Delhi District Court
State vs Anish on 7 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. KANIKA AGARWAL, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-03, NORTH-EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. ANISH
DLNE020002222008
F.I.R. No. : 708/2007
Police Station: Gokul Puri
U/S 451/380 IPC
(a) Case ID number/CR No. : 463877/2015
(b) Date of commission of the : 27.07.2007
offence
(c) Challan filed on : 15.05.2008
d) The name of the complainant : Sh. Vikash Sharma S/o Sh.
Krishan Lal Sharma, R/o
C-23, Gali No.18, Dayalpur,
Delhi-110094
(e) Name of the accused, parentage : Anish S/o Sharif, R/o H.No.
and residence 299, Gali No.20,
Jiyauddinpur, Mustafabad,
Delhi.
(f) Offence complained of : Under Section 451/380 IPC
(g) Charge/Notice framed on : 29.04.2013
(h) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(i) Final arguments heard on : 07.08.2025
(j) The final order : Acquitted
(k) The date of such order : 07.08.2025
Digitally
(l) State represented by : Sh. Mohit, Ld. APP for State.
signed by
KANIKA
KANIKA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2025.08.07
15:04:53
+0530
FIR No.708/2007 State Vs. Anish PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 1 of 9
(m) Accused represented by : Sh. Hoshiyar Singh and Ms.
Shivani Singh, Ld. counsel
for accused.
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. The accused namely Anish here in this case was chargesheeted for the offence punishable under section 451/380 IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC").
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 27.02.2007, the complainant who was working Site Technician with Vodafone Company had gone to visit house bearing No.B-101, Mavi Hospital, Nehru Vihar, Delhi where he saw that one unknown person had broke open the generator shelf and when he was asked about his identity, he stated that he works as an Engineer with Vodafone company. The complainant found the conduct of the person suspicious and made a PCR call. Investigation was taken up and it was found that accused had entered the house in order to commit theft. Thereafter, the accused was arrested by the police vide arrest memo dated 27.07.2007. After conclusion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC").
Digitally
signed by
KANIKA
KANIKA AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2025.08.07
15:05:07
+0530
FIR No.708/2007 State Vs. Anish PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 2 of 9
3. As per the chargesheet, the accused was stated to have committed the offences under Section 451/380 IPC. After cognizance was taken on 15.05.2008, the accused was summoned accordingly. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COURT
4. The accused was called upon to enter trial and after his appearance, the copy of the relevant documents were furnished to the accused. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the case record, the charge was framed u/s 451/380 IPC and particulars of offence under section 451/380 IPC was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
DEPOSITION OF PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES:
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
6. PW-1 Sh. Vikas Sharma deposed that at the time of incident, he was working as Site Technician in Voda Phone Company. On 27.10.2007, his officials had gone at H.No. B101, Mavi Hospital, Nehru Vihar, Delhi where they saw one person was opening shelf of generator. PW-1 further deposed that they had suspicion and informed him that one person was opening shelf of generator. PW-1 further deposed that he went to the site and then he came to know the name of accused as Anis. Police was called and handed over to the police. Statement of PW1 was recorded which is Digitally Ex. PW1/A. signed by KANIKA KANIKA AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.08.07 FIR No.708/2007 State Vs. Anish PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 3 of 9 15:05:14 +0530 In the examination in chief dated 19.05.2025, PW-1 has deposed that he cannot identify the accused due to lapse of time and the Ld. APP for State had cross-examined the complainant/PW1 at length and he turned hostile. He was discharged on 19.05.2025.
7. PW-2 SI Onkar Singh has deposed that on 27.10.2007, he was posted at PS Gokul Puri as Duty Office and his duty hours were 4.00 p.m. to 12.00 a.m. At around 9.00 PM CT Ashok came into the PS and handed over one rukka to him and he made endorsement on the same vide Ex. PW1/A and registered the FIR vide Ex. PW2/A and handed over the same to Ct. Ashok.
This witness was not cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity being given.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.PC
8. After closing of evidence, statement of accused was recorded and in which he claimed innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated. The accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
9. I have heard the final arguments and meticulously perused the record.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
Digitally
10. It is cardinal principle of criminal law that an accused is KANIKA signed by KANIKA AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.08.07 15:05:20 +0530 FIR No.708/2007 State Vs. Anish PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 4 of 9 presumed innocent until he is held guilty by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The onus to prove the case against the accused lies upon the prosecution which has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND REASONS FOR DECISION
11. The accused is charged for the offences under section 451/380 IPC. For offences under 451/380 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients i.e:
12. Section 380 IPC prescribes punishment for theft in a dwelling house. Theft is defined under Section 378 IPC which reads as follows:
Section 380:- 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 either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine".
13. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 380 IPC are as follows:-
1. Intention to take dishonestly
2. The property shall be movable property.
3. The property shall be taken out from the Digitally possession of any person without his consent. signed by KANIKA KANIKA AGARWAL
4. There should be some moving of the said AGARWAL Date:
2025.08.07 15:05:26 +0530 FIR No.708/2007 State Vs. Anish PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 5 of 9 property to such taking.
5. The theft should have been committed in a dwelling house or place used for safe custody of property.
14. Before discussing the offence u/s 451 IPC, let's refer to offence of house trespass as defined u/s 442 IPC and the offence of criminal trespass as defined u/s 441 IPC. Both the sections read as follows:
Section 441 : Criminal trespass: "Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal trespass".
Section 442 : House trespass: "Whoever criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property is said to commit "house Digitally signed by trespass.
KANIKA KANIKA AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.08.07 15:05:32 +0530 FIR No.708/2007 State Vs. Anish PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 6 of 9 Explanation: The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's body is entering sufficient to constitute house trespass".
15. For commission of criminal trespass, three essential ingredients have to be fulfilled which are as follows:
1) Entry into or upon property in possession of another;
2) If such entry is lawful then unlawfully remaining upon such property;
3) Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent: (i) to commit of offence or; (ii) to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property.
16. Sector 451 IPC which is cognizable offence reads as under:-
"451. House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.--Whoever commits house-trespass 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 two 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 seven years". Digitally signed by KANIKA KANIKA AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.08.07 15:05:38 +0530 FIR No.708/2007 State Vs. Anish PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 7 of 9
17. As per case of prosecution, on 27.02.2007, the complainant who was working Site Technician with Vodafone Company had gone to visit house bearing No.B-101, Mavi Hospital, Nehru Vihar, Delhi where he saw that one unknown person had broke open the generator shelf and when he was asked about his identity, he stated that he works as Engineer with Vodafone company. The complainant found the conduct of the person suspicious and made a PCR call.
18. It is to be noted that the complainant on whose instance the FIR was registered has failed to support the case of the prosecution. Neither the accused nor the case property has been identified by the complainant. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of offence u/s 451/380 IPC.
19. In totality of the circumstances, it has to be observed that nothing incriminating against the accused was brought on record by the prosecution qua the offence u/s 451/380 IPC.
20. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a case of "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55"
as under:-
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to Digitally signed by be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of KANIKA KANIKA AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.08.07 15:05:43 +0530 FIR No.708/2007 State Vs. Anish PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 8 of 9 doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
21. In upshot of said discussion of fact, available material on record and applicable law and authority, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients for committing charged offences under Section 451/380 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accused Anish S/o Sharif is accordingly acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 451/380 IPC.
Now, file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by KANIKA KANIKA AGARWAL
Announced in the open court AGARWAL Date:
2025.08.07
on 07.08.2025 15:05:49 +0530
(Kanika Agarwal)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-03, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi FIR No.708/2007 State Vs. Anish PS: Gokulpuri Page no. 9 of 9