded statement of one Smt. Rashmi w/o Manish Kumar regarding theft in her house. The IO made his endorsement on the statement of Smt. Rashmi and handed over him the same. He got the case registered. He collected copy of FIR and original rukka and brought the same to the spot and handed over both the document to the IO. The IO had converted the above said jewellery items into a packet and sealed the same with the seal of DK together with iron rod and seized it vide seizure memo. The IO put the lock into another packet, sealed it with the seal of DK and seized vide seizure memo. Thereafter the IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo and also conducted his personal search. IO recorded the disclosure of accused. He also correctly identified the accused and the photographs of the case property. He was duly cross-examined by the accused.
(v) PW-5 ASI/Devender Singh - PW5 deposed that on 02.05.2011, he was posted as HC at PS Shakarpur and on that day, he was present in PS on day emergency duty w.e.f 08.00 am to 08.00 pm. At about 12.30 pm, he received DD No.23A dated 02.05.2011 Ex.PW5/A. Pursuant to the said DD, Departure entry No.24B was made i.e. Ex.PW5/A1 and he alongwith Ct. Rakesh went to the spot at D-83, First floor, Digitally signed by DEEKSHA State Vs. Kamal DEEKSHA RAO RAO Date:
2025.11.15 FIR No. 222/2011 16:06:59 +0530 PS Shakarpur Page no. 5 of 12 Shakarpur, Delhi where Complainant/Rashmi alongwith other people were present who had caught the accused. They produced the accused before him and narrated the entire incident. One iron rod and some stolen jewellery was recovered from the possession of accused. He took the accused and stolen property in his possession. Complainant/ Rashmi gave her statement. He made his endorsement on the statement Ex.PW5/B. He converted the stolen jewellery into a packet and wrapped the iron rod with a white cloth piece separately and sealed the both with the seal of "DK" vide seizure memo. He also seized a broken lock from the spot. He converted the said lock into a packet, sealed the same with the seal of "DK" and seized it vide memo. He sent rukka to PS through Ct. Ramesh for registration of Case FIR Ex C1. He prepared the site plan of the spot in the presence of complainant Ex.PW5/C. He arrested the accused in the present case vide arrest memo and also conducted his personal search vide search memo. He interrogated the accused and also recorded his disclosure statement. He called a private photographer at the spot who took the photographs of the spot from different corners. He recorded supplementary statement of the complainant and statements of other public persons and Ct. Rakesh at the spot. The accused was medically examined in LBS Hospital and was sent to lock- up. Case property was deposited with the MHC(M). On completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet against accused and filed the same in the Court for his trial. He correctly identified the accused present in the court. He was duly cross-examined by the accused. Digitally signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA RAO Date:
RAO 2025.11.15
16:07:12
+0530
State Vs. Kamal
FIR No. 222/2011
PS Shakarpur Page no. 6 of 12
5. Following documents were tendered during the evidence o f these witnesses;
(i) Ex. PW-1/A - Statement of complainant.
(ii) Ex. PW-1/B - Seizure memo of stolen articles.
(iii) Ex. PW-1/C - Seizure memo of broken lock.
(iv) Ex.PW-1/D- Arrest memo.
(v) Ex.PW-1/E- Personal search memo.
(vi) Ex. PW-1/F- disclosure statement
(vii) Ex. P1 to P4- Photographs of spot.
(viii) Ex. P5 & Ex. P6 - Photograph of case property and sealed lock.
(ix) Ex.P 7 and Ex. P8 - Sealed lock and iron lock.
(x) Ex. PW- 5/A - DD No. 23 A dated 02.05.2011
(xi) Ex.PW- 5/A1- Departure entry no. 24 B.
(xii) Ex.PW- 5/B- Endorsement on the statement of complainant.
(xiii) Ex.PW- 5/C - Site plan
(xiv) Ex. C1- FIR
Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed.
6. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC., wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused, to which he stated that he was sitting at a tea shop when the police officials picked him and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused did not wish to lead defence evidence.
7. Arguments were advanced by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. Case file perused.
8. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that from the ocular and documentary evidence on record, the factum of the alleged offence being committed by the Digitally signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA RAO State Vs. Kamal RAO Date: 2025.11.15 16:07:22 +0530 FIR No. 222/2011 PS Shakarpur Page no. 7 of 12 accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence accused be convicted for the offence he has been charged with.
9. On the contrary, it is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that the case of the prosecution is filled with contradictions. It is submitted that the accused did not commit the offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that witnesses examined by the prosecution are not trustworthy and non-examination of other independent public witness also creates serious doubt over the story of prosecution. At the end, it is requested that since prosecution story is very doubtful, therefore the accused be acquitted of the offence charged with.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED
10. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, prosecution is required to prove following things beyond reasonable doubt i.e., Section 380 IPC prescribes punishment for theft in a dwelling house. The theft is defined under Section 378 IPC and the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 380 IPC are as follows-
(i) Intention to take dishonestly
(ii) The property shall be movable property.
(iii) The property shall be taken out from the possession of any person without his consent.
(iv) There should be some moving of the said property to such taking.
(v) The theft should have been committed in a dwelling house or place used for safe custody of property.
Section 454 IPC prescribes punishment for lurking house trespass or house breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.The essential ingredients to constitute this offence are-
(i) The accused should have entered into the property which is in possession of another
(ii) An intention to commit an offence on part of the accused.
(iii) Such property should be any building / tent/ vessel used for human dwelling on place for worship or for custody of property
(iv) Entry into the house should have been effected by the accused in any one of the six ways as defined under Section 454 IPC.
Digitally signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA Date:
RAO RAO 2025.11.15 16:07:38 +0530 State Vs. Kamal FIR No. 222/2011 PS Shakarpur Page no. 8 of 12 The essential ingredients to prove the offence under Section 411 IPC are-
(i) The property should be in possession of the accused.
(ii) Such property should be 'stolen property' i.e., it should have been transferred by theft, extortion or robbery, or which has been crimi- nally misappropriated.
(iii) The accused had received the same knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
In order to prove the fact that accused had committed house trespass by break- ing the lock of the house of the complainant with the intention to commit theft in the present case punishable under section 454 r/w Section 380 IPC prosecu- tion has to establish beyond doubt that the accused had actually entered the house of the complainant by breaking the lock of his house and committed theft in the house of the complainant. Further, the prosecution is required to prove that the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused in or- der to establish the charge under Section 411 IPC.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
11. As per the facts of the present case the criminal law machinery was set in motion on 02.05.2011 on recording of DD no.23A whereby information was received regarding apprehension of a thief. On receipt of this information PW-5 ASI Devender Singh along with PW-4 HC Rakesh went to the spot. PW-1 complainant Rashmi is the most material witness of the present case. She has fully supported the prosecution. She categorically stated on the lines of her original complaint. She has deposed emphatically on oath that on 02.05.2011 at about 11:30 AM she had gone to take her children from school after putting a lock on the gate of her premises. After about 15 minutes, when she came back, she saw that the lock of her premises was broken. She pushed the gate of her premises and accused came out of her house. On being asked, accused told that he came there to take water. Accused pushed her on the stairs and ran from there. She tried to catch his leg but he gave her a kick blow. She raised alarm Digitally signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA RAO RAO State Vs. Kamal Date:
2025.11.15 16:07:53 +0530 FIR No. 222/2011 PS Shakarpur Page no. 9 of 12 and public persons present in the street caught hold of the accused there. The statement of the complainant Ex.PW1/A was recorded. The complainant has identified the accused and case property in the court. Further, the accused was apprehended at the instance of the complainant and the recovery was also made in her presence. PW1 Rashmi has specifically deposed regarding factum of lurking house tress pass by the accused in order to commit the offence at the house of the complainant. All the relevant documents viz. arrest memo, seizure memos and personal search memo of accused bear her signatures. Witness has been subjected to searching cross examination. However, her testimony could not be shaken. On material aspects, it remained unchallenged.
12. There is no reason or motive for PW-1 to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. Further, nothing material could be extracted by the defence counsel even in the cross-examination of witness. The accused was apprehended at the spot. His arrest memo bears signature of PW-1, establishing that he was arrested in her presence. Further he has been duly identified in the court. PW-1's version finds corroboration from the testimony of police official, PW4 HC Rakesh and PW5 ASI Devendra Singh, who on receiving the information about the incident reached at the spot and found the accused there along with the stolen articles. Besides PW1 the prosecution also got examined PW2 and PW3 who turned hostile in their evidence and failed to depose anything against the accused. It would be pertinent to state that although PW-2 and PW-3 were public witnesses however it was PW-1 who is the main eye witness to the incident and who at the first instance got hold of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 Crl. LJ 1023, had upheld a conviction under Section 302 IPC based on the sole testimony of a witness.
The Hon'ble Court has held that :-
"on the basis of solitary evidence conviction can be maintained. Conviction can be based on Digitally signed DEEKSHA by RAO DEEKSHA State Vs. Kamal RAO Date: 2025.11.15 16:08:06 +0530 FIR No. 222/2011 PS Shakarpur Page no. 10 of 12 the testimony of a single witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained."
Hence, on the basis of above stated evidence, in the considered opinion of this court it stands established that on 02.05.2011 at about 11:30 AM accused person broke open the lock of the complainant's house, he entered into the house and committed theft of the articles belonging to the complainant. The offence of theft in a dwelling house and lurking house trespass by the accused person has been proved.
13. In the present case complainant has fully supported the case of prosecution and there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony. Moreover, even defence counsel has not given any explanation much less a plausible one as to why the complainant and police officials would try to falsely implicate the accused.
14. Under the circumstances this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Kamal is held guilty and is convicted for offence u/s 380/454 IPC.
15. Accused is charged in the instant case for offence u/s 411 IPC as well. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sunil Mashi @ Silly v State NCT of Delhi appeal no.610/2013 decided on 14.10.2014) held., "As such, the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 379 IPC, however, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 411 IPC as well. Keeping in view the fact that he has been convicted under Section 379 IPC, there was no justification for convicting him for offence under Section 411 IPC. As such, his conviction under Section 411 IPC is set aside."
16. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Gopi Jaiswal vs. State of UP Criminal appeal no.1899/2009 decided on 8 November, 2011) held, "In view of the fact that the appellant Gopi Jaiswal was the real thief, his conviction could only be made under Section 379 IPC. Conviction under Section 411 IPC, in such situation, was not proper. A real thief cannot be a receiver of a stolen property. If a person is the real thief and the stolen property is also recovered from his possession, he should be convicted Digitally signed State Vs. Kamal DEEKSHA by DEEKSHA RAO RAO Date: 2025.11.15 FIR No. 222/2011 16:08:20 +0530 PS Shakarpur Page no. 11 of 12 and sentenced for the offence of theft and as such he cannot be convicted and sentenced under Section 411 IPC. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 411 IPC cannot be upheld."
CONCLUSION
17. Presumption of innocence is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving guilt of the accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, each and every element of the offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, independent and unimpeachable evidence, unless otherwise provided by the statute and if the story of prosecution lacks credibility or appears to be improbable the benefit of doubt must necessarily go in favour of the accused.
18. In view of the discussion made herein above and considering the facts of the present case, the court is of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as far as the offence u/s 380/454 IPC are concerned. Accordingly, accused is hereby convicted for offence punishable u/s 380/454 IPC and in light of the reasons stated above the accused is acquitted of the offence u/s 411 IPC.
19. Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence.
20. Copy of this Judgment be given dasti to the convict free of cost as per rules.
Digitally signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA RAO RAO Date: 2025.11.15 16:08:32 +0530 Pronounced in the open court ( Deeksha Rao) on 15th Day of November 2025 Municipal Magistrate(JMFC), SW Dwarka Court, New Delhi This judgment contains 12 pages in total. State Vs. Kamal FIR No. 222/2011 PS Shakarpur Page no. 12 of 12