Delhi District Court
State vs Fazil on 20 January, 2026
THE COURT OF SH. UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE v. FAZIL
FIR No. -: 72/2021
Police Station -: Madhu Vihar
Section(s) -: 451/380/411 IPC
Cr. Case No. -: 2132/2021
1. CIS number : DLSH020039422021
2. Name of the complainant : Sh. Satender Kumar
S/o Sh. Jagat Singh
R/o 45-E, Hasanpur, I.P. Extension,
Delhi-92.
3. Name of the accused, : Fazil S/o Sh. Naseer Ahmed
parentage & residential R/o R/o E-36/A-86, Blk No. 32/33,
address AMB Camp, Trilokpuri, Kalyanpuri,
East Delhi.
4. Offence complained of or : 451/380/411 IPC
proved
5. Date of commission of : 24.03.2021
offence
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Final Judgment : Convicted: u/s 451/380 IPC
Acquitted: u/s 411 IPC
8. Date of judgment/order : 20.01.2026
Date of Institution: 15.05.2021
Date of Reserving Judgment: 20.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment: 20.01.2026
Duration: 4 years 8 months
5 days
Argued by: Sh. Kapil Sharma, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Indu Aggarwal, Ld. LAC for accused.
Digitally
signed by
FIR No.72/2021 State vs. Fazil
Udbhav Udbhav
Kumar Jain Page no. 1 of 14
Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.01.20
16:18:37
+0530
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 08.01.2025 at 45-E, Hasanpur, I.P. Extension, Delhi, complainant Satender Kumar saw at about 09.30 AM that one-person alongwith one polythene tried to escape from there but he apprehended him. When complainant checked the said polythene, two water taps stolen from his house were found. He called at 100 number and when police came, he handed over the said person alongwith two water taps. His name was revealed as Fazil S/o Sh. Naseer Ahmed. As such, it is alleged that the accused Fazil committed the offence under Sections 380/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") for which FIR No. 72/2021 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 Fazil for the alleged commission of offences u/s 380/411 IPC was filed. Ld. Predecessor of this Court took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 06.06.2022. 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, this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 framed charge against accused Fazil for the offence punishable u/s 451/380/411 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.01.20 16:18:43 FIR No.72/2021 State vs. Fazil +0530 Page no. 2 of 14 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 PW1 Sh. Satender Kumar PW2 HC Jitender PW3 SI Ajay Sehrawat DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant Ex.PW1/B Site Plan Ex.PW1/C Arrest Memo Ex.PW1/D Disclosure statement Ex.PW2/A Seizure memo of water taps Ex.PW3/A DD EntryNo. 25A Ex. P-1 Case Property i.e. two water taps ADMITTED DOCUMENTS U/S 294 CrPC Ex. A1 FIR No. 72/2021 PS Madhu Vihar Ex. A2 Certificate u/s 65B IEA
5. Sh. Satender Kumar (PW-1) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 24.03.2021, the witness was present at his home and was leaving for his office, which was located on the ground floor, at around 9:30 AM. When he reached the first floor, he noticed an individual trying to escape with a polythene bag. The witness apprehended the person and, upon checking, found two water taps inside the polythene bag carried by the accused. Upon further inspection of his office, the witness discovered that two water taps were missing from the bathroom, and water was flowing. The witness then called the police at the emergency number 100, and they Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav FIR No.72/2021 State vs. Fazil Kumar Jain Page no. 3 of 14 Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.01.20 16:18:49 +0530 arrived shortly thereafter. He handed over the accused, along with the water taps, to the police. The accused present in the court was correctly identified by the witness. Following this, the police recorded the witness's statement exhibited as Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. The Investigating Officer (IO) also prepared a site plan at his instance exhibited as Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. The witness, along with the accused and the police, then proceeded to the police station. There, the IO interrogated the accused and arrested him, as documented in the arrest memo, exhibited as Ex.PW1/C, bearing the witness's signature at point A. The witness confirmed that the IO recorded the disclosure statement in his presence, which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/D bearing his signature at point A. The MHC(M) produced a transparent box containing details of the case, including FIR No. 72/2021 and MUD No. 2029A/2021, sealed with the AS seal. With the Court's permission, the seal was broken, and the case property, i.e., two water taps, was retrieved. Upon viewing the items, the witness correctly identified the case property, exhibited as Ex.P1.
5.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for the accused, witness deposed that he is a graduate and self-employed in the field of computer networking. On the day of the incident, he was alone at home, living on the third floor of his residence. He did not own a smartphone at the time of the incident, and there were no CCTV cameras on any floor of the building. The witness did not raise an alarm but made a call to the police at about 10:00 AM from someone else's phone. He could not recall the name of the person whose phone he used. The police arrived within 10 minutes after the call. The witness's statement was recorded at the police station. He did not take any photographs of the incident or the case Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav FIR No.72/2021 State vs. Fazil Kumar Kumar Jain Page no. 4 of 14 Date:
Jain 2026.01.20 16:18:56 +0530 property with any phone. The witness denied the suggestions that no such incident occurred, that he did not apprehend the accused, that nothing was recovered from the accused's possession, that he was falsely implicating the accused at the instance of the police, or that he was deposing falsely.
6. HC Jitender (PW-2) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 24.03.2021, he was posted as Constable PS Madhu Vihar. On that day, he was on emergency duty along with SI Ajay Sehrawat. SI Ajay Sehrawat received one DD No. 25A regarding the apprehension of one thief at Hasanpur Village. He, along with SI Ajay Sehrawat, went to E-45, Hasanpur Village. On reaching there, they met with the complainant, namely Satender, who handed over one person along with two water taps.
Thereafter, IO Ajay Sehrawat recorded the statement of the complainant. IO Ajay Sehrawat took possession of the water taps and kept them in a plastic box, sealing it with the seal of AS and seizing the same vide seizure memo, exhibited as Ex.PW2/A, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, IO prepared the tehrir and handed it over to him for the registration of the FIR. He went to PS and handed over the same to DO PS Madhu Vihar. After the registration of the FIR, he came back to the spot along with a copy of the FIR and the original tehrir. IO also searched for the CCTV camera but found that there was no CCTV camera covering the spot. After that, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, Ex.PW1/B, bearing his signature at point B. Afterward, he, along with IO, the complainant, and the accused, returned to the PS. IO interrogated the accused and, after interrogation, IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C, bearing his signature at point B. IO also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused in his presence, already exhibited as Ex.PW1/D, bearing his signature at point B. IO also deposited the case property in the malkhana. IO recorded the supplementary Digitally signed FIR No.72/2021 State vs. Fazil Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain Page no. 5 of 14 Kumar Date:
2026.01.20 Jain 16:19:02 +0530 statement of the complainant. Later, he went to LBS Hospital Khichripur along with the accused, and after the medical examination, he collected the MLC of the accused. Afterward, the accused was produced before the court and was sent to 14 days JC. After that, he, along with IO, returned to the PS, where IO recorded his statement. The accused present in the court was correctly identified by the witness.
6.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for the accused, witness deposed that IO requested the neighbours of the vicinity to join the investigation, but none came forward. Witness admitted that no written notice was given to any neighbour in this regard and that on that day, he was carrying a smartphone, but he did not click any photographs from his phone. He could not tell whether IO clicked any photographs or not. They reached the spot at about 09:40 AM and remained there until 12 Noon. Witness denied the suggestions that he never joined the investigation of this case and never went to the spot, that all the paperwork was done by the IO while sitting in the PS, that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant or that he was deposing falsely as a police witness and at the instance of IO.
7. SI Ajay Sehrawat (PW-3) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 24.03.2020, he was posted as SI at PS Madhu Vihar. On that day, he received DD No. 25A regarding the apprehension of a thief at Hasanpur Village, Delhi. The DD entry was exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A. Upon receipt of the aforementioned DD, he along with Ct. Jitender went to the spot, i.e., E-45, Hasanpur Village. Upon reaching the spot, he met with the complainant, namely Satendra Kumar, who handed over one person along with two water taps. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the complainant, already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signature at B. Digitally signed by FIR No.72/2021 State vs. Fazil Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Page no. 6 of 14 Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.01.20
16:19:09
+0530
He then interrogated the accused and placed the water taps in a transparent plastic box, sealing it with doctor tape marked with the seal of "AS." He seized the same through a seizure memo, already exhibited as Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signature at point A. He then prepared a tehrir and handed it over to Ct. Jitender for registration of the FIR. He inspected the spot along with the complainant. Meanwhile, Ct. Jitender returned to the spot with a copy of the FIR and the original tehrir. The details of the FIR were noted on the seizure memo. He then prepared a site-plan at the instance of the complainant. The site-plan already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B bearing his signature at point C. Afterward, he, along with the accused and case property, returned to the PS, where he arrested the accused vide arrest memo, already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/C bearing his signature at point C. He also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, which is already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D bearing his signature at point C. He recorded a supplementary statement of the complainant, Satendra Kumar, as well as the statement of Ct. Jitender under section 161 CrPC. The accused was then sent to the hospital for a medical examination. Afterward, the accused was produced before the Court and was remanded to judicial custody by the Court. Upon completion of the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet before the Court. The then MHC(M) of PS Madhu Vihar, HC Leela Dhar, produced a plastic box sealed with the seal of the Court. With the permission of the Court, the seal was broken, and the case property was taken out. Upon seeing the water taps, the witness correctly identified the case property. The case property was already exhibited as Ex. P1. The accused present in Court was correctly identified by the witness.
7.1. On his cross-examination done by Ld. LAC for the accused, witness deposed that he received the aforementioned DD between 09:00 AM to 10:00 AM. On that day, he was on emergency duty and was present at the Digitally signed FIR No.72/2021 State vs. Fazil Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain Page no. 7 of 14 Kumar 2026.01.20 Date:
Jain 16:19:15 +0530 PS. They reached the spot within 30 minutes of receiving the DD. Apart from the complainant and the alleged accused, no one was present at the scene. He checked the CCTV cameras, but there were no cameras installed covering the spot. He did not take any photographs with his personal smartphone. He remained at the spot for about 1 to 1.5 hours and left the spot around 12 noon. Witness denied the suggestions that he never went to the spot, that he never met the complainant at the spot, that nothing was handed over to him by the complainant, that he falsely implicated the accused in the present case at the complainant's instance., that he did not conduct a fair investigation in this case or that he was deposing falsely as a police witness and as the IO of this case.
8. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed on 10.11.2025.
STATEMENT AND DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
9. On 07.01.2026, 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
10. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. LAC 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. LAC for the accused submitted that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt as there was no public person joined during the alleged recovery. Further, No CCTV was recovered, or any public witness was called to prove the case of the prosecution. It was also Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No.72/2021 State vs. Fazil Page no. 8 of 14 Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.01.20
16:19:20
+0530
claimed that in the absence of any eyewitness, complainant is only an interested witness.
11. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material available on record.
POINT OF DETERMINATION
12. 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 451/380/411 IPC.
LAW AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED
13. 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.
14. Section 411 of the 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 cannot be an offence. In order to be an offence, it must be received or Digitally signed by FIR No.72/2021 State vs. Fazil Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Page no. 9 of 14 Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.01.20
16:19:27
+0530
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.
15. 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 remaining 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 imprisonment or to commit offence of theft.
16. 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 Offence u/s 451 and 380 IPC
17. The complainant was duly cross-examined by the Ld. LAC for the accused; however, no such fact or contradiction or material discrepancy Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Page no. 10 of 14 FIR No.72/2021 State vs. Fazil Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.01.20
16:19:33
+0530
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 by the complainant while the accused was trying to escape from complainant's home. Further, he was found in possession of two water taps from the bathroom of the office of the complainant which could not have been removed without illegally entering in the house of the complainant.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 near the house of the complainant is further confirmed by the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3. PW-2 went with the IO Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No.72/2021 State vs. Fazil Kumar Page no. 11 of 14 Date:
Jain 2026.01.20
16:19:40
+0530
PW-3 to the spot after receiving PCR call and both these witnesses also correctly identified the person who was caught while trying to escape by the complainant. It is also not in dispute that once the accused was caught on the spot, the water taps of the complainant were recovered from the possession of the accused which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A which also bears signature of complainant.
21. 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."
22. 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 a self- serving statement. Neither any substantive defence was taken by the accused during the whole trial, nor any questions or suggestions were put to PW-1 (complainant) or PW-3 (IO) supporting the version of accused.
23. Thus, neither there is any inconsistency or contradiction in the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW3 nor anything has come on record which creates doubt on the version of the complainant. With the testimony of the witnesses and answer given by the accused in statement u/s 313 CrPC, Digitally signed by FIR No.72/2021 State vs. Fazil Udbhav Udbhav Page no. 12 of 14 Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.01.20
16:19:46
+0530
prosecution has successfully proved that the accused is liable for the offence punishable under sections 451 and 380 IPC.
Offence u/s 411 IPC
24. 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
25. In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the ingredients of the offence punishable under sections 451 and 380 IPC are duly proved against the accused and prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Fazil is hereby convicted of offence under section 451/380 IPC.
26. 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 prosecution. Accordingly, accused Fazil. stands acquitted of the offence under section 411 IPC.
Let copy of the judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
Digitally signed by Convict be now heard on quantum of sentence. Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.01.20 16:20:01 +0530 FIR No.72/2021 State vs. Fazil Page no. 13 of 14 A copy of this judgment be uploaded on the official website of the District Court.
Announced in open court today i.e., 20.01.2026.Digitally signed
Udbhav by Udbhav
Kumar Jain
Kumar Date:
2026.01.20
Jain 16:20:07
+0530
(UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN)
JMFC-04:SHD:KKD
This judgment contains 14 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
FIR No.72/2021 State vs. Fazil Page no. 14 of 14