Delhi District Court
State vs Virender Kumar on 7 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Virender Kumar etc.
FIR No : 47/2019
U/s : 323/452/506/174A/34 IPC
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020227822020
2. Date of commission of offence : 11.04.2019
3. Date of institution of the case : 17.01.2019
4 4. Name of the complainant : Kewal Singh
5. Name of accused, parentage & : 1. Virender Kumar
address S/o Late Jagdish
2. Manjula @ Manju
W/o Virender Kumar
Both R/o C-16, Phase-1,
Gopal Nagar Extension,
Najafgarh, Delhi
3. Chander Bal
S/o S/o Ram Kishan
R/o VPO Khungai,
District Jhajjar, Haryana.
4. Sumit Gahlot @ Bhola
S/o Satyapal
R/o VPO
Mitrao near Krishna
Mandir Bank Wali Gali,
Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 323/452/506/174A/34
IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
: All accused perons
8. Final order
Digitally
signed by
Page 1 of 40
ABHINAV
FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07
16:54:15
+0530
acquitted u/S
323/452/506/34 IPC and
accused Chander Bal
convicted u/S 174A IPC
9. Date of final order : 07.08.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Parvez Alam, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Mayank Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused
persons.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.04.2019 at about 07:15 AM, at House no.109, Gopal Nagar Extension, Phase-I, Najafgarh, Delhi, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed house trespass by entering into the house of complainant having made preparation to hurt complainant as they were carrying with them revolver and sticks and they voluntarily caused hurt to complainant Kewal Singh and threatened the complainant, his wife Raj Dai and mother Shakuntala Devi with death and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 323/452/506//34 of IPC for which FIR no.47/2019 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
Further, accused Chander Bal was directed to appear before the court vide proclamation dated but despite the direction, he failed to appear before the Court and he was declared absconder and thereby he committed the offence punishable under Section 174A of IPC, Digitally signed by Page 2 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:04 +0530 INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused persons was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused persons and summons were issued to the accused persons. On their appearance, copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charge under Sections 323/452/506/34 of IPC was framed against all the accused persons on 04.12.2021. Further, charge under Sections 174A of IPC was framed against accused Chander Bal on 01.12.2023. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Kewal Singh Kumar PW-2 Raj Dai PW-3 Shakuntala Devi PW-4 HC Sharwan Kumar PW-5 HC Sandeep Kumar PW-6 SI Kuldeep Singh PW-7 HC Rajesh PW-7A HC Samay Singh (inadvertently PW7 mentioned twice) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant Digitally signed by Page 3 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:14 +0530 Ex.PW4/A Arrest memo qua accused Virender Kumar Ex.PW4/B Personal search memo qua accused Virender Kumar Ex.PW4/C Disclosure statement of acused Virender Kumar Ex.PW4/D Seizure memo qua pistol Ex.PW4/E Sketch of pistol Ex.PW4/F Disclosure statement of acused Sumit Gahlot Ex.PW4/G Arrest memo qua accused Sumit Gahlot Ex.PW4/H Personal search memo qua accused Sumit Gahlot Ex.PW6/A Tehrir Ex.PW6/B Site plan Ex.PW6/C Notice u/S 41 Cr. P.C. served upon accusd Manjula @ Manju Ex.PW6/D Pabandinama Ex.PW6/E Statement of SI Kuldeep Singh qua proceedings u/S 82 Cr. P. C. Ex.PW6/F Application for interrogation and formal arrest of accused Chander Bal Ex.PW6/G Disclosure statement of accused Chander Bal Ex.PW6/H Arrest memo qua accused Chander Bal Ex.PW6/I Personal search memo qua accused Chander Bal Ex.PW7/A Arrest memo qua accused Chander Bal Ex.PW7/B Personal search memo qua accused Chander Bal Ex.PW7/C Kalandra u/S 41.1 (c) Cr. P. C. Ex.PW7/D Order declaring accused Chander Bal absconder ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.47/2019 alongwith Certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.A2 DD no.41A dated 27.03.2019
4. Prosecution examined the following witnesses and the same are as follows:
PW1 Kewal Singh Kumar (complainant) deposed that on 27.03.2019, at about 10:30 pm, in the plot of Virender, there was noise of people and loud music which was heard by him. He stated that he requested to his wife Raj to request on phone of Digitally signed by Page 4 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:13 +0530 Manjula @ Manju, the wife of Virender that there was noise in the plot of his husband so she go to stop. He further stated that in between he saw Manjula was going towards the said plot and he saw through his window that Manjula knocked the door of the said plot and scolded the persons who were making noise with loud music. He further stated that after scolding, she turned to her own house which was situated in next gali and he heard the noise of throwing the brick on his house and his mother and wife went out from the house and they saw Virender and his wife were coming towards his house. He further stated that he was watching Virender alongwith his wife was present on the road in front of his house and Virender was threatening him to kill and said do whatever you want to do or to call the police. He further stated that in the meantime, a stone came at a high speed from the said plot towards his home and got hit on his window glass through the Virender, his wife, his mother and his wife due to which glass got broken. Thereafter, he called at 100 number and Virender managed to get free to the persons who were making noise from the said plot. He further stated that police came and inquired about the place and police also visited the another house of the Virender but he did not open the gate of his house. Thereafter, police returned saying him to make complaint on next day. He further stated that while the persons who were making noise ran away from the said plot then he saw Sumit Gahlot and Chanderbal and two others, who were expired. He further stated that on 28.03.2019, he went to the PS J. P. Kalan for his complaint and he had given written complaint and on 10.04.2019, police came at about 09:00 pm, the police official searched the said plot but they could not find anything and they returned back to the PS. He further stated that on 11.04.2019 at about 07:15 am, Digitally signed by Page 5 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:09 +0530 he had gone to an electrician who was living near to his house and when he was coming back from the electrician house then he saw that Manjula and Virender had entered in his house and were searching him. He further stated that he entered into his house then he saw Virender and Manjula were coming back towards main gate of his house from inside. He further stated that seeing him, Virender and Manjula asked Sumit and Chander to beat him and they also abused him. Thereafter, Sumit and Chander came from his back to beat him. He further stated that in the meantime, his mother and wife intervened the matter and rescued him and locked him in a room. He further stated that at the time of said incident Virender was having a pistol in his hand and Sumit and Chander were having danda in their hands. Thereafter, he called at 100 number and SI Kuldeep Singh Hooda came to his house and recorded his statement Ex.PWI/A. He further stated that on 02.02.2020, he had gone to attend a marriage reception party in their colony in which Virender and his wife were present there and attacked on him by his fist and he called at 100 number. He further stated that police had got conducted his treatment RTRM hospital but he did not know whether police had taken any action or not. In the cross-examination, he stated that they were having smart mobile phone with camera on the day of alleged incident but nothing was broken in the house so clicking of photograph does not arise at all. He further stated that he did not have any medical injury by the beatings of accused persons and as it was early morning the incident was not heard by any of the neighbour. He further stated that the nearest house was at a distance of 20 feets from his house and only two to three houses were situated in his gali. He further stated that when the police came no neighbour was present there and nobody want to oppose Digitally signed by Page 6 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:14 +0530 as accused persons had criminal backgrounds. He further stated that he did not have any previous enmity with accused persons and accused did not fire gun on the date of incident. He further stated that accused Virender used to fire in air previously but he had not lodged any complaint against accused Virender when he fired as the same was not fired at him and accused Virender was a habitual land grabber.
5. PW2 Raj Dai deposed that on there was a plot in front of his house which belongs to accused Virender Chillar and in the said plot some boys of anti social nature used to live in the said plot. She stated that on 27.03.2019 at about 10:30 pm, the above mentioned boys having liquor in the said plot and they were playing loud music and and were whistling at a loud pitch and were doing hooliganism. She further stated that upon listening to that loud noises, the wife of accused Virender namely Manjula @ Manju came there and asked those persons to stop the music. She further stated that as soon as Manjula @ Manju left the said plot, those boys instead of stopping the loud music started hurling abusive words to her husband and also to other family members, stating that you had complained about them to the owner of the plot. She further stated that in the meantime, they also threw a brick towards their house which hit the wall of their house and when Manjula @ Manju had reached at some distance, accused Virender came from the other side and started beating their window pane stating "tum yahan rahoghe ya hum yahan reghenge, mein tuje goli mar dungha, jo karna hai karle. Mein ek or case handle kar lunga. Tu police ko phone kar sakta hai". Thereafter, she along with her mother in law Shankuntla Devi came out of their house and saw that accused Virender along with his wife Manjula were standing in the street in front of their Digitally signed by Page 7 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:11 +0530 house. She further stated that at that time those boys again threw one brick/stone at their house which hit the window due to which the glass of the window broke down. She further stated that accused Virender stated "tumhe jaan se mar dungha, ye backwas karna band kar de." Thereafter, her husband called on 100 number and accused Virender left the spot while hurling abusive words towards her husband. She further stated that after sometime PCR vehicle came and police officials at the PCR asked her husband to lodge a written complaint stating that the duty of the PCR vehicle was only to help the injured persons if any. Thereafter, police officials from PS J.P. Kalan also reached at the spot and inquired about the accused Virender. She further stated that they led the police officials to the house of accused Virender which was in the next street but accused Virender did not open the gate of his house and co-accused Manjula stated from the roof of her house to her husband, "tu mental hai aaghe se mein tuje pagal hi boluenghi". She further stated that on 28.03.20219 at about 08:30 am, accused persons Virender and Manjula came to their house and accused Virender stated "agar police me complaint kar doghey to acha nhi hoga galat ho jayegha". Thereafter, her husband gave a written complaint PS J.P Kalan and after the lodging of the complaint, police officials came to the spot but accused boys namely Sumit @ Bhola, Chanderbal were not found in the plot at that time. She further stated that on 10.04.2019, at about 10:00am, police officials came to the spot for investigation in the matter and left after investigating from her and her husband. Thereafter, the police officials went to the plot of the accused. She further stated that on 11.04.2019 at about 07:15 am, accused persons namely Virender, Manjula, Chanderbal and Sumit @ Bhola entered their house by Digitally signed by Page 8 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:07 +0530 opening the main gate of their house. She further stated that the accused persons were hurling abusing words and at that time, her husband was not in the house as he went to electrician who lives nearby. She further stated that after sometime her husband came back to their house, at that time the accused persons had kept on hurling abusive words towards her and her family members. She further stated that upon seeing her husband, accused Virender stated "tu humari police me shikayat karegha, aaj tuje sabak sikhate hai, tuje jaan se mar denghey, tera rehna muskil kar denghe". At that time the accused Virender showed pistol to her husband and stated "ye mein hamesha apne pass rakhta hun, tume jaan se mar dungha". She further stated that the accused persons pushed her due to which she fell down and accused persons started beating her husband. Thereafter, she along with her mother in law took her husband in the adjacent room and locked him inside. She further stated that during that time, accused persons were hurling abusive words and accused Sumit and Chanderbal were armed with dandas and they left the spot while threatening them of dire consequences and accused Virender stated to the co-accused persons " maardo maardo, mere pass bahut paisa hai, mein 50 lacs laga dungha" while leaving their house. Thereafter, they installed CCTV Cameras at their house. She further stated that the accused persons kept on troubling them after the above mentioned incident, of which she had the CCTV footage also which she had also provided to the police officials. She further stated that on 01.02.2020, she along with her husband and her sister in law (devrani), went to attend a marriage function, where they met accused Virender who attacked her husband due to which he got injured and her husband Kewal Singh lodged his complaint regarding the said Digitally signed by Page 9 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:03 +0530 incident to the police incident to the police officials. She further stated that on 20.02.2020, accused Virender along with one of his friend came to their house at about 10:30pm and stated to her husband, "tere saath drink karni hai, ek ek peg lagaenghe" and the accused Virender apologized for his conduct to him and his family members. Thereafter, the accused persons had a few peg at their house and thereafter, left their house. The witness correctly identified the accused persons present in the court and the case property as Ex.PW2/A. In the cross-examination, she stated that Manju, Chanderbal, Virender and Bhola beat her husband by fist and by danda but her husband had not sustained any injury because they saved him and locked him in a room. She stated that her husband was not having any transaction financial or for any land with Virender. She further stated that they had not made any video or clicked any photograph of the articles which were broken and they had not given the broken articles to the police. She further stated that no neighbor came to know about the quarrel because it was late night and they did not have adjoining house. She further stated that nearest house to their home was at a distance of at about 15 feets and she did not know if police had prepared site plan or any other documents in her presence. She further stated that at the time of incident, there was no CCTV camera installed in their home but they were having smart mobile phone with camera.
6. PW3 Shakuntala Devi deposed that one day accused Virender came to her house in the morning and at that time, she was doing her prayers. She stated that at that time, her son who earlier went to the electrician had came back and Virender threatened her son Kewal that he would kill him. She further stated that at that time, Manju w/o Virender also came there and Bhola @ Sumit and Digitally signed by Page 10 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:08 +0530 Chander were standing in the varandha of her house. She further stated that they entered in the house armed with lathies and they all started manhandling with her son Kewal and she took her son inside a room and closed the door from outside. She further stated that the accused persons used abusive words against them and threw liquor bottles in their house. She further stated that ccused persons used to play music at a high pitch to their annoyance and Virender threatened them "goli maar dungha" he hit a window. She further stated that accused persons also pelted stones at their house due to which a window pane and a vase got broken. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the court. In the cross-examination, she stated that her son did not receive any injuries and her son had a mobile phone at that time but no photograph or videography of the broken articles was done by them. She further stated that her son Kewal and accused Virender were friends prior to the incident in question and the incident took place because accused consumed liquor. She further stated that there was no financial transaction or any transaction qua property ever between her son and the accused Virender.
7. PW4 HC Sharwan Kumar deposed that on 22.05.2019, he joined the investigation in the present matter and he along with W/Ct. Asunta, Ct. Sandeep and IO SI Kuldeep Singh went to C-16, Gopal Nagar Extension, Najafgarh where they met Smt. Manjula @ Manju and her husband Virender, who were interrogated and thereafter, notice U/s 41A Cr.PC was served upon Manjula @ Manju and she was released on pabandinama. He stated that co- accused Virender was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A, personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/B and IO recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW4/C. He further Digitally signed by Page 11 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:01 +0530 stated that the pistol used during the incident was recovered from the accused Virender which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D and IO prepared a sketch of the said pistol Ex.PW4/E. He further stated that accused Virender was also produced copy of the arms license which was taken on record. Thereafter, accused Virender was brought to the PS, where accused Virender identified the co-accused Sumit and stated that Sumit was his brother in law (Saala) who was involved with him at the time of the incident. He further stated that IO interrogated the co-accused Sumit Gahlot and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW4/F. Thereafter, accused Sumit was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/G and personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/H. He further stated that thereafter, both the accused persons were got medically examined and thereafter, put to lock up. The witness correctly identified both the accused persons present in the court. In the cross-examination, he stated that he went to the house of complainant on 22.05.2019 and pieces of bricks were lying in the house of the complainant but he did not notice any pieces of glass at the spot. He further stated that the same were not seized by the IO in his presence and he did not had any smart phone at that time. He further stated that he did not remember whether the IO had a smart phone at that time or not. He further stated that no photographer was called at the spot by the IO in his presence and he did not remember whether the IO asked the complainant to click the photographs of the spot or not. He further stated that he reached the spot at about 02:00 pm and left from the spot at about 07:00 pm and they remained outside the house of the accused and waited for him to come out. He further stated that they went to the spot of incident by Digitally signed by Page 12 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:05 +0530 government vehicle however, he did not remember whether the same was an ERV vehicle or a QRT vehicle.
8. PW5 HC Sandeep Kumar deposed on the lines of PW4. In the cross-examination, he stated that when he reached at the spot on 11.04.2019, the IO SI Kuldeep was standing outside the H. No. 109, Gopal Nagar Extension, Najafgarh. He further stated that he went there on government motorcycle but he did not remember whether he had entered his departure from the PS in the log book of government motorcycle. He further stated that he remained at the spot for about 30 minutes and he did not notice any stones, bricks or broken pieces of glass at the spot. He further stated that IO had done some inquiries from the neighbourers but he did not remember whether the IO interrogated the real brother of the complainant.
9. PW6 SI Kuldeep Singh deposed that on 11.04.2019, he was present at the PS when the complainant Kewal Singh came to the PS and met the SHO. Thereafter, he was sent to complainant and complainant told him about the incident in question and he recorded his statement and thereafter, he prepared a tehrir Ex.PW6/A and got the present FIR registered. He stated that he along with the complainant went to the spot of incident and prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant Ex.PW6/B. He further stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses and at that time, Ct. Sandeep came to the spot and handed over to him the copy of the FIR and the original tehrir. Thereafter, they searched for the accused persons but no accused persons were found. He further stated that they came to the PS and he recorded the statement of Ct. Sandeep and on 22.05.2019, he along with W/Ct. Asunta, Ct. Sharwan and Ct. Sandeep went Digitally signed by Page 13 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:08 +0530 to C-16, Gopal Nagar Extension, Najafgarh where they met Smt. Manjula @ Manju and her husband Virender, who were interrogated and thereafter, notice U/s 41A Cr.PC was served upon Manjula @ Manju Ex.PW6/C and she was released on pabandinama Ex.PW6/D. He further stated that co-accused Virender was arrested at the instance of complainant, personally and he recorded disclosure statement of accused. He further stated that the pistol used during the incident was recovered from the accused Virender and he prepared the sketch of the said pistol and accused Virender also produced, copy of the arms license which was taken on record. Thereafter, accused Virender was brought to the PS, where accused Virender identified the co- accused Sumit who was present at the PS and stated that Sumit was his brother in law (Saala) who was involved with him at the time of the incident. He further stated that he interrogated co- accused Sumit Gahlot and recorded his disclosure statement. Thereafter, accused Sumit was arrested and personally searched. He further stated that they searched for the co-accused Chanderbal but he could not be found and thereafter, both the accused persons were got medically examined and put to lock up. He further stated that the seized case property i.e the pistol was submitted to malkhana and on 23.05.2019, both the accused persons were produced before the Court, who were sent to JC by the Court. He further stated that wanted co-accused Chanderbal could not be found and hence, firstly, NBWs were received against him and thereafter proceedings U/s 82 Cr.PC were conducted against the accused Chanderbal. He further stated that on 17.12.2019, co-accused Chanderbal was declared PO by the Court and he concluded the chargesheet and filed the same before the Court. He further stated that co-accused Chanderbal was Digitally signed by Page 14 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:03 +0530 arrested by the police officials of PS BHD Nagar and a kalandra was filed against him and his statement recorded qua the proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused Chanderbal Ex.PW6/E. He further stated that on 11.01.2021, information regarding the arrest of the accused Chanderbal U/s 41 (1) (c) Cr.PC was received from PS BHD Nagar and thereafter, he went to Tihal Jail Court complex where he moved an application for interrogation and formal arrest of said accused Ex.PW6/F. Thereafter, accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded Ex.PW6/G, formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/H and personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW6/I. He further stated that the accused was produced before the Duty MM at Tihar Jail Court Complex and sent to the JC. He further stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared the supplementary chargesheet and filed the before the Court. In the cross-examination, he stated that on 11.04.2019, the investigation present case was marked to him at about 11.00 am and thereafter, he recorded statement of complainant. He further stated that he prepared tehrir at about 08:20 pm and he along with complainant left the PS at about 09:00 pm and reached at the spot at about 09:20 pm in his private car. He further stated that he did not remember whether he made any arrival and departure entry at PS and when he reached at the spot some neighbours and some public persons were also present at the spot. He further stated that he did not record statement of any public persons who were present at the spot at the time of preparing site plan and he asked some public persons to join the proceeding who were present at the spot but all public persons left the spot without their name or addresses. He further stated that he did not serve any notice to any public persons to join investigation present case were present Digitally signed by Page 15 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:06 +0530 at the spot. He further stated that no CCTV camera was installed at the spot and he only recorded statement of complainant's mother and his wife. He further stated that he did not obtain signatures of any public persons on site plan and he prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. He further stated that Ct. Sandeep reached at the spot at about 10:00pm on his motorcycle after registration of FIR and handed over to him copy of FIR and original tehrir. He further stated that they left the spot at about 11:30 pm and reached at the PS at about 11:40pm and on 22.05.2019, he along with W/Ct. Asunta, Ct. Sharwan and complainant namely Manjula @ Manju reached at the house of the accused at about 2:00pm and served notice U/s 41A Cr.PC.
He further stated that on 22.05.2019, he arrested the accused Virender Kumar at about 07:30pm in the presence of complainant Kewal Singh but he did not obtain signature of any public person/neighbour and family members of the accused Virender Kumar on the arrest memo of Virender Kumar who was present at the spot. He further stated that at the instance of accused Virender, he seized pistol (licensee) which was used by the accused during the committing the offence at the instance of accused Virender from his house. Thereafter, he left the spot at about 08:00 pm reached at the PS at about 08:15 pm. He further stated that he deposited the case property in malkhana and also verified the license document of the above said pistol from concerned authority. He further stated that when he reached at the spot, he met with another accused namely Sumit Gahlot and he arrested him at about 08:20pm and no recovery was effected at the instance of accused except pistol. He further stated that when he reached at the house of the complainant no stone and piece of glass were recovered and he did not click any Digitally signed by Page 16 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:13 +0530 photograph of the spot and complainant did not produce any photograph of broken glasses despite his demand. He further stated that he asked some neighbours of the complainant regarding the incident but no eye witness was found at the spot and the neighbours of the complainant did not aware about the any incident.
10. PW7 HC Rajesh deposed regarding going to Tihar Jail alongwith SI Kuldeep Singh where accused Chanderbal was formally arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded by IO.
11. PW7A HC Samay Singh (wrongly mentioned as PW7) deposed that in the year 2021, he was posted at PS Baba Hari Das Nagar as HC. He further stated that accused namely Chander Bal was declared proclaimed offender by the concerned court vide order dated 17.12.2019 and after taking instructions from SHO, he and Ct. Suraj tried to find out the whereabouts of abovesaid accused. He further stated that during investigation, they both went to the house of accused but accused was not found there. He further stated that secret informer provided the mobile number of abovesaid accused, on the basis of which they found out the location of the accused and he alongwith Ct. Suraj reached at Aara Machine Wali Gali, Kath Mandi, Bahadur Garh, Haryana and after reaching there, he arrested the said accused u/S 41.1(c) Cr. P. C. vide arrest memo on 11.01.2021 Ex.PW7/A, conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW7/B. Thereafter, he shared the abovesaid information with the DO of PS J. P. Kalan. He further stated that he produced him before the concerned court and concerned court sent him to JC and he prepared kalandra u/S 41.1(c) Cr. P. C. Ex.PW7/C and he proved order of the concerned court who declared accused Chander Bal Digitally signed by Page 17 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:14 +0530 absconder as Ex.PW7/D. The witness correctly identified accused Chander Bal present in the court. In the cross- examination, he stated that SHO Baba Hari Dass Nagar did not give him written directions to find out accused Chander Bal. He stated that it was verbal direction and he arrested accused on the basis of his mobile location but he did not know his mobile number. He further stated that he obtained written permission for putting the mobile number on tracking but the same was not on record. He further stated that when he arrested the accused, at that time public persons were also present there but he did not obtain signatures of public persons on arrest memo as all public persons who were present at the spot, refused to join the investigation. He further stated that he went to the house of accused to search him during investigation and villagers / neighbors of accused told him that accused came at his home occasionally but he did not record the statement of public persons who shared the information with him. He further stated that he did not know the names of the persons who shared the said information with him and he went to the house of accused but he could not tell the description of the house of accused.
12. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined, hence, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
13. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statements Digitally signed by Page 18 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:00 +0530 of the accused persons were recorded on 30.04.2024 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC, wherein they have stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. They further stated that they did not want to lead defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS
14. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
15. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offences are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
Further, Ld. Counsel for complainant submitted the written submissions in support of his arguments alongwith certain annexures.
16. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel for accused further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As Digitally signed by Page 19 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:10 +0530 such, it is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
17. The allegations levelled against accused persons are segregated into two parts:
Firstly, that accused persons on 11.04.2019 at about 07:15 am in furtherance of their common intention committed house trespass by entering into the house of the complainant Kewal Singh having made preparation for causing hurt and voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant and thereby committed offence punishable under section 452/34 IPC and u/s 323/34 IPC.
Secondly, that accused persons further caused criminal intimidation to complainant Kewal Singh, his wife Raj Dai and mother Shakuntala Devi and thereby committed offence punishable under section 506/34 IPC.
18. Let us deal with the first set of allegations against the accused persons regarding the offence punishable under section u/s 452/34 IPC and u/s 323/34 IPC. Before delving into the merits of case, it is apposite to delineate the ingredients of the offences for which the accused has been tried.
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. It states that whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to one year, or a fine to one thousand rupees, or both.
Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) says that whoever commits a house-trespass, after doing some groundwork and preparation to hurt or attack an individual or to wrongfully restrain them, thereby causing assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of maximum 7 years and/or fine.
19. Here it appropriate to mention the concept of trespassing before the evidences are appreciated. Offence of criminal trespass is Digitally signed by Page 20 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:12 +0530 defined u/s 441 IPC and the same is punishable u/s 447 IPC. In order to prove the offences u/s 452 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused persons committed criminal trespass by entering into the house of PW1 having made preparation for causing hurt. The central premise of section 452 IPC revolves around unauthorized intrusion into a dwelling or any other location, coupled with the intent to perpetrate harm, assault, or wrongful restraint upon the occupants. Thus, it is important that the property trespassed must be in actual possession of some person other than the alleged trespasser. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove the exclusive possession of the complainant upon the property trespassed. It is also settled law that the question of title is not to be raised on a plea of possession as the offence is against possession and not against ownership of property.
20. Furthermore, it is to be noted that a simple and even unintentional entry upon another's land constitutes injuria, and is actionable. But a civil suit lies for this, not a criminal prosecution. But if entry is affected with the mens rea as mentioned in Sec. 441, then alone a criminal prosecution will lie. In criminal trespass, intention to commit an offence is an essential ingredient. The causing of an offence, intimidation, etc. must be the main aim of the entry. Therefore, mere occupation, even if it is illegal, without such intent, cannot amount to criminal trespass as held in Kanwal Sood v Nawal Kishore, 1983 CrLJ 173 (SC). It is important to note that the use of criminal force is not a necessary ingredient.
21. In the present case, prosecution has examined three witnesses to prove its allegations qua offence under section 452/323/34 IPC Digitally signed by Page 21 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:09 +0530 against the accused persons, they are complainant /PW1 Kewal Singh, PW2 Raj Dai, PW3 Shakuntala Devi and other witnesses i.e. PW4 to PW7 are not eye witness of the incident, therefore, not relevant for the purpose of proving section 452/323/34 IPC. Let us examine testimony of these witnesses.
22. Complainant PW1 stated in his testimony that on 11.04.2019 at about 07:15 am, he had gone out of his house to an electrician shop who was living nearby and when he was coming back, he saw accused Manjula and Virender had entered his house and they were looking for him and that when he entered into his house, accused Virender and Manjula were coming back towards the main gate of his house and as soon as both Virender and Manjula saw him both of them asked accused Sumit and Chander to beat him. PW1 further stated that both accused Sumit and Chander came from his back side to beat him. However, due to intervention of his mother PW3 and his wife PW2, he was rescued as he was locked by his wife and mother into a room. PW1 further stated that at the time of said incident, accused Virender was having pistol in his hand and accused Sumit and Chander were having dandas in their hands. PW1 further stated that thereafter he called at 100 number and SI Kuldeep Singh came to his house and recorded his statement Ex.PWI/A.
23. PW1 further stated about the earlier incidents of 27.03.2019 and 28.03.2019 on which date he had brief encounter with incident involving accused Virender and his wife. He stated that on 27.03.2019 at about 10:30 pm, at the plot of Virender loud music was being played by accused Virender thereafter, he requested his wife to call accused Manjula @ Manju, wife of Virender for stopping of the said noise from their plot. He stated that Digitally signed by Page 22 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:07 +0530 thereafter he saw accused Manjula through the window of his house going towards the said plot and scolding the persons who were making noise with loud music. PW1 further stated that thereafter he heard a noise of brick being thrown at his house due to which one window glass was broken upon which he called at 100 number. PW1 further stated that in the meantime, accused Virender came at the said plot and managed to send those people making said noise to go out from the said plot. PW1 further stated that thereafter police visited the spot and asked him to make complaint on next day. PW1 further stated that on the next day i.e. 28.03.2019, he filed his written complaint at PS.
24. Before proceeding, it is relevant to see how the criminal law was set into motion in the present case. The only DD entry filed along with the charge-sheet is 41A dated 27.03.2019 time 11:05 pm Ex.A2 noting regarding the incident as quarrel whereafter SI Johny was marked with the matter. It is the version of complainant that he had also called at police 100 number about the incident in question dated 11.04.2019, however, no such DD entry is on record. As PW1 himself stated that after the PCR call SI Kuldeep Singh came to his house and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A, thereby it is relevant to peruse the testimony of SI Kuldeep Singh who examined himself as PW6 who stated that on 11.04.2019, he was present at the PS when complainant Kewal Singh came at PS, who met the SHO whereafter complainant was sent to him and after that complainant told him about the incident and he recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. Although it is the version of complainant that police official recorded his statement at the spot whereas police officials have stated that his statement was recorded at PS only. Perusal of Digitally signed by Page 23 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:11 +0530 the FIR Ex.A1 reveals that the present FIR was got registered after the statemen to complainant PW1 was recorded and the tehrir Ex.PW6/A clearly states that the said statement of complainant was recorded after the complainant had appeared at PS. Interestingly, complainant had stated that after the incident of 11.04.2019, he had called at police 100 number, however, there is no such material on record as brought by the prosecution to show that any police 100 number call was ever made by the complainant. The other two eye-witnesses i.e. PW2 (wife of complainant) and PW3 (mother of complainant) have also not stated anything regarding any PCR call being made on the date of incident i.e. 11.04.2019. The only DD entry on record is DD no.41A dated 27.03.2019 Ex.A2 regarding PCR call being made regarding one quarrel.
25. Ld. counsel for accused persons has vehemently argued that the complainant's version is full of contradiction and variations and he has improved his version to falsely implicate the accused persons. Ld. Counsel for accused has further submitted that the complainant and accused persons are known to each other who frequently visited each other and that no such incident as stated by complainant and his family members ever happened as neither any broken window glass was recovered nor any MLC of complainant was made nor any weapon as alleged by the complainant and his witnesses were ever recovered and despite alleged incident happening in and around the house of complainant, no public or private witnesses were joined in the investigation. Ld. Counsel for accused person further showed certain photographs during the course of final arguments to show that complainant and accused persons were on friendly terms as they used to regularly meet with each other. Upon seeing the said Digitally signed by Page 24 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:00 +0530 photographs, complainant during final arguments accepted the authenticity of photographs and even stated that he had previously partied with accused persons during Holi festival.
Be that as it may so, the present matter shall be decided on the basis of evidences and material on record.
26. It is the basic grievance of complainant who stated in the final arguments that accused persons are habitual criminals who had threatened him multiple times and that after the present incident dated 11.04.2019, he had to get the CCTV cameras installed at his premises.
27. Before proceeding ahead, it is also relevant to highlight that it is settled law that in cases in which parties are inimical with each other due to cross litigations and the same aspect was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh &Ors.
vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364, wherein the position of a witness who has inimical relationship with the accused was discussed. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth."
28. This aspect was also dealt by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Madhusudan Sahu & Ors. 2007 Cri LJ 440 wherein it was held as under:
"It is to be borne in mind that the parties involved in the case are inimical to each other and large number of litigations is going on Digitally signed by Page 25 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:15 +0530 between them. While the accused persons propagate the plea that because of this enmity, they have been falsely implicated, the prosecution has come up with the suggestion that the attack on P.W. 6 was carried because of the enmity. Enmity between the parties is a double-edged weapon. The effect of enmity is to be considered in the case according to the circumstance and evidence available on record.
What is settled is that once enmity exists between the parties, the evidence adduced by the parties are to be scrutinized with great care and caution and every mitigating circumstance has to be given importance."
29. Similar observation was made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 886 of 2012 decided on 3rd March 2012 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that if parties are on inimical terms, then each and every piece of evidence available on record has to be scrutinized and analysed carefully.
30. Although in the present case, there are as such no cross-cases between the parties but it is evident that complainant had previously also complaint against the accused Virender which was stated with various dates prior and after the present incident of 11.04.2019 on which there were incident involving complainant and accused Virender. In the instant case, complainant has deposed that on 11.04.2019 at about 07:15 am, accused namely Virender, Manjula, Chander Bhan and Sumit entered his house after opening the main gate while he was not present there and that as soon as he came back to his house, he saw accused Manjula and Virender coming from inside of his house towards the main gate and upon seeing him, they both asked other accused Sumit and Chander to beat him. He further stated that thereafter his mother and wife intervened and rescued him by locking him in a room. Although PW1 complainant has specifically stated that he had called police 100 number thereafter Digitally signed by Page 26 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:10 +0530 SI Kuldeep Singh Hooda came to his house and recorded his statement Ex.PWI/A.
31. Perusal of the statement Ex.PW1/A bearing the signatures of complainant reveals that complainant had stated that in the morning of 11.04.2019 all the accused persons entered into his house by forcefully opening the lock of the gate and being armed with weapons and lathies and hurling abuses and beat him with fist and blows. Apparently, there is no mentioning of fact in his complaint that he was saved from the beatings of accused persons after he was being locked in the room by his mother and wife. The complaint of complainant is also specifically mentioning the fact that accused persons had beaten him by fist and blows but as he had no visible injuries, he did not undergo any medical examination.
32. It is evident that complainant was not medically examined as he had no physical injuries and he himself declined to undergo any medical examination and for the same reason, there is no MLC of the complainant on record. It is the basic grievance of complainant that on 11.04.2019, accused persons had forcefully entered into his house. The other witness i.e. PW2 wife of complainant stated in her deposition that on 11.04.2019 accused persons after entering into her house pushed her and started beating her husband whereafter he alongwith her mother-in-law locked her husband/complainant in the adjacent room. Similarly, PW3 (mother of complainant) stated that accused persons entered into her house armed with lathies and they all started manhandling her son whereafter she took her son inside the room and closed the room from outside.
Digitally signed by Page 27 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:07 +0530
33. Before evaluating the testimony of all the witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3, it is relevant to check whether complainant's family and accused persons were on friendly terms being neighbors or otherwise. Complainant PW1 in his cross-examination has stated that he had no previous enmity with accused persons and that accused persons have criminal backgrounds. Also, PW2 in her cross-examination stated that on 20.02.2020 after the incident of 11.04.2019, accused Virender alongwith his friends came to their house at 10:30 pm whereafter accused Virender stated to her husband that "tere sath drink karni hai", whereafter accused Virender apologized for his conduct to them and after sometime left their house. Similarly, PW3 mother of complainant in her cross-examination admitted that her son and accused Virender were friends prior to the incident in question.
34. It is apparent upon perusing the testimony of all the witnesses that complainant and accused persons are known to each other as even the complainant had narrated one incident dated 27.03.2019 when at 10:30 pm, he observed certain people making noise in the plot of accused Virender whereafter complainant requested his wife to call on the phone of accused Manjula (wife of accused Virender) to look into that matter. Complainant further deposed that thereafter he saw accused Manjula going to the said plot and scolding the persons who were making noise at the said plot.
35. It is the basic defence of accused persons that they were not present at the spot as alleged by the complainant on 11.04.2019 and that no such incident ever happened. Perusal of the testimony of IO PW6 reveals that on the date of incident when he reached at the spot he found some neighbours and public persons present there but no statement of such public persons and neighbours Digitally signed by Page 28 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:16 +0530 were recorded. Further, IO at the instance of accused Virender seized pistol (licensed) from accused Virender from his house. However, no other weapon i.e. lathies was recovered. It is evident that the accused Virender possessed an arm license which is valid for the entire territory of the country.
36. Although there are no cross-cases pending between the parties but it is to be borne in mind that parties which are inimical to each other as evident as complainant has filed various other complaints against accused person to show that accused Virender is habitual person with criminal antecedents who is in a habit of threatening him. As per settled law, once inimical hostile relation between the parties are observed, the evidence adduced by the parties are to be scrutinized with greater caution and care, so as to rule out any false implication.
37. It is upon perusing the testimony that the present incident of 11.04.2019 as stated by the prosecution witnesses is not a standalone act of the accused persons wherein, they had entered into the house of complainant, as it is visible upon the perusal of material and case record that both the parties are known to each other. It is not the case of prosecution that both the parties are completely unknown to each other.
38. For the offence of trespassing entry affected into subject land of the complainant must be effected that mens rea of causing of an offence of trespassing, intention to commit the offence is essential. Ingredients which also includes intimidation. The fact that the wife of complainant PW2 had the contact details of accused Manjula and she had previously telephonically contacted the accused Manjula shows that they were in talking terms. The fact that complainant and accused Virender were also had Digitally signed by Page 29 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:02 +0530 previous acquaintance with each other also makes the case they were not completely unknown to each other. This aspect suggests that parties were not entirely strange as they had continued verbal communication with each other. This aspect suggests a level of familiarity or interaction that persisted despite the various incident being reported to the police. The fact that after the incident of 11.04.2019 as stated by PW2 that accused Virender again came to their the house and had drinks with him shows that the level of hostility between two sides did not remained the same. Mere entry into the house and then fighting without proving preparation beforehand does not satisfy the ingredients o section 452 IPC.
39. Needless to mention, no other independent/ private witness apart from the family of complainant or neighbour was ever examined to corroborate the version of complainant and the factum of complainant exaggerating the incident could not be ruled out as complainant himself stated that seeing him on 11.04.2019, accused Virender and Manjula asked accused Sumit and Chander to beat him but due to intervention of his mother and wife who rescued him by locking in a room while PW2 (wife of complainant) stated that in her examination in chief that her husband was beaten by accused persons whereas in her cross- examination she stated that her husband had not sustained any injury because they saved him. Further, PW3 (mother of complainant) stated that her son was manhandled by accused persons.
40. While it is trite that non-joining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discredit the veracity of prosecution case, however, the evidence in each case must be sifted through in the Digitally signed by Page 30 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:01 +0530 light of varied facts and circumstances of each individual case. Admittedly, both the parties are known to eachother and there have been previous altercations between the two sides but despite the same, they still continue to be in touch with eachother. When complainant and accused side share a history of strained, fluctuating or hostile relations, often described as hot and cold, the possibility of exaggeration, false implication or misuse of the legal process cannot be ruled out. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the following observations in Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 in regard to the caution flagged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while scrutinizing the statements of such witnesses:-
"The admitted position of law is that enmity is a double edged weapon which can be a motive for the crime as also the ground for false implication of the accused persons. In case of inimical witnesses, the courts are required to scrutinise their testimony with anxious care to find out whether their testimony inspires confidence to be acceptable notwithstanding the existence of enmity. Where enmity is proved to be the motive for the commission of the crime, the accused cannot urge that despite proof of the motive of the crime, the witnesses proved to be inimical should not be relied upon. Bitter animosity held to be a double edged weapon may be instrumental for false involvement or for the witnesses inferring and strongly believing that the crime must have been committed by the accused. Such possibility has to be kept in mind while evaluating the prosecution witnesses regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime.
41. Further, it needs to be highlighted that for an offence of house trespass to be established, it must be shown that the entry was unlawful and was made with a criminal intention as defined under Section 441 IPC that is with the intention to commit an offence, or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property. When a known person, such as a neighbour, enters the house during the heat of a verbal altercation or to engage in a confrontation without any overt act or indication of committing an offence or causing harm, such entry, though Digitally signed by Page 31 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:00 +0530 undesirable or improper in a civil sense, does not ipso facto amount to criminal house trespass. The criminality hinges not on the mere physical entry, but on the intention behind such entry, which must be clearly established by cogent evidence. In the absence of any act indicating intent to commit a crime or intimidate, the essential ingredients of criminal trespass are not satisfied. Also, mere quarrels or disputes among neighbours, even if tempers run high, do not transform the act into a criminal offence unless accompanied by unlawful intention.
42. In the instant case, complainant has highlighted certain previous quarrels and discords with the accused side but had not been able to clearly explain as to why accused persons on the date of incident that is 11.04.2019 in the early hours of 7 am came there. The said reason for early hour action of the part of accused persons is not clearly explained by the prosecution evidence. A reasonable doubt has indeed arisen qua the version as stated by prosecution witnesses.
43. The second set of allegations against the accused persons revolves around commission of offences u/s 506/34 IPC. The other allegations the accused persons are that they caused criminal intimidation against complainant Kewal Singh, his wife Raj Dai and mother Shakuntala Devi and thereby committed offence punishable under section 506/34 IPC.
Following are the essentials of the offence of Criminal Intimidation as defined under section 503 IPC:-
a. It must be a positive act of causing threat to a person; b. It must be directed towards his person, property or reputation; c. It must be directed towards the person or reputation or property of anyone in whom the victim is interested;
d. It must be done with the intention of causing alarm to such a person; or Digitally signed by Page 32 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:03 +0530 e. It must cause him to do something which he is not legally bound to do or refrain him from doing something which he is legally bound to do.
44. In the present case, as discussed above no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to prove the fact that the threat extended to the complainant had caused any alarm to complainant and his family members and that they had omitted from any of their work. In fact, it is the case of the complainant that after the present incident of 11.04.2019, they had to get the CCTV cameras installed at their premises due to constant trouble committed from the side of accused persons.
45. However, it is also pretty much evident that despite having smart phones, complainant never clicked any photos of the incident allegedly committed by accused persons against him. Complainant has only made submission qua the incidents of various dates but nothing material in the form of broken glass, testimony of neighbours etc, was ever produced. It is a settled law that unpleasant statements or threats made during heated exchange do not amount to criminal intimidation unless accompanied by intention to cause alarm. In the opinion of this court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case u/s 506 IPC as there is nothing on record to suggest that threat extended to the complainant has caused any alarm to him and due to the alleged threat, he was alarmed to such an extent that he was not able to carry out his daily life. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to the effect that no alarm has been caused to the complainant due to the threat extended by both the accused persons, no offence u/s 506 IPC is made out against both the accused persons.
46. Additionally accused Chanderbal is also charged under Section 174A IPC. Before delving into merits, it is pertinent to give a Digitally signed by Page 33 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:06 +0530 brief outline of the offence alleged against the accused. Section 174A of IPC stipulates as follows:-
"174A .Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974.-- Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
47. Thus, Section 174A IPC imposes liability on the person who fails to adhere to the directions of proclamation which is issued in accordance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. As per the latter provision, proclamation may be issued by Court against a person, who the Court has reason to believe, is absconding or concealing himself, so as to evade the execution of warrants issued by it, requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. In order to bring home the guilt of accused person under Section 174A IPC, the prosecution is further required to prove that such proclamation was issued strictly complying with the mandatory requirements enumerated under Section 82(2) Cr.P.C.
48. PW7A HC Samai Singh stated that accused namely Chander Bal was declared proclaimed offender by the concerned court vide order dated 17.12.2019 and after taking instructions from SHO, he and Ct. Suraj tried to find out the whereabouts of abovesaid accused. He further stated that during investigation, they both went to the house of accused but accused was not found there and that secret informer provided the mobile number of abovesaid accused, on the basis of which they found out the location of the accused and he alongwith Ct. Suraj reached at Aara Machine Digitally signed by Page 34 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:53:59 +0530 Wali Gali, Kath Mandi, Bahadur Garh, Haryana and after reaching there, he arrested the said accused u/S 41.1(c) Cr. P. C. vide arrest memo on 11.01.2021 Ex.PW7/A and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW7/B. Thereafter, he shared the abovesaid information with the DO of PS J. P. Kalan. He further stated that he produced him before the concerned court and concerned court sent him to JC and he prepared kalandra u/S 41.1(c) Cr. P. C. Ex.PW7/C and he proved order of the concerned court who declared accused Chander Bal absconder as Ex.PW7/D.
49. PW6 SI Kuldeep Singh is the process server, who executed the process u/S 82 Cr. P. C. against accused Chander Bal, who stated that wanted co-accused Chanderbal could not be found and hence, firstly, NBWs were received against him and thereafter proceedings U/s 82 Cr.PC were conducted against the accused Chanderbal. He further stated that on 17.12.2019, co-accused Chanderbal was declared PO by the Court and he concluded the chargesheet and filed the same before the Court. He further stated that co-accused Chanderbal was arrested by the police officials of PS BHD Nagar and a kalandra was filed against him and his statement recorded qua the proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused Chanderbal Ex.PW6/E. He further stated that on 11.01.2021, information regarding the arrest of the accused Chanderbal U/s 41 (1) (c) Cr.PC was received from PS BHD Nagar and thereafter, he went to Tihal Jail Court complex where he moved an application for interrogation and formal arrest of said accused Ex.PW6/F. Thereafter, accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded Ex.PW6/G, formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/H and personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW6/I. He further stated that the Digitally signed by Page 35 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:05 +0530 accused was produced before the Duty MM at Tihar Jail Court Complex and sent to the JC. He further stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared the supplementary chargesheet and filed the before the Court.
50. Therefore, it is clear that process under Section 82 Cr. P. C. was duly executed against accused Chanderbal as per the procedure laid in the section itself including publication and public announcement. Process server visited the address of the accused and it is clear that process was executed on the known address of accused. The statements were recorded of the persons who were found at the last known address of accused person, which clearly shows that known person of accused Chanderbal were made aware of the proclamation issued against the accused.
51. As such there is no denial from accused Chander Bal that he was not residing at the address where the process under Section 82 Cr. P. C. were executed. Also, accused Chander Bal has not stated that addresss where process u/S 82 Cr. P. C. was executed did not belong to him. Despite the same, accused failed to appear.
Perusal of PO order dated 17.12.2019 Ex.PW7/D clearly denote that the accused was declared absconder in the present case after the execution of proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C.
52. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to produce the provision of Section 82 Cr.PC. The same is as under:
"Proclamation for person absconding-
(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.
Digitally signed by Page 36 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:10 +0530 (2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: -
(i)(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;
(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;
(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court- house;
(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub- section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day".
53. After going through the case file and upon hearing the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. defence counsel, this Court has reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has duly proved its case against accused Chanderbal for commission of the offence punishable under Section 174-A of Indian Penal Code. Declaring the accused as absconder by the concerned Ld. Magistrate proves the satisfaction of the concerned court that the accused has been avoiding service or concealing himself deliberately and also that the proceedings under section 82 has been satisfactorily been carried out. As per Section 82(3) of the Cr.PC, the satisfaction of the concerned court is the conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with and that the proclamation is published on such date.
54. Furthermore, once accused was declared P.O., prosecution of the accused Chanderbal who was charged under section 174 A IPC was under the bounden duty to prove each ingredient of the section 174A IPC. Prosecution has examined the process server who executed the process under section 82 Cr. PC against the Digitally signed by Page 37 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:02 +0530 accused. Nothing material came in the cross-examination of process server PW6.
55. Further, when the incriminating materials were put up before the accused at the stage of recording of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused stated that he had gone to Himachal Pradesh as he is a driver by profession and that he had met with an accident and was staying on rent in Bahadurgarh and for the same reasons, he could not receive any summons / warrants which were issued qua process u/S 82 Cr. P. C. This is a bald and evasive statement made by the accused as no such proof was tendered by the accused that he had gone to other city and as such no plausible reason has been forthcoming from the accused qua his non- appearance despite court orders.
56. From the perusal of materials available on record, it is clear that accused Chanderbal has been declared absconder in the present case vide order dated 17.12.2019. He was subsequently arrested by PW7 and he had no reasonable explanation to make regarding his non-appearance from the Court even after issuance of summons/warrants and proclamation.
57. In other words, accused Chanderbal lead no evidence whatsoever on record to disprove the case of the prosecution that he failed to appear before the court on the specified time. Rather, from the testimony of PW6 and PW7 along with the documentary proofs taken together, it has been borne out that accused Chanderbal failed to appear before the court after issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.PC against him and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 174A IPC.
Digitally signed by Page 38 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:04 +0530
58. Hence, in view of the above, the Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of accused Chanderbal for the offence u/s 174A IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, accused Chanderbal stands convicted for the offence u/s 174A IPC.
59. In criminal jurisprudence, the foundational principle is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden never shifts to the accused to prove his innocence. This principle is rooted in the presumption of innocence, which is a cornerstone of fair trial rights. As held in the case of Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 19, 1990 AIR 1459, wherein the Court held that the principle that benefit must go to accused if there is reasonable doubt arises in the case of prosecution, it was quoted that, Lord Denning, J. in Miller v. Minister of Pensions, [1947] 2 All ER 373 while examining the degree of proof required in criminal cases stated:
"That degree is well-settled. It need not reach certainty but it must reach a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence "of course, it is possible but not in the least probable", the case is proved beyond rea- sonable doubt."
60. A close look at the complainant's version raises doubts about the prosection case and raises doubts over the incident as stated by the complainant. In criminal law, even a slight doubt in the prosecution's story should go in favour of the accused. In such a situation, accused persons deserves the benefit of doubt as the Digitally signed by Page 39 of 40 ABHINAV FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07 16:54:12 +0530 main ingredients to be proved for sustaining the charge under section 452/323/505/34 IPC are not made out and accordingly, all accused persons are acquitted for the offence under section 452/323/505/34 IPC.
CONCLUSION
61. In the light of above discussions, the Court is of the view that prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly accused Virender, Manjula, Chander Bal, Sumit are acquitted for offence punishable u/S 452/323/506/34 IPC.
62. Further, prosecution has successfully proved the case u/S 174A IPC against accused Chander Bal and accordingly accused Chander Bal is convicted for offence punishable u/S 174A IPC.
Let the convict Nahar Singh be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Announced in the open court
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
ABHINAV
on 07.08.2025 in the presence AHLAWAT
Date:
2025.08.07
16:54:52
of the accused persons. +0530
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/07.08.2025
This judgment contains 40 pages and each page has been signed by me.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.08.07
16:54:58 +0530
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/07.08.2025
FIR No.47/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Virender Kumar etc. Page 40 of 40