Delhi District Court
State vs Tasleem on 13 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS02, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI PRESIDED BY: SH. ANMOL NOHRIA, DJS
STATE VS. TASLEEM
FIR NO. : 1272/2014, u/S 380/511 IPC, PS : SEELAMPUR
CNR NO. DLNE020007612014
: JUDGEMENT :
1.FIR No. 1272/2014
2.Unique Case no. 462932/2015
3.Title State Vs. Tasleem
3(A).Name of complainant Raj Kumar S/o Amarnath 3(B).Name of accused Tasleem S/o Tahir, H. No. E 16B/298, Jhuggi, New Seelampur, Delhi.
3 (C). Representation on Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Ld. behalf of State APP for the State.
4.Date of institution of 20.12.2014 challan
5.Date of Reserving 20.05.2025 judgment Digitally signed
6.Date of pronouncement 13.11.2025 by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.11.13 7.Date of commission of 13.02.2015 15:23:58 +0530 offence State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 1 of 19
8.Offence complained of u/S 380/511 IPC.
9.Offence charged with u/S 457/380/511 IPC.
10.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
11.Final order ACQUITTED Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case :
1. The present prosecution case was put into action with the complaint of the complainant of Raj Kumar, wherein he has alleged that on 06.12.2014 he was sleeping at his home with his family after locking the house and at around 5:00 AM, he heard some noise and got up and saw one boy present inside the house, who started to run towards the terrace on seeing him. He raised hue and cry and ran after him towards the terrace and as soon as the complainant reached the terrace the boy/accused jumped down from the second floor, however, he was caught hold of by the complainant's son, who was present in the gali and accused had sustained injuries on his head. Thereafter, he disclosed his name to be Tasleem and call was made at 100 and the accused was handed over to the police when they arrived.
Hence, the accused has committed offence u/S 457/380/511 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.
2. On the basis of the complaint, FIR no. 1272/2014, u/S 380/511 IPC was registered. After completion of Digitally signed by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA investigation, chargesheet was filed u/S 380/457/511 IPC. NOHRIA Date:
2025.11.13 15:24:07 +0530 State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 2 of 19
3. Cognizance was taken and thereafter, charge for the offence punishable u/S 380/457/511 IPC was framed against the accused on 13.02.2015 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
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 : Raj Kumar (complainant) PW2 : ASI Sita Ram (IO) ASI Pradeep Kumar (police PW3 :
witness) PW4 : Shiva (eye witness) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Digitally signed Ex. PW1/A : Statement of complainant ANMOL by ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date: 2025.11.13 15:24:13 +0530 Ex. PW1/B : Site plan Ex. PW1/C : Arrest memo Ex. PW1/D : Personal search memo Ex. PW1/E : Disclosure statement Ex. PW2/A : Tehrir Ex. PW2/B : Site plan MarkX : DD No. 05A ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex. P1 : FIR Ex. P2 : MLC of the accused State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 3 of 19
5. PW1/Raj Kumar is the complainant in the present matter and has deposed on oath that on 06.12.2014 he slept at about 12:30 AM in his house after locking the main gate and at about 5:00 AM, he got up on hearing some noise. He saw the accused inside his house in the room, who on seeing him started to flee towards the terrace and he followed him. Meanwhile, his son Shiva ran towards the gate. The name of the accused was later revealed as Tasleem and he jumped down from the terrace, the accused was apprehended by his son and he also came down. Accused had sustained injuries as he had jumped from the terrace and had entered his house in order to commit theft as things inside his room were scattered by the accused. He made call at 100 and police came at the spot and recorded his statement. He showed the place of incident to the police and site plan was prepared at his instance. The accused was arrested, Digitally personally searched, interrogated and disclosure statement was signed by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.11.13 15:24:19 +0530 recorded in his presence and thereafter IO recorded his supplementary statement. The witness has correctly identified the accused present in the court.
5.1. PW1/Raj Kumar crossexamined by the defence counsel and has deposed that he does not remember the exact date of incident, however, the time was 5:00 AM and he made call at 100 at around 5:30 AM but does not remember the number used to make that call. The police arrived at the spot after an hour State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 4 of 19 and the person who had been apprehended by the police is not that person, the police officials remained at the spot for about 15 minutes. CCTV cameras were installed but CCTV footage was not provided, site plan was not prepared in his presence, his son had not apprehended the accused at the spot and he never went to the PS after the date of incident for recording his statement and all the documents were done in his absence and no personal search was conducted in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that the person who was apprehended at the time of the incident was not the same person or that site plan was not prepared in his presence or that there is no CCTV footage as no incident had taken place at the spot or that he is deposing falsely.
6. PW2/ASI Sita Ram is the IO in the present matter and has deposed on oath that on 06.12.2014 he was posted as HC at the concerned PS and DD No. 05A was marked to him for investigation, upon which he alongwith Ct. Pradeep reached at EBlock, Shastri Park, wherein he met with the complainant who had apprehended the accused who was injured.
Upon inquiry, the complainant told about the injuries and narrated the story. As the accused was bleeding, he was immediately taken to the hospital where he was medically treated and his MLC was collected. After some time, they reached at the Digitally signed by ANMOL spot and recorded the statement of the complainant upon which ANMOL NOHRIA Date:
NOHRIA 2025.11.13 15:24:25 +0530 tehrir was recorded and Ct. Pradeep immediately left to the PS State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 5 of 19 for registration of FIR. He prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant and thereafter arrested and personally searched the accused; and after interrogation recorded the disclosure statement of the accused. After some time, accused was taken to the PS and after production before the Court, he was sent to JC and thereafter, after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. The witness has correctly identified the accused present in the court today.
6.1. PW2/ASI Sita Ram was not crossexamined by the defence counsel despite being given an opportunity.
7. PW4/Shiva is the eye witness in the present matter and has deposed on oath that he does not remember the day of the incident, however, on that day, they were sleeping at their house and at about 5:00 AM in the morning, he heard some noise from the terrace and he moved out from his room and saw one boy was trying to enter inside their house, who was apprehended by his father and that his father was beating him. He cannot identify the accused as the matter is 10 years old and had not given any statement to the police, however, he has called at the PS and police recorded his statement by their own.
Digitally 7.1. PW4/Shiva was crossexamined by the Ld. APP signed by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.11.13 for the State on the point of identification as well as facts. In his 15:24:32 +0530 State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 6 of 19 crossexamination, he denied giving any statement to the police despite the same being read over to him. He has further denied the suggestion of not identifying the accused as having won over by him or having settled the matter with the accused.
7.2. PW4/Shiva was not crossexamined by the defence despite being given an opportunity.
8. The remaining prosecution witness supported the case of the prosecution and proved the documents mentioned in the Table above.
9. PE was closed on 20.02.2025 and thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC.
He stated that he has been falsely implicated and not committed the offence as alleged and denied the allegations in toto. Pursuant thereto, he stated that he does not wish to lead any defence evidence.
10. I have heard the learned APP for the State and Digitally learned counsel for the accused at length. I have also have given signed by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record. 2025.11.13 15:24:37 +0530 State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 7 of 19
11. It has been argued by the learned APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. She has argued that the complainant has supported the case of prosecution and also the other witnesses have duly proved the investigation and also the eye witness has corroborated the version of the complainant. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offence.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the basic essentials of the offence. It is submitted that neither of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and have failed to identify the accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
13. This Court has thoughtfully considered the material on record and arguments advanced with due circumspection.
14. As per the case of prosecution, that on 06.12.2014 at about 5:00 AM, the accused trespassed into H. No. E15/2, Gali No. 02, Shastri Park, Delhi i.e. the house of the complainant and ANMOL Digitally signed by ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date: 2025.11.13 15:24:45 +0530 State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 8 of 19 used as residential accommodation and attempted to commit theft in the said house.
15. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
16. The prosecution has charged the accused with offences u/S 457/380/511 IPC.
17. In the present case, the offence alleged against the accused is by complainant Raj Kumar (PW1). That being so, the prime witness in this matter was the complainant Raj Kumar himself, who has also stated that Shiva (PW4) was present at the spot and had apprehended the accused and is an eye witness of the said incident. Hence, the testimony of PW1 & PW4 require careful scrutiny being the complainant and eye witnesses.
18. Perusal of the testimony of PW1 shows that he has fully narrated the incident as stated in the complaint given by him to the police and has not deviated from the version put forward Digitally signed by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.11.13 15:24:51 +0530 State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 9 of 19 by him; however, in his crossexamination he has denied the complete version and even the police proceedings that had taken place in his presence. He has further denied that his son (PW4) had not apprehended any person as per the version of the police and that no document work was done in his presence.
19. PW4 has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned completely hostile. In his testimony, he has narrated a different story altogether whereby he has stated that the accused was apprehended while entering the house and was beaten up by his father which is contradiction to the whole version of the prosecution and that of PW1 wherein the accused was apprehended in the gali while trying to escape and had sustained injuries as a result of jump from the second floor. He has further denied giving any statement to the police has stated that police had recorded his statement on their own. He has also failed to identify the accused. In his crossexamination by the Ld. APP for the State he has denied all the suggestions put forward by the Ld. APP for the State and has denied giving any statement to the police.
20. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses is not discarded completely. The Digitally signed legal maxim, "false in uno false in omnibus" is not applicable in by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA Date:
NOHRIA 2025.11.13 15:24:56 +0530 State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 10 of 19 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.
Digitally signed The evidence of such witnesses cannot by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.11.13 be treated as effaced, or washed off 15:25:02 +0530 the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
21. Therefore, it has to be seen if the evidence of such hostile witness can be relied in part. Perusal of testimony of PW4 shows that he has admitted being a eye witness to the incident but has deposed nothing incriminating against the accused and has completely contradicted the version put forward by PW1; hence he can be treated as a completely hostile witness and one from whose crossexamination done by the State, nothing incriminating has come on record.
State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 11 of 19
22. Further, perusal of testimony of PW1 shows that he has admitted the entire incident and has also identified the accused in his examination in chief, however, in his cross examination, he has denied everything and thus contradicted his version of examination in chief and thus causing a dent on the veracity of his testimony as the prime witness as he has failed to pass the test of crossexamination.
23. Further, as a rule of caution, the testimony of such a witness has to be treated with caution and corroboration has to be drawn from other evidence on record and if corroborated with the same, the incriminating evidence should be read in order to prove the version of the prosecution. In the case at hand, the only corroborative evidence was the testimony of eye witness PW4, however, it has already been observed above that he has turned completely hostile and had not deposed anything against the accused and thus there is nothing on record to corroborate the testimony or statement Ex. PW1/A of the complainant to read the incriminating part of the evidence of PW1.
24. 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 Digitally signed ANMOL by ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date: 2025.11.13 15:25:07 +0530 State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 12 of 19 to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution.
25. Therefore, there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offences. Thus, even if the evidence of the complainant PW1 is considered partly i.e. his examination in chief; there is nothing to implicate the accused person in the present case.
26. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 658 : 1999 SCC OnLine SC 577 at page 99 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the Digitally signed guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.11.13 doubt which a conscientious judicial 15:25:12 +0530 mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 13 of 19 doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a Digitally signed by ANMOL scientific precision. A criminal court ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.11.13 could be convinced of the guilt only 15:25:16 +0530 beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression "reasonable doubt" is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge."
27. In a criminal trial, the burden on the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is a rule of caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 14 of 19 the evidence in criminal cases. In Awadhi Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 116 at page 117, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"Before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond Digitally signed by ANMOL reasonable doubt. If those NOHRIA ANMOL Date:
NOHRIA 2025.11.13 15:25:21 circumstances or some of them can be +0530 explained by any other reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. But in assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no place. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities."
28. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law in the United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in his book Wharton's Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th Edn.) as follows:
"It is difficult to define the phrase 'reasonable doubt'. However, in all State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 15 of 19 criminal cases a careful explanation of the term ought to be given. A definition often quoted or followed is that given by Chief Justice Shaw in the Webster case. He says: 'It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the Digitally signed evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.11.13 in that consideration that they cannot 15:25:26 +0530 say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
29. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th Edn.) thus:
"The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an honest, sensible and fairminded man might, with reason, entertain consistent with a conscientious State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 16 of 19 desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid Digitally signed consideration of all the evidence and if, by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.11.13 after this candid consideration is had by 15:25:32 +0530 the jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt."
30. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offence under section 457/380/511 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The star witness of the prosecution, i.e., the complainant has failed the test of crossexamination and his testimony cannot be given credence without corroboration; and eye witness has turned hostile, providing nothing to corroborate the testimony of PW1/complainant. Thus, there is no evidence to State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 17 of 19 link the accused with the crime charged against him. The identity as culprit is not proved during the trial. For the reasons already noted above, the prosecution could not discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of offences u/S 457/380/511 IPC and identity of accused and thus, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
31. Accordingly, accused Taseelm S/o Tahir is acquitted for the offences under section 457/380/511 IPC. His bail bond stands cancelled and surety stands discharged.
32. Bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused stands discharged. Original be returned to rightful owner after cancellation of endorsement. Superdarinama, if any, hereby stands cancelled.
33. Accused is directed to furnish bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with a surety of like amount u/S 437A Cr.P.C and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when directed.
34. This judgment contains 19 pages. This judgment has been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
Digitally signed by ANMOLANMOL NOHRIA Date: NOHRIA 2025.11.13 15:25:37 +0530 State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 18 of 19
35. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Karkardooma forthwith.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedANMOL by ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date: 2025.11.13 15:25:43 +0530 Announced in open court (ANMOL NOHRIA) today i.e. 13th Nov., 2025 JMFC02/NE/KKD Courts/Delhi State vs. Tasleem FIR No. 1272/2014 PSNew Usmanpur Page 19 of 19