Delhi District Court
State vs Sahil on 17 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE : SOUTH WEST
DISTRICT : DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Shriya Agrawal
State Vs. Sahil
FIR No. 346/2021
Police Station : Najafgarh
Under Section: Section 380/457/511 IPC
Date of institution : 9.11.2022
Date of reserving : 17.01.2025
Date of pronouncement : 17.01.2025
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
a) Serial number of the case : 13693/2022
b) Date of commission of : 30.06.2021 offence
c) Name of the complainant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta
d) Name, parentage and : Sahil s/o Tanvir Alam r/o A74 address of the accused Ranaji Enclave, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
e) Offence complained of : Section 380/457/511 IPC.
f) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty.
Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2025.01.30 17:45:42 +0530 FIR No. 346/2021 State Vs. Sahil PS Najafgarh Page 1 of 9 g) Final order : Accused stands acquitted h) Date of final order : 17.01.2025 JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
1. The present case has arisen out of FIR No. 346/2021 dated 30.06.2021 registered at PS. Najafgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 380/457/511 IPC on the complaint of one complainant Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta.
2. The allegations as per the FIR are that on 30.06.2021 at about 3:45 AM when the Complainant who is a technician at Gangaram Hospital at Rajender Nagar, woke up at his place at House No. 74, Rana Ji Enclave Najafgarh to use the washroom, he heard some sound at the first floor of his place. When he rushed to the first floor, he spotted one person who was present in the house. When the said person spotted the Complainant he rushed to the terrace and attempted to flee away from the spot. While he tried to jump onto the terrace of the other house, the Complainant nabbed him. He disclosed his name to be Sahil s/o Tanvir Alam. He called the police, who then reached the spot. In this back ground, the present FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 380/457/511 IPC.
Digitally signedby SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2025.01.30 17:45:49 +0530 FIR No. 346/2021 State Vs. Sahil PS Najafgarh Page 2 of 9 COURT PROCEEDINGS
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Accused Sahil on 9.11.2022. Vide Order dated 14.02.2023 cognizance was taken by the then Ld. Predecessor and the Accused was summoned. After supply of copies and hearing arguments, charge was framed vide Order dated 11.12.2024 for offences punishable under Sections 380/457/511 IPC to which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Statement of the Accused was recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C., whereby the Accused admitted the registration of FIR, endorsement on rukka and certificate under Section 65 B Indian Evidence Act [Ex A1 (colly)] and GD No. 0017A (Ex A2) and the same were accordingly admitted in evidence after being labelled as aforesaid.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. The Prosecution has cited a total of five witnesses.
5. The complainant has deposed as PW-1, who stated in his examination-
in-chief that he has been working with Ganga Ram Hospital as dresser for the last ten years. On 30.6.2021 at around 3:45 AM, at his residence, when he woke up for using the washroom, on hearing some noise at the first floor, he rushed there. He then saw one person who had entered his house for committing theft and after seeing him, he started running towards the terrace. He chased him towards the terrace Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2025.01.30 17:45:58 +0530 FIR No. 346/2021 State Vs. Sahil PS Najafgarh Page 3 of 9 and caught hold of him. Thereafter, he called 100 number and police came to the spot and made enquiries. Police recorded his statement Ex PW1/A.
6. Ld. APP for State showed the Accused to the witness who was asked to identify him. The witness stated that due to lapse of time he could not identify the Accused as the same person who was apprehended by him and whose custody he had handed over to the police. Ld. APP for State sought permission to cross examine the witness, which was granted. During the cross examination, the witness identified his signatures on the arrest memo and personal search memo though stating that the said documents (Ex PW1/B and Ex PW1/C) were got signed by the witness at the Police Station itself. He denied the suggestion that the Accused is the same person whom he had apprehended at his house. Despite opportunity, the witness was not cross examined and stood discharged.
7. While the evidence was underway by the Prosecution, the Ld. APP for State acknowledged that the main witness of the case i.e. the Complainant had not supported the case of the Prosecution, by failing to identify the Accused. In view of the same, the prosecution evidence was closed at request as there was no other eye witness in the case.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED /DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
8. As nothing had come on record against the Accused, the recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with. Accused did not wish to lead defence evidence. The opportunity was closed.
Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2025.01.30
17:46:06 +0530
FIR No. 346/2021 State Vs. Sahil PS Najafgarh Page 4 of 9
FINAL ARGUMENTS
9. Final arguments were heard at length. Record has been perused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
10. The present case was registered on the complaint of Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta on the allegations of the Accused having committed lurking house trespass by entering into the house of the Complainant with the intent to commit theft, who on the relevant date in the early morning house, was spotted by the first informant and nabbed while trying to escape the premises.
11. Despite the same, the Complainant failed to identify the Accused during the court testimony recorded as PW-1 on 17.1.2025. He stated that he could not identify the accused due to passage of time, though also specifically stating that the arrest and personal search memos (on which he identified his signatures) were prepared in the police station and claiming specifically in response to the question on complicity that the Accused was not the person whom he had apprehended at his house.
12. The perusal of the list of witnesses of the Prosecution reveals, that the remaining witnesses are all formal witnesses and there is merit in the submission of the Ld. APP for the State, that even if their statements held ground during court examination, their depositions alone, would not be sufficient to hold the charges levelled against the Accused person as duly proved.
Digitally signed bySHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2025.01.30 17:46:14 +0530 FIR No. 346/2021 State Vs. Sahil PS Najafgarh Page 5 of 9
13. It is trite law as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Govind & Ors. v The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [ 104 (2003) DLT 510] that where the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal trial to continue. It has been further held that 'it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts'. Clearly, as no person can be indicted for a crime, where his identity and complicity is also not established beyond any shadow of doubt, trial in such cases ought not to continue only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to defer the pronouncement upon conclusion for a future date. It also pertinent to note the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Mehra v Delhi Administration & Anr.(decided on 31.7.1996) as per which the time of the court should not be wasted merely for completion of procedure, where there is no chance of the trial culminating into a conviction.
14. The ingredients of the offences under Section 380 IPC, Section 457 IPC and Section 511 IPC must be borne in mind. The provisions read as under:
(i) Section 380 : Theft in dwelling house 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.Digitally signed
by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2025.01.30 17:46:23 +0530 FIR No. 346/2021 State Vs. Sahil PS Najafgarh Page 6 of 9
(ii) Section 457 : Lurking house trespass or house breaking by night in order to commit the offence punishable with imprisonment Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night 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 five 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 fourteen years.
(ii) Section 511 : Attempt Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
Digitally signedby SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2025.01.30 17:46:31 +0530 FIR No. 346/2021 State Vs. Sahil PS Najafgarh Page 7 of 9
15. To prove the charges against the Accused for the aforesaid offences, the Prosecution has cited a total of 5 witnesses. The sole eye witness/ victim at the receiving end was summoned and examined as PW1 by the Prosecution. Despite the witness affirming the incident of spotting an unknown person in his house on the first floor on the date and time reported, whom the Complainant himself had nabbed while he was trying to escape, he failed to identify the Accused during his court deposition, claiming it was on account of passage of time. The witness however further during his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State failed to support the case of the Prosecution, by denying it was the Accused whom he had apprehended, without any reasons explained therefor, as though completely exonerating the Accused.
16. It is trite law as has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ashraf v State that where the witness is completely hostile as regards the identity of the accused even in his examination in chief and nothing could be elicited from him to show involvement of the accused in the offence in cross examination by the APP, such a testimony cannot be accepted and be made as the basis for a conviction. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, benefit of doubt would naturally accrue in favour of the Accused, whose identity as the person who had committed the offence of lurking house trespass at night with the intent to commit theft in a dwelling house, could not be conclusively established. Clearly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of evidence collated and led by Prosecution, the case of the Prosecution has failed at the threshold on the aspect of identity of the Accused.
Digitally signedby SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2025.01.30 17:46:37 +0530 FIR No. 346/2021 State Vs. Sahil PS Najafgarh Page 8 of 9 CONCLUSION
17. Accordingly, for the afore-discussed reasons, the Accused stands acquitted in the present case for the charges under Section 380/457/511 IPC.
18. Personal Bond accepted in compliance of the provision under Section 437A IPC.
19. File be consigned to Record Room as per Rules.
20. Copy of this judgment pronounced and dictated in open court is being provided to the Accused free of cost.
Dictated and announced SHRIYA
Digitally signed by
SHRIYA AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2025.01.30
in the open Court on 17.01.2025. 17:45:27 +0530 (SHRIYA AGRAWAL) CJM (SOUTH WEST):
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI FIR No. 346/2021 State Vs. Sahil PS Najafgarh Page 9 of 9