Delhi District Court
State vs Madan Lal U/S. 454/380 Ipc on 25 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07, WEST, THC NEW DELHI
State v. Madan Lal
FIR No. 230/2000
PS Paschim Vihar
U/s 454/380 IPC
JUDGMENT
C C No. : 2506/2/2010
Date of Institution : 18.07.2000
Date of Commission of Offence : 28.03.2000
Name of the complainant : Surya Prakash
s/o Kali Charan
r/o A-1B/5A, Paschim Vihar, Delhi
Name & address of the accused : Madan Lal
s/o Mool Chand
r/o House no.16/465, Hardhyan
Singh Road, Bapa Nagar,
Karol Bagh, Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 454/380 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted under Section
454 & 380 IPC
Date of reserve for judgment : 19.03.2015
Date of announcing of judgment : 25.04.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. By this statement the court shall decide the present matter u/s 454/380 IPC.
2. The briefly stated prosecution story is that the complainant is residing at State vs Madan Lal U/s. 454/380 IPC FIR No. 230/2000 1 /7 house no. A-1B/5A, LIG Flats, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. On 19.03.2000 he had gone to his native place along with his family. On 28.03.2000 at about 1.50 pm he reached back to his house and saw that the main gate of his house was opened. He entered the house and saw that one person i.e accused was standing inside his home, holding one silver bowl and one silver glass and one watch make Casio. Complainant apprehended him and raised alarm. Police was called and FIR was lodged. Investigation was carried on and charge sheet was prepared. Thus, accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s 454/380 IPC.
3. The charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Documents were supplied to him. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused u/s 454/380 IPC on 27/11/2003 by the Ld. Predecessor to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined three witnesses namely (1) HC Anita (2) Surya Prakash (3) HC Rajesh.
5. PW-1 lady Ct. Anita being the duty officer had recorded the present FIR on 28.03.2000 on the basis of rukka sent by HC Virender through Ct. Rajesh. Copy of FIR is Ex.PW1/A. This witness was not cross examined by the defence.
6. PW-2 Complainant Surya Prakash could not recall the exact date but deposed that it was the month of March 2000. He deposed that on the day of incident at about 2.00 pm, he had returned from his village in Mathura. He saw that State vs Madan Lal U/s. 454/380 IPC FIR No. 230/2000 2 /7 the main gate of his house was unlocked. When he entered inside he saw that Chaukhat of his iron door was detached and his belongings were ransacked. He saw the accused holding bowl and a silver glass in his right hand upon which name of his company Shubham Udyog was inscribed as well as one casio watch. He apprehended the accused and raised alarm. Name of accused revealed as Madan Lal. He took the articles from the accused and called the police. IO came to the spot and witness handed over the accused and the stolen property to the IO. He deposed that the IO recorded his statement which is Ex.PW2/A and prepared the site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW2/B. The silver bowl, glass and the watch were put in a white cloth and sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW2/C. Accused was handed over to the IO. The iron rod by which he had broken open the door and the almirah was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. IO arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW2/E. He deposed that he got released the stolen articles on superdari. Witness produced the bowl, glass and watch in the court which were exhibited as Ex.P1 (colly).
7. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that his name was not inscribed on the case property.
8. PW-3 HC Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 28.03.2000, he along with HC Virender had gone to the complainant's house on receiving DD No.33B. There, Ct. Surya Prakash met them and produced the accused and the stolen articles. The statement of the complainant was recorded by the IO and the State vs Madan Lal U/s. 454/380 IPC FIR No. 230/2000 3 /7 articles were sealed in a pullinda with the seal of VSY. Pulinda was seized by the IO. IO prepared the tehrir and handed over to the witness for registration of FIR. The accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. Accused made a disclosure statement to the IO which is Ex.PW3/A. One iron rod was seized. The said iron road was produced by the MHC(M) and was duly identified by the witness. Same is Ex.P2.
9. IO HC Virender Singh has already expired and hence he could not be examined.
10.Thereafter, the PE was closed and the statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused has denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. No defence evidence was led despite opportunity.
11.I have heard the arguments on behalf of the State and the bried submissions made by accused himself. The accused has submitted that he has been falsely implicated and is innocent.
12.Let us first discuss the relevant provisions of law for the purpose of the present case. The essential ingredients to prove an offence under Section 454 Indian Penal Code are:-
1. The accused had committed lurking house trespass or house breaking.
2. In order to commit any offence punishable with imprisonment.
3. There should be an intention to commit theft.
13.The offence of House Breaking has been defined under Section 445 IPC.
State vs Madan Lal U/s. 454/380 IPC FIR No. 230/2000 4 /7 A person is said to have committed house breaking if he affects his entrance into the house or any part thereof or affect his exist in any of the six ways described in the said section. The six ways given in the said Section are as follows:-
1. If he enters or quits through a passage by himself or by any abettor to commit house trespass
2. If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person other than himself or the abettor for human entrance; or through any passage to which he had obtained by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.
3. If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor has opened which passage is not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.
4. If he enters or quits by opening any lock to commit house trespass.
5. If he effects his entrance by using criminal force or committing assault or any by threating a person with assault.
6. If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure and he had unfastened the same.
14.Section 380 IPC prescribes punishment for theft in a dwelling house. The offence theft is defined under Section 378 IPC and the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 380 IPC are as follows:-
State vs Madan Lal U/s. 454/380 IPC FIR No. 230/2000 5 /7
1. Intention to take dishonestly
2. The property shall be movable property.
3. The property shall be taken out from the possession of any person without his consent.
4. There should be some moving of the said property to such taking.
5. The theft should have been committed in a dwelling house or place used for safe custody of property.
15.In the case at hand, the testimony of PW-2 i.e the complainant has remained intact and consistent on all the material points. He has duly identified the accused to be the person whom he had apprehended in his house. The defence has not been able to demolish his version. The defence could not impeach the credibility of PW-2 nor could it shake the veracity of this witness.
16.The only question put by the Counsel for accused to this witness was whether his name was inscribed on the stolen goods or not. No other question was put to the witness. The case property was produced and duly identified by the witness. Hence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The only defence of the accused is that he has been lifted from his house and falsely implicated in the present case. He has not led any evidence in his defence. The court does not see any reason to disbelieve or discredit the testimony of PW-2.
State vs Madan Lal U/s. 454/380 IPC FIR No. 230/2000 6 /7
17.Accordingly, the court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused is held guilty of the offence punishable u/s 454 & 380 IPC for committing house breaking and theft in the house of the complainant. Accordingly, the accused stands convicted for offence u/s 454 & 380 Indian Penal Code.
18.Be listed arguments on point of sentence.
Announced today in the open Court
25th April 2015 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN)
MM-07 (West) THC, Delhi
State vs Madan Lal U/s. 454/380 IPC
FIR No. 230/2000 7 /7