Delhi District Court
State vs Vinod Kumar @ Kali on 17 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NEETIKA KAPOOR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-06, SOUTH WEST DWARKA, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. : DLSW020349302024
FIR Number : 80021253/2024
Police Station : Dwarka North
Section : 380/411/457/34 IPC
STATE VS. Vinod Kumar @ Kali
a) Cr. no. of the Case : 22395/2024
b) Name & address of the Complainant : Shalini Arora Joseph, W/o sh.
Soni Joseph, R/o C-302, Plot
No. 20, Sangmitra Apartment,
Sector 4, Dwarka, New Delhi.
c) Name & address of the accused : Vinod Kumar @ Kali S/o
Charan Singh R/o D-14, Gali
No. 6, Bajaj Enclave, Kakrola,
Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of offence : 27.02.2024
e) Offence complained of : 380/457/411/34 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquittal
Date of registration of FIR : 29.02.2024
Final arguments heard on : 17.05.2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 17.05.2025
FIR Number : 80021253/2024 State vs. Vinod Kumar @ Kali Page 1 of 9
Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
Date:
KAPOOR 2025.05.17
18:14:11
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Vinod Kumar @ Kali is facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 380/457/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) in connection with the case FIR No. 80021253/2024 registered at P.S. Dwarka North.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.02.2024 between 3:58 am to 4:24 am at C-302, Sangmitra Apartment, Plot No. 20, Sector 4, Dwarka, accused Vinod Kumar @ Kali alongwith his accomplice committed house breaking by entering into the house of complainant and committed theft of Gents Wrist Watches, 06 lady wrist watches, a pair of Tanishk Gold Ear rings, one gold ring, one pair of south Indian Design gold ear rings, one gold lady ring, a pair of golden bangles, mangalsutra set, two gold coins, three heavy gold bangles, platinum chain and locket, artificial jewellery, silver rings, anklets, gents wallet wish cash amounting to Rs. 8,000/- (old currency notes), Sony Video camera, DSLR Camera and Maldives currency coins alongwith American tourister black bag out. Complainant called PCR on No. 100. Statement of complainant was recorded based on which rukka was prepared by the IO and present FIR was registered and HC Rakesh was appointed as the Investigating Officer of the case.
3. During investigation, IO inspected the site of the incident and having inspected it, prepared a site plan. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and based on the material collected, accused Vinod Kumar @ Kali was found responsible for the commission of offences punishable under Section 380/457/411/34 of the IPC. After completion of the investigation, case file was handed over by the IO to SHO of Police Station Dwarka North who after following the codal formalities, prepared and filed the instant challan against the accused.
4. On finding sufficient material on record against accused Vinod Kumar @ Kali, he was summoned before this court and on his appearance, copies of the challan and other documents were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (herein referred to as Cr.P.C).
FIR Number : 80021253/2024 State vs. Vinod Kumar @ Kali Page 2 of 9 Digitally signedNEETIKA by NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2025.05.17 18:14:14 +0530
5. On finding a prima-facie case against the accused Vinod Kumar @ Kali under Sections 380/457/411/34 of I.P.C., charge was put to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to have a defense to make.
6. During course of proceedings, offence u/s 411 IPC was compounded between the parties and statutory acquittal was announced in favour of the accused for offence u/s 411 IPC.
7. Thereafter, prosecution was called upon to adduce its evidence. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 02 witnesses. PW-1 Shalini Arora Joseph is the complainant in the case and PW-2 HC Rakesh Kumar is the Investigating Officer in the present case.
8. After completion of prosecution evidence, incriminating evidence adduced by prosecution was put to accused by recording his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the case of prosecution and pleaded innocence and preferred not to lead any evidence in his defense. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
9. I have heard Mr. Manish Sidhawat, Ld. APP for State and Ms. Priyanka Kanyal, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused and have gone through the records carefully.
10. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that the evidence of hostile witness can be read on material points, and it can be used to prove the offence charged against the accused. As such, it is prayed that accused persons be punished for the said offence.
11. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel has argued that main witness has turned hostile and despite reading his evidence as a whole, nothing has come on record against the accused. As such, it is prayed that accused be acquitted for the said offence.
12. On the basis of evidence on record, the following points arise for determination in the present case:
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 29.02.2024 between FIR Number : 80021253/2024 State vs. Vinod Kumar @ Kali Page 3 of 9 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.05.17 18:14:18 +0530 2:58 am to 4:24 am at C-302, Sangmitra Apartment, Plot No. 20, Sector 4, Dwarka, accused Vinod Kumar @ Kali alongwith his accomplice committed house breaking by entering into the house of complainant Shalini Arora Joseph for the purpose of committing offence, as alleged?
(ii) Whether on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused Vinod Kumar @ Kali alongwith his accomplice committed theft of Gents Wrist Watches, 06 lady wrist watches, a pair of Tanishk Gold Ear rings, one gold ring, one pair of south Indian Design gold ear rings, one gold lady ring, a pair of golden bangles, mangalsutra set, two gold coins, three heavy gold bangles, platinum chain and locket, artificial jewellery, silver rings, anklets, gents wallet wish cash amounting to Rs. 8,000/- (old currency notes), Sony Video camera, DSLR Camera and Maldives currency coins alongwith American tourister black bag, as alleged?
(iii) Final order.
13. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the reasons for my findings, my findings on the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No. 1: No Point No. 2: No Final order: The accused Vinod Kumar @ Kali is acquitted as per the operative part of the judgment.FIR Number : 80021253/2024 State vs. Vinod Kumar @ Kali Page 4 of 9 Digitally signed
NEETIKA by NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date: 2025.05.17 18:14:21 +0530 REASONS FOR FINDINGS POINT NO. 1
14. To bring home the culpability of accused under Section 380 IPC, it is pertinent that relevant provisions of law are first read. Offence of theft is defined u/s 378 IPC and theft committed in a dwelling house is punishable u/s 380 IPC. Section 378 and 380 IPC are reproduced herein below:
"Section 378 IPC: Theft: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Explanation 1--A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2--A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft. Explanation 3--A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it. Explanation 4 --A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal. Explanation 5.The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
Section 380 IPC : Theft in dwelling house, etc.-- 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 FIR Number : 80021253/2024 State vs. Vinod Kumar @ Kali Page 5 of 9 Digitally signed by NEETIKA KAPOOR NEETIKA Date:
KAPOOR 2025.05.17
18:14:25
+0530
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
15. Further Section 454 IPC which prescribes punishment for lurking house trespass or house breaking is reproduced hereinbelow:
Section 457 IPC : Whoever commits lurking house- trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, 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 five 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 fourteen years."
16. It is trite that in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused must be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the case at hand, is to be weighed keeping in view these legal standards.
17. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined, PW1 Shalini Arora Joseph who being the complainant and sole eye witness is the star witness of the case.
18. PW-1 Shalini Arora Joseph stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 29.02.2024 at around 7:30 am when she was in Chennai, she received a call from her maid informing her that locks of her iron door on the outside and the wooden door inside had been broken. She also informed about the theft of the jewellery alongwith the other articles. She deposed that her maid also informed her that a similar incident had also taken place in neighbouring houses. She registered the present e-FIR. She came back to her house. Her statement was recorded by the IO. After few days, IO had informed her about recovery of certain articles. Though she admitted her signature on the site plan but denied the preparation of the same in her FIR Number : 80021253/2024 State vs. Vinod Kumar @ Kali Page 6 of 9 Digitally signed by NEETIKA KAPOOR NEETIKA Date:
KAPOOR 2025.05.17
18:14:29
+0530
presence. She deposed that two boys could be seen entering the second floor of the socieity in a video of the cameras installed in the society. She failed to identify the accused in the court.
19. In her cross-examination by Ld. Legal Aid Defence Counsel, she admitted that she was not an eye witness to the incident. She admitted that her maid was also not an eye witness to the incident. She admitted that no CCTV footage has been seized by the IO during investigation. She denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter and all documents were prepared while sitting in PS.
20. Testimony of PW-1 reveals that though she supported the case of the prosecution by deposing about the date, time and place of the incident but she is not the eye witness of the present case and failed to depose about involvement of accused in the present matter. Thus, her testimony is not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration.
21. Further, prosecution also examined PW-2 HC Rakesh Kumar who stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 01.03.2024, investigation of the present case was marked to him after registration of FIR. Statement of complainant was recorded. Site plan was prepared which is Ex.PW2/A. He obtained the case property of the present case vide RC No. 153/21/24 which is Ex.PW2/B. Case property was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. He interrogated the accused and formally arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/D. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded which is Ex.PW2/E. Witness correctly identified the case property from the photographs on record. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court.
22. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he admitted that CCTV cameras were installed at the society. He admitted that he had not seized the CCTV footage of the same. He admitted that recovery was not effected from the accused in his presence. He denied the suggestion that accused had been falsely implicated in the present matter and no recovery was effected from him. He denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting in PS. He denied the suggestion that accused had not made any disclosure statement or his signatures were FIR Number : 80021253/2024 State vs. Vinod Kumar @ Kali Page 7 of 9 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.05.17 18:14:32 +0530 taken on blank papers. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted fair and proper investigation in the present matter and was deposing falsely.
23. Perusal of testimony of PW2 reveal that he had only conducted the investigation after receiving the information regarding the incident and had reached the spot later and thus, cannot depose about the factual position of the incident and inference of theft or lurking house trespass by the accused. PW-2 or any of the police witnesses could not depose about the presence of accused at the spot at the time of the incident. As such, testimony of PW2 is at best corroborative in nature but not sufficient to establish guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
24. Testimonies of other witnesses were dispensed with as they being police witnesses could only explain the factum of investigation conducted by them and could not explain in detail, the act of lurking house trespass or theft by the accused. Moreover, site plan prepared by the IO is not sufficient to prove the act of lurking house trespass or theft by the accused. While it shows the location of the incident which is undisputed, it could not be inferred that the incident had occurred as accused had illegally entered upon the property of complainant and committed theft. Moreover, site plan also fails to depict the exact location from where the case property of complainant were stolen and the point from where the accused was apprehended.
25. There is no other witness to establish the guilt of the accused. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish the act of lurking house trespass or theft by the accused and his involvement in the present case and, therefore, failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that accused Vinod Kumar @ Kali had stolen jewellery articles and cash from the house of the complainant. Testimony of eyewitness does not completely support the prosecution story and testimonies of the rest of the witnesses are not sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Thus, this point is answered in the negative and is decided against the prosecution.
FINAL ORDER FIR Number : 80021253/2024 State vs. Vinod Kumar @ Kali Page 8 of 9 Digitally signed by NEETIKA KAPOOR NEETIKA Date:
KAPOOR 2025.05.17
18:14:36
+0530
26. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, since the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for commission of offence punishable under section 380, 457 r/w Section 34 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt, accused Vinod Kumar @ Kali is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 380, 457 r/w Section 34 IPC.
27. Personal bonds/surety bonds stands cancelled. Endorsement, if any is also cancelled. Sureties stand discharged. Superdarinama, if any stands cancelled. Original documents, if any be returned to the rightful claimant against proper receipt as per rules.
28. The accused has already furnished personal and surety bonds as per the mandate of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he has undertaken that he shall put in his appearance before the appellate court within the prescribed period in case an appeal is filed and admitted for hearing. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced and signed in the open court on 17th day of May, 2025.
Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.05.17
18:14:42 +0530
(Neetika Kapoor)
JMFC-06/SWD/Dwarka Court
New Delhi/17.05.2025
**It is certified that this judgment contains 09 pages, and each page bears my signature.** FIR Number : 80021253/2024 State vs. Vinod Kumar @ Kali Page 9 of 9