Delhi District Court
State vs Kamal on 14 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH SACHIN, JMFC-03, EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 808/2015
PS Gazipur
Unique Case ID No. 13453/2016
Title State Vs. Kamal
Name of complainant Ms. Shalini Singh
Name of accused 1. Kamal Babu
S/o Sh. Saifi Mohd.
R/o Chachula, PS Daunkaur, Distt.
Gautam Budh Nagar, UP.
Date of institution of challan 26.05.2016
Date of arguments 08.12.2025
Date of pronouncement 14.03.2026
Offence complained of U/s. 380/451 IPC
Offence charged with U/s. 380/451 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 1 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:18:47 +0530
01. The facts of the case in brief are that on 19.08.2015 at about 11:30 a.m. complainant/PW1 had gone to terrace of rented house for drying clothes and PW8/devar of PW1 who came 10 days prior to incident in search of job had gone to shop. It is further the case that at about 11.30 a.m, when came down from terrace and went to her room she saw accused was present in the room and articles were scattered, upon seeking PW1 accused ran away from the room by pushing PW1. PW1 raised alarm there after accused was apprehended by PW8 with the help of public, thereafter complainant discovered that her gold mangalsutra, ring and Rs. 25,000/- from the house. Accordingly, after the investigation, police had filed the present charge-sheet against the accused for commission of the offences punishable U/s 380/451 IPC
02. After taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 380/451 IPC, accused was summoned. Upon appearance of the accused, complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing arguments, charge for offence punishable under section 380/451 IPC was framed against the accused on 26.09.2018, to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
03. The prosecution in support of present case has examined total 10 witnesses.FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 2 of 22
Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:18:56 +0530
04. PW-1 is Smt. Shalini Singh, who is complainant and eye witness in the present case and deposed that at the time of incident she was residing at H.No E-9, Village Gazipur, Delhi and her brother in-law namely Arvind Singh was also present in the house in Delhi. She further stated that on 19.08.2015, she had gone to terrace of the said house for drying the clothes. She stated that she got down from the terrace at about 11:30 a.m. and went to her room and at the same time, she saw the accused was in her room as room was not bolted from outside, PW1 identified the accused in court. She further stated that as soon as accused saw her, he ran away from room by pushing her. She stated that she made an alarm, thereafter, her brother-in-law Arvind caught hold the accused at a distance with the help of the public persons. She further stated that thereafter, someone called her husband and her husband came at home. She further stated that thereafter accused was handed over to the police. She stated that she checked her room and found missing Rs.25,000/-, gold mangalsutra and ring. She stated that stolen articles could not recovered from the accused. She further stated that she made the complaint and police recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A. She further stated that police enquired from her about the place of occurrence.
4a. Thereafter, PW-1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Defence counsel and during cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the house is built upto 4th floor, where she is residing. She further stated that FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 3 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:19:02 +0530 she did not know the name of the tenants who was residing on the ground floor of the said property at the time of alleged incident. She further stated that on the ground floor, family members were residing and at the time of alleged incident, family members of the ground floor were present in their rooms. It is further stated that she had gone on the terrace at about 10.00 a.m. She further stated that the accused was apprehended in front of his house by his brother in law. She further stated that she observed that Rs. 25,000/-, gold mangalsutra and ring were missing after 20 minutes from the apprehension of the accused. She stated that police arrived at the place of occurrence within half an hour and prior to arriving of the police officials, nobody made search of body of the accused. She further stated that police did not make search of body of the accused in his presence. She voluntarily stated that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused. She further stated that police recorded her statement at her house. She further stated that police did not record the statement of any other person in her presence. She further stated that her husband came at her home at the same time when police arrived there.
She voluntarily stated that she was pregnant at that time. She further stated that she made alarm from the 1st floor of the house and she did not get down from 1st floor ever on that day. She stated that police had not obtained the fingerprints from the briefcase. She further stated that the said briefcase was locked and it was broken at that time. She stated that police did not seize the briefcase. She further stated that she had signed Ex. PWI/A after reading it. PW-1 denied the suggestion that accused was FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 4 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:19:11 +0530 not entered into her room for the purpose of theft ever or that she did not make alarm at that time or that her Rs. 25,000/-, gold mangalsutra and ring were not missing or that accused was not apprehended by her brother-in-law with the help of the public persons or that accused was not handed over by her brother-in-law to the police or that she had not given her statement to the police Ex.PW1/A. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
05. PW2 is ASI Dharamvir Singh, who deposed that on 19.08.2025 he was working as Duty Officer at PS Gazipur from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and on that day at about 13:55 hours, Ct. Sandeep gave him a rukka sent by ASI Narayan for registration of FIR and on the basis of said rukka, he registered the present FIR. He proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW2/A(OSR). He further deposed that he made endorsement upon rukka which is Ex.PW1/A and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Sandeep to be given to Asi Narayan Dev.
5a. PW-2 was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite being opportunity given to him.
06. PW-3 is Satya Prakash, who deposed that on 19.08.2015 at about 12:00 p.m, he was present in the field related to his office work in the area of Laxmi Nagar since he is a marketing man. He further stated that at that time, he received the call from the land-lord of his house who FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 5 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:19:21 +0530 informed him that theft had taken place in his house. He further stated that he immediately left for his house and reached there within around 30 minutes and there he saw that his wife Shalini and brother Arvind had apprehended a thief. He further stated that he made a call at 100 number and police reached at the spot and they handed over the accused to police who revealed his name as Kamal Babu after interrogation. He deposed that police recorded the statement of his wife and thereafter the present case was registered. He further stated that police, arrested the accused and recorded his statement. PW-3 correctly identified accused in the Court.
6a. PW-3 was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel wherein he stated that accused was sitting apprehended in the house of his landlord outside the street of his house when he reached there. He stated that police reached after around 15-20 minutes of his call, however, he did not remember the exact time. He stated that police recorded the statement of his wife in her room. Accused was searched in his presence by the police but nothing was recovered from his possession. He stated that police remained for 10-15 minutes at the spot. He further stated that police wrote some rough notes at the spot however, police prepared all the documents in the police station. He stated that his wife did not visit the police station at any point of time in respect of the present case. He stated that he did not know what articles had been stolen from his house, however, his wife had informed him that some jewellery and cash of FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 6 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:19:30 +0530 Rs.25,000/- approx. was missing. He denied the suggestion that nothing was stolen from his house.
07. PW-4 is HC Satish Sheoran, who deposed that on 18.08.2015, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Gazipur and his duty hours were from 8:35 a.m. to 12:35 p.m. He further deposed that he received a call from PCR and reduced it in writing vide DD No.18A i.e Ex.PW4/A(OSR).
7a. PW-4 was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite being opportunity given to him.
08. PW5 is Insp. Harish Chander Pathak, who stated that on 22.01.2016, he was working as Nodal officer at CPCR/PHQ and on that day, he had issued certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, regarding PCR Form-1, which is Ex.PW5/A and 65B IE Act compliance certificate is Ex.PW5/B. 8a. PW-5 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he had issued the certificate on the written request of the IO of the present case. He did not remember the name of the IO. PW-5 has produced the original written request given by the IO and proved photocopy of the same as Ex.PW5/C(OSR). He denied the suggestion that he had not issued any 65B Certificate to the IO. FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 7 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:19:38 +0530
09. PW-6 is HC Sandeep Kumar, who deposed that on 19.08.2015 at about 12:35 p.m, he was present at his beat, Village Gazipur. He stated that he received a call and reached the spot i.e. E-9, Village Gazipur, where he met with IO/ASI Narayan Dev. He stated that IO recorded statement of complainant Shalini Singh and thereafter IO prepared rukka and handed over to him. He stated that he took the rukka to PS and got the present FIR registered and after registration of case, he came back at the spot alongwith the copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to IO. He further stated that accused was also present at the spot. He further stated that thereafter IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW6/B. His statement was recorded by the IO. PW-6 correctly identified accused in the Court.
9a. PW-6 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he stated that when he reached the spot, complainant, her devar, accused and IO with constable were present there. He stated that public persons were also gathered at the spot. He stated that IO did not record statement of any public witness in his presence. He returned back to the spot alongwith the copy of FIR and original rukka at about 3:30-4:45 p.m. and when he came back, IO was preparing the documents. He deposed that he remained at the spot for about 20-25 minutes after handing over the rukka to the IO.
FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 8 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:19:57 +0530
10. PW-7 is HC Vineet who deposed that on 19.08.2015 he alongwith ASI Narayan was on emergency duty from 8:00 a.m to 8:00 p.m. He stated that on that day, IO received the DD no. 18A and thereafter, he alongwith IO reached the spot i.e. E-9, Gazipur Village, Delhi where complainant Shalini Singh handed over the custody of one injured person to the IO and IO recorded the statement of complainant Shalini Singh regarding the incident. He further stated that thereafter, IO had prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Sandeep. He further stated that IO sent him alongwith the accused to LBS Hospital for medical examination of accused and he got conducted the medical examination of accused there and thereafter, he alongwith accused came at the spot, where he interrogated accused and during interrogation, accused disclosed that previously he had stated his wrong name and he disclosed that his real name is Kamal Babu. PW-7 further stated that thereafter IO arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW6/B. He further stated that thereafter, IO had recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide memo Ex.PW7/A and thereafter he alongwith IO ASI Narayan Dev and accused came to PS and IO recorded his statement at the PS. PW-7 correctly identified accused in the court.
10a. PW-7 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he did not remember the time when IO received the aforesaid DD, but it was the noon time. They reached at the FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 9 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:20:07 +0530 spot in the noon hours after receiving the DD entry but he did not remember the exact time. He further stated that many public persons were present at the spot when they reached there. He stated that he did not remember the time when Ct. Sandeep took the rukka to PS and when he returned back at the spot. He further stated that he reached LBS Hospital alongwith the accused at about 2:00 p.m and accused was medically examined in emergency, however, he did not remember how much time took place in the examination of the accused. He stated that from the personal search of accused, nothing was recovered from him. He did not remember how much time he remained at the spot after returning from the hospital. He denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared at the PS or that he had not visited the spot.
11. PW-8 is Sh. Arvind who deposed that on 19.08.2015 he came to Delhi and stayed at the resident of his brother namely Sh. Satya Prakash situated in the village Ghazipur. He further stated that in the noon, he went to the garage of one person belonging to his village and when he returned at the above said address and went at the first floor and knocked the door but no one had given the response and therefore he came on the ground floor and went to above said garage. He further stated that thereafter, he had received the call from his sister-in-law (bhabi) namely Shalini Singh, who informed that theft had been committed in the above said address. He further deposed that thereafter, he went to the above said address but no thief was present there and FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 10 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:20:22 +0530 thereafter, his bhabhi intimated the said facts to her landlord and her husband and landlord had made a call at 100 number and after sometimes, police official came at the spot and asked him about the address of his native place and after two days, he went to his native place situated at Pratapgarh.
11a. PW-8 was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement and during cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he admitted that he had come to Delhi at the resident of his brother prior to 10 days of the above said incident. He further admitted that his brother Sh. Satya Prakash used to do the work of marketing and he had left the home at about 10.00 a.m on the day of incident and he also went to the above said garage at that time. PW-8 could not tell the house number of his brother. PW-8 denied the suggestion that the address of rented premise of his brother was house number E-9, Ghazipur village, Delhi. He denied the suggestion that on 19.08.2015 at about 11.30 a.m his bhabhi namely Shalini Singh had gone to terrace for drying the clothes after locking the room and he also went to the shop. He further denied the suggestion that when he was returning after about 15 minutes, he heard the voice of his bhabhi who was screaming to apprehend the thief. He further denied the suggestion that he had seen that one person was running away in the gali of village after coming out the house of his brother. He further denied the suggestion FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 11 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:20:31 +0530 that he had also raised the alarm and with the help of public person he apprehended the said person at the distance of 200 mtr. He further denied the suggestion that public persons and passers-by had beaten the said person. He further denied the suggestion that in the meantime his bhabhi came there and they conducted the serach of said person but no articles of their house were recovered from him. PW-8 further denied the suggestion that landlord had made the call to his brother. PW-8 admitted that police official had recorded the statement of his bhabhi. He further denied the suggestion that they handed over the custody of the accused who revealed his name as Kamal. He further denied the suggestion that IO had prepared the site plan of the spot at his instance. He further denied the suggestion that after interrogation, accused disclosed his correct name as Kamal Babu. PW-8 proved his signature at point C on arrest memo and personal search memos of accused which are Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B. PW-8 also identified his signature at point B on disclosure statement Ex.PW7/A. PW-8 could not identify the accused in the court. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately not disclosing the true facts of the case and not identifying the accused as he has been won over by the accused.
11b. During cross-examination, PW-8 stated that he had signed on the documents without reading the contents of the same.
12. PW-9 is Retd. SI Narayan Dev who deposed that on FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 12 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:20:47 +0530 19.08.2025, he had received the DD no.18A i.e. Ex.PW4/A which was regarding attempt to rape and thereafter he alongwith Ct. Vineet reached the spot i.e. E-9, Gazipur Village, where complainant Shalini and his brother-in-law (devar) Arvind met there and they produced one apprehended person to him. He further stated that he interrogated the complainant and recorded her statement which is Ex.PW1/A and after interrogation, it was found that there was no incident of attempt to rape with the complainant and the said DD/PCR call was made by her husband, who was not present at the spot. He stated that he prepared rukka Ex.PW9/A. PW-9 further deposed that Ct. Sandeep who was the Beat Officer of the area, also came at the spot and he handed over the rukka to Ct. Sandeep, who went to PS for registration of FIR and he sent the aforesaid apprehended persons to LBS Hospital through Ct. Vineet for his medical examination. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, Ct. Sandeep came at the spot and he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He further stated that Ct. Vineet alongwith accused also came at the spot after his medical examination. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan of the spot at the instance of Arvind which is Ex.PW9/B. PW-9 stated he interrogated accused and accused disclosed his name as Kamal and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW6/A. He also conducted the personal search of accused vide memo Ex.PW6/B and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex.PW7/A. PW-9 further deposed that he made enquiries from Arvind and whatever he stated, he recorded the same. He stated that FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 13 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:21:00 +0530 thereafter he alongwith Ct. Sandeep and Ct. Vineet and accused came to PS and accused was locked in the police lockup. He further stated that he also recorded the statement of Ct. Vineet and Ct. Sandeep at PS. He stated that on the next day, accused was produced before the concerned court and he was sent to JC. Thereafter, he was transferred from PS Gazipur and he handed over the file of the present case to MHC(R).
12a. PW-9 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he reached at the spot at about 12:40 p.m. and at that time 4-5 persons were present there. He further deposed that he made inquiry from those 4-5 persons and they did not given any written statement. He stated that it took about 10-15 minutes while inquiring the complainant. He stated that when he reached the spot, accused was in the custody of complainant and Arvind. He recorded the statement of the complainant at the spot. He stated that Ct. Sandeep reached the spot at about 12:45-12:50 p.m. He stated that Ct. Sandeep came back at the spot after registration of FIR at about 2:30 p.m. and Ct. Vineet alongwith accused came back at the spot from hospital at about 2:30 p.m. He further stated that he had not mentioned in the site plan, the exact place in the room of the complainant where the jewellery and cash was kept or the terrace of the house of the complainant. He stated that he had arrested the accused at about 4:10 p.m. and information regarding his arrest was given to his wife. He denied the suggestion that Arvind was not present at the spot and he only recorded his name and address or that FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 14 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:21:07 +0530 he had not recorded his statement. PW-9 further stated that complainant had not given any bill of the jewellery to him during the investigation of the present case. He denied the suggestion that accused was only a passerby and falsely implicated in this case or that he made all the writing work at the PS.
13. PW-10 is ASI Rajesh Kumar who after preparation of charge-sheet in the present case was handed over the file for further compliance and after scrutiny, he added Section 451 IPC in the charge-
sheet and thereafter filed before the Court.
13a. PW-10 was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite being opportunity given to him.
14. After examination of the aforesaid 10 prosecution witnesses, PE was closed vide order dated 26.06.2025.
15. Statements of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 15.10.2025, wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to them to which, accused Kamal stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Accused chose not to lead evidence in his defence, therefore, DE was closed.
FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 15 of 22Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:21:14 +0530 ARGUMENTS:
16. Final arguments heard from the side Ld. APP for the State and from Sh. H. Rehman Ld. Counsel for the accused. During final arguments, the Ld. APP urged that testimonies of the material witnesses have remained unchallenged in the cross examination and there is no reason to doubt their testimonies. The Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, had argued that the eye witnesses/PW8 had failed to identify the accused and material contradictions have appeared in the testimonies of complainant/eyewitness PW1 and other PWs. Ld. Counsel further argued that accused was only passerby and he was falsely implicated in the present case. Ld. Counsel further argued that prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
FINDINGS AND REASONS THEREOF:-
17. I have gone through the materials on record and heard the arguments. At this juncture, I discuss the relevant law to properly analyse the evidence recorded.The accused has been charged with the offence punishable under Section 380/451 IPC.
17a. Section 380 IPC prescribe punishment for theft in dwelling house etc. Theft is defined under section 378 IPC. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 380 IPC are as FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 16 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:21:22 +0530 follows:-
1. the property in question is movable property;
2. property was taken out from the possession of any person without his consent;
3. accused moved the said property to such taking;
4. accused did so with intent to cause wrongful loss to that person or wrongful gain to himself;
5. theft should have been committed in a dwelling house or place used for safe custody of property.
17b. Section 451 IPC prescribe punishment for house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. House- trespass is defined under section 442 IPC. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under section 442 IPC are as follows:-
1. accused enters into building used as human dwelling;
2. such entry is unlawful;
3. intent to commit theft;
18. In a criminal case, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts before the accused is asked to prove his defence. Therefore, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the above facts. The entire case of the prosecution FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 17 of 22 SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: 2026.03.14 17:21:35 +0530 relies upon the testimony of the complainant/eye witness i.e. PW1 and eye witness/PW8 to prove that accused had trespassed the house of the complainant in order to commit theft and stolen the several articles from the house of the complainant.
19. As per prosecution accused was immediately apprehended outside the house after the commission of offence, it is not disputed fact that accused was apprehended outside the house, it has been proved by the testimonies of PW1, PW3, PW6, PW7 and PW9, further from arrest memo of accused i.e. Ex. PW6/A. The same fact has not been disputed by Ld. Counsel of accused, during his final argument, defence taken by him that accused was passerby and he is falsely implicated in the present case.
20. The fact to be proved by prosecution is that accused trespassed the house and committed theft. In order to prove the same prosecution has primarily relied upon the star witnesses i.e. complainant/PW1 and PW8, who are the eye witness of incident. However, from the entire perusal of testimony of PW8, it is clear that he had not supported the case of the prosecution on material aspect and he had failed to identify the accused. PW8 had turned hostile and during his examination stated that when he reached at spot no thief was present and PW1 told him that theft is committed. PW8 was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State as the witness was resiling from his previous statement. However, PW8 denied the suggestions given by the Ld. APP and failed to identify the accused FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 18 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:21:42 +0530 and completely exonerated the accused.
21. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses is not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in omnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under:-
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
22. Therefore, it has to be seen if the evidence of such hostile witness can be relied in part. The eye witnesses PW8 have failed to identify the accused and during his examination stated that when he reached house no thief was present and PW8 identified his signature on Ex. PW6/A, PW6/B and PW7/A but stated he signed the documents without reading the contents. Therefore, testiomy of PW8 cannot be relied upon, even in part.
23. Examining the statement of PW1. PW1 during her examination stated that accused was immediately apprehended in front of house, FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 19 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:21:49 +0530 accused was searched by police but nothing was recovered from the accused, same fact has been reiterated by PW3 and IO/PW9 who conducted the personal search of accused i.e. Ex PW6/B. Further IO/PW9 during his cross-examination stated that PW1 did not gave any bill of jewellery. PW1 further during her statement i.e PW1/A stated that she searched her home with her husband/PW3 and found money and articles were stolen, whereas PW3 during his cross-examination stated that he do not know what articles were stolen, however, his wife informed him that jewellery and cash are stolen. PW1 during her cross- examination stated that briefcase lock was broken and police neither seized the briefcase nor obtained the fingerprints from the briefcase. IO of the present case neither took photographs of the room not took case property i.e brief and lock in to possession to substantiate the case of prosecution. PW1 further during her cross-examination stated that on the day of incidence she did not got down from Ist floor of house, ever on the day. Whereas PW3 husband of PW1 during his examination stated that when he reached home he saw his wife/PW1 and his brother/PW8 had apprehended the accused. Further police official PW6, PW7 and IO/PW9 also stated when they reached at spot complainant was present at spot and custody of accused was handed over to police officials by complainant.
24. In view of the above discussions, prosecution failed to prove that theft actually occurred as no recovery was affected despite FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 20 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:21:57 +0530 accused was immediately arrested outside the house and IO failed to take photographs of room, even the case property i.e briefcase and lock were not taken into possession by IO, further IO failed to take finger prints from the case property. For proving offence that accused trespassed the house relied upon the testimony of PW1 and PW8. However, PW8, completely turned hostile and testimony of PW1 cannot be solely relied to prove the fact beyond reasonable doubt that accused is the same who trespassed the house as there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statement of PW1.
25. Other witnesses cited and examined by the prosecution are police officials, who are not the eye witness of the present case and they reached the spot after occurrence of crime and who at the most can depose regarding the police proceedings, but the same is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused in the present case. In these circumstances, accused is entitled to every benefit of doubt accruing in his favour
26. It is settled preposition that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that too by leading independent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. There is no controversy to the proposition that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every doubt occurring in the prosecution case. The general principles of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 21 of 22 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN Date:
2026.03.14 17:22:10 +0530 reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, are to be borne in mind.
27. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 197 SCC (Crl.) 258 that the accused person is entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution.
28. In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges u/s 380/451 of IPC against the accused. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to accused Kamal S/o Sh. Saifi Modh. and he is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s. 380/451 of IPC. Accused is directed to furnish the bond u/s 437A Cr.PC, in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with surety of the like amount.
29. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SACHIN Date: SACHIN 2026.03.14
Announced in the open (Sachin) 17:22:18
+0530
court on 14.03.2026 JMFC-03/East KKD Court /Delhi
FIR No.808/2015 State Vs. Kamal Page 22 of 22