Delhi District Court
State vs Gaurav@Saurav on 26 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL SAINI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
DLSH020003192023
a Serial No. of the case :FIR No.700/2021, PS Jyoti
Nagar [Cr. Case No.165/2023]
b Date of the commission of :13.12.2021
the offence
c Name of the Complainant :Shri Narender Kumar
d Name of Accused person and : Gaurav @ Saurav S/o
his parentage and residence Sudhir R/o C-62, Gali no. 4,
Chhajjupur, Jyoti Nagar,
Dehi
e Offence complained of :380/511/457 IPC
f Plea of the Accused and his :Not guilty.
examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted: u/s 457/380/511
IPC
h Order reserved on :26.12.2025
i Order pronounced on :26.12.2025
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Factual matrix and trial proceedings
1.Briefly stated the facts of the Prosecution case against the accused are that on 113.12.2021 at 9.15 pm, at house no. 274, Gali no. 4, Durgapuri Extn., Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar, accused Gaurav @ Saurav S/o Sudhir had FIR No. 700/2021 PS Jyoti Nagar Digitally signed by State vs. Gaurv @ Saurav 1/ 10 RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.12.26 14:36:04 +0530 committed lurking house trespass/house breaking by night at above mentioned house which belonged to complainant Narender Kumar in order to attempt to commit theft of articles from the possession of the complainant and had committed the offences punishable u/s 457/380/511 IPC. Hence, the present case was registered against the accused.
2. Chargesheet in this matter was filed in the court on 10.01.2023 for the offences u/s 457/380/511 IPC against accused Gaurav @ Saurav S/o Sudhir, whereupon Cognizance was taken in this matter on the same day and on 06.10.2025, on account of presence of accused in the court, copy of chargesheet and relevant documents attached with it were supplied to him in compliance of section 207 Cr. P.C.
3. Moving further, vide order dated 06.10.2025 charge was duly served upon the Accused Gaurav @ Saurav S/o Sudhir for offence under section 457/380/511 IPC, which was read over and explained to the Accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Thereafter, matter was taken up for recording of Prosecution evidence.
4. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 10.12.2025, witness mentioned at Sl. No. 2 WHC Sunita Sharma Duty Officer was dropped from the list of witnesses as accused has admitted the genuineness of the FIR along with Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. A1(Colly.) qua the present case in his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
FIR No. 700/2021 SAINI Date:
2025.12.26
PS Jyoti Nagar 14:36:12
+0530
State vs. Gaurv @ Saurav 2/ 10
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, Prosecution examined only one public witness i.e. PW1 Narender Kumar as follows:-
PW1 Shri Narender Kumar PW: 1: Narender Kumar:- He deposed that he did not know about the present case and he could not identify the accused. Witness has turned hostile and during cross examination by Ld. APP for the State witness had denied the suggestion that police official had recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A, at his own version or that on 13.12.2021, at about 9.15 pm, he was lying inside his house and he heard some noise from the roof and when he was going towards roof from stairs, in the meanwhile, he saw that one person was coming from the roof side through stairs and he tried to stop him but he pushed him and started running or that he had chased him and shouted Chor Chor or that after listening his shouting Chor Chor some public persons gathered there and the said person was apprehended at Main road 100 foota and public persons started beating him and when he reached there, he saw that he had sustained injuries and was unconscious or that the said person was entered in his house to steal the articles but he did not steal anything or that someone called at PCR and PCR came there and they handed over the said person to the PCR officials. Further, that person revealed his name as Gaurav @ Saurav or that PCR van taken him to hospital. Witness was being confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A from portion A to A1 in vernacular language to which he denied the same that he had made the same to the police. Digitally signed by RAHUL FIR No. 700/2021 RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.12.26 PS Jyoti Nagar 14:36:19 +0530 State vs. Gaurv @ Saurav 3/ 10 Witness had further denied the suggestion that police officials had recorded his supplementary statement Mark X or that police officials had prepared site plan at his instance Ex. PW1/B or that police officials searched CCTV camera near the spot but there was no CCTV camera installed or that police officials arrested accused Gaurav in his presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C. He was further confronted with statement mark X from portion A to A1 to which he had denied having made the same to the police.
On being pointed out by Ld. APP for the State towards accused, witness failed to identify the accused. He had denied the suggestion that he was deliberately and intentionally not disclosing the complete facts as well as not identifying the accused in the court as he had settled the matter with the accused outside the court or that he had been won over by the accused.
Witness was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused despite being given an opportunity.
6. It is vital to mention here that the star witness to this case was the PW1 Complainant Narender Kumar since he was the eye witness to the case as well as the victim. To the utter dismay of Prosecution, complainant has turned hostile. Thus, no eye witness account of the incident could come on record.
7. After recording of the testimony of the only available public witness in this matter i.e. PW1 Complainant Narender Kumar, it was observed that even though he admitted the incident in question but he failed to identify the Accused despite being pointed out by Ld. APP for the State. The other witnesses were FIR No. 700/2021 Digitally PS Jyoti Nagar signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs. Gaurv @ Saurav 4/ 10 SAINI Date:
2025.12.26 14:36:27 +0530 the formal police witnesses who had not seen the incident taking place and others were not examined by the Prosecution as they would not lend any support to the Prosecution case as they were not eye witnesses and would only depose regarding the investigation conducted by them.
8. Moving further, as already mentioned above, PW1 Complainant Narender Kumar has turned hostile, therefore, he has failed to provide the requisite support to Prosecution case. Neither did he identify the Accused nor was he able to give any description of the Accused.
The main evidence produced by the IO is thus only the disclosure statement. Thus, as such apart from the alleged disclosure statement of the Accused, there is no material evidence against him which makes the Prosecution case weak beyond repairs. Thus, even though PW1 Complainant Narender Kumar was examined but he has not supported the Prosecution case, his testimony could not help the Prosecution case to establish the guilt of the Accused.
9. From the aforesaid testimonies itself, the case of the Prosecution was rendered full of doubts in regard to the commission of the alleged incident by the Accused.
10. The witness examined by the Prosecution i.e. Complainant Narender Kumar could not lend any support to the Prosecution case as he has turned hostile and has failed to identify the accused. In these circumstances, the recording of testimony of the remaining witnesses i.e. the other police witnesses as cited by the Prosecution and other formal witnesses, was dispensed with as they were not witnesses to facts and could have only deposed Digitally FIR No. 700/2021 RAHUL signed by RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar SAINI Date:
2025.12.26 14:36:34 State vs. Gaurv @ Saurav 5/ 10 +0530 with respect to the investigation carried out. With respect to the dropping of the said witnesses, it is relevant to take a note of an order of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the matter titled as In Re : Speedy Trial of Undertrial Prisoners (dated 22.10.2018) wherein it has been held that :
"We direct all the Trial Courts to consider the possibility of pruning the list of witnesses in consultation with the Public Prosecutor as well as the Defence Counsel so that the number of witnesses required to be examined can be reduced at the threshhold."
11. Moving further, as already mentioned above, Complainant has turned hostile on the identity of accused and nothing incriminating against accused could come on record. Admittedly, there are no independent eye-witnesses except this public witness cited by the Prosecution. Thus, the testimony of PW1 Complainant Narender Kumar could not help the Prosecution case to establish the guilt of the Accused.
12. Therefore, since no incriminating evidence or circumstance was found against the Accused, recording of his statement under section 313 Cr. PC. was also dispensed with. Accused preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence and therefore, the matter was taken up for hearing of final arguments, which were duly addressed by Ld. Counsel for the Accused as well as Ld. APP for the State.
With respect to the above stated trial proceedings in this matter, reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [104(2003) DLT 510] wherein it was held that:- Digitally signed by FIR No. 700/2021 RAHUL PS Jyoti Nagar RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
State vs. Gaurv @ Saurav 6/ 102025.12.26 14:36:41 +0530 "...In cases whise ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal Prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date..........."
Thus, keeping in view the above said guidelines this court proceeded to expedite the matter.
Summary of arguments
13. Ld. APP for the State has vehemently argued that the Accused be convicted for the offences with which he has been charged as the said offences are heinous in nature and leaving the Accused free without any penalty being imposed upon him would rather make him commit similar offences again. Further, it was argued by Ld. APP that it is no more res integra that even in case of hostile witness conviction of the Accused can be secured on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Ld. APP for the State prayed that Accused deserve to be held guilty.
14. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Accused has strongly opposed the contentions of Ld. APP for the State stating that Prosecution has been unable to bring even an iota of valid evidence against the Accused which points out towards his guilt. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Accused that merely because the complainant initiated the criminal proceedings in this matter, Accused cannot be held liable for it as the complainant has himself failed to identify the Accused. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the Accused has strongly pressed upon setting the Accused at liberty by acquitting him.
Digitally
FIR No. 700/2021 signed by
RAHUL
PS Jyoti Nagar RAHUL SAINI
State vs. Gaurv @ Saurav SAINI 7/ 10 Date:
2025.12.26
14:36:47
+0530
15. Accordingly, this court has heard the rival submissions advanced by the Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Counsel for the Accused and has also perused the entire record carefully.
Brief reasons for the decision
16. At the outset, before proceeding further on to discussing the weight and relevancy of evidence led by the Prosecution, this court deems it appropriate to first highlight the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence, i.e. one, that the Accused persons are presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and two, that the burden upon the Prosecution lies to the extent of proving the guilt of the Accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Prosecution to prove all the ingredients which constitute the offence so that all reasonable doubts in the case of the Prosecution are removed. It may be noted that strongest of suspicion upon the Accused does not lead to the guilt of the Accused. Thus, keeping in view the above stated aspects and principles of criminal jurisprudence this court shall proceed to decide upon the innocence or guilt of the Accused.
17. Coming to the facts of the case, Prosecution has cited 04 witnesses in the list of witnesses annexed with the chargesheet. Out of these 04 witnesses, only one is the prime public witness and rest of the witnesses cited by the Prosecution are formal witnesses, who might have played some part in the investigation but were not first hand witnesses to the alleged incident. Certainly, the guilt of the Accused could not have been proved by the Prosecution from the mere testimony of said formal witnesses in as much as, the alleged incident was never committed in his presence. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI FIR No. 700/2021 SAINI Date:
2025.12.26 14:36:54 PS Jyoti Nagar +0530 State vs. Gaurv @ Saurav 8/ 10 PW1 Complainant Narender Kumar has specifically stated in his deposition that he could not identify the Accused. Moreover, there is no other eye-witness to the incident of theft.
18. Even other circumstances and documents available on record pointed out towards lack of sufficient incriminating evidence against the Accused. The hostility in the testimony of PW1 Complainant Narender Kumar in the witness box coupled with the lack of other sufficient material on record makes the Prosecution case weak beyond repairs, especially because there are no other independent eye witnesses to the case. Conviction of the Accused cannot be secured with a mere disclosure statement unless vital evidence establishing guilt of the Accused is brought in the court.
19. It is already settled in law that the burden upon the Prosecution is to bring home the guilt of the Accused on the basis of evidence collected during investigation and when the star witness to the case has turned hostile, there remains no scope of doubt with respect to the lack of sufficient proof by Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused. Moreover, as per the tenets of criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt in the case of the Prosecution goes to the Accused.
Conclusion
20. Therefore, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that Prosecution has failed to discharge the burden imposed upon it by law of proving the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubts. In these circumstances, this court has no hesitation in holding that Accused Gaurav @ Saurav S/o Sudhir is held FIR No. 700/2021 Digitally signed by PS Jyoti Nagar RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
State vs. Gaurv @ Saurav 9/ 102025.12.26 14:37:02 +0530 not guilty for the offences punishable u/s 457/380/511 IPC. Accordingly, the accused Gaurav @ Saurav S/o Sudhir stands acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 457/380/511 IPC in the present case.
21. Accused is directed to furnish the bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C.
22. File be consigned to record room after all necessary compliance. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.12.26 14:37:09 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Rahul Saini) on 26.12.2025 Judicial Magistrate First Class-08, Shahdara District, Karkardooma 26.12.2025 [This judgment contains 10 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] FIR No. 700/2021 PS Jyoti Nagar State vs. Gaurv @ Saurav 10/ 10