Delhi District Court
State vs Suresh on 2 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. AAKANKSHA, JMFC-03, NORTH-WEST
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case No. 5507/2017
STATE Vs. Suresh
FIR No. 16/2016
PS Rithala Metro
JUDGMENT
(a) CNR No. DLNW020124772017
(b) Date of offence 20.03.2016
(c) Complainant Praveen Kumar Khatri
(d) Accused person Suresh S/o Sh. Joni Madan Lal R/o 1097,
P-4 Colony, Sultanpuri, Outher District,
Delhi-110086.
(e) Offences Under Section 380/457/511 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final Order ACQUITTAL
(h) Date of institution 27.06.2017
(i) Date of judgment 02.04.2026
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The prosecution story, in brief, that on 20.03.2016 at about 05:00 AM at MRS, Surajmal Stadium, Delhi accused Suresh with co-associate (since not arrested) attempted to commit theft of Hardware articles by breaking open the shutter/door of the above said metro station. On the Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA FIR No.16/2016 State V. Suresh PS Rithala Metro Page No. 1 / 14 AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.02 16:15:50 +0530 basis of above incident the present FIR bearing number 16/2016 was registered under Section 380/457/511 Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as IPC"].
2. Investigation was carried out and charge sheet was filed u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') in the Court on 27.06.2017. Cognizance of the offence under Section 380/457/511 IPC was taken on 27.06.2017 itself.
3. Upon compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charge was framed against the accused for offence punishable under Section 380/457/511 IPC on 23.10.2018 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for the trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined total 05 witnesses i.e. (1) Complainant/Praveen Kumar Khatri, (2) Anil Yadav, (3) HC RN Singh, (4) HC Amarpal and (5) Retd. Inspector Shiv Kumar :-
LIST OF WITNESSES-
Prosecution Witness Name of Witness Description No. 1 Praveen Kumar Khatri Complainant/ station controller 2 Anil Kumar House-keeping staff 3 HC RN Singh CISF staff 4 HC Amarpal Police witness 5 Retd. Inspector Shiv Investigating Officer Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.02 16:15:55 +0530 FIR No.16/2016 State V. Suresh PS Rithala Metro Page No. 2 / 14 Kumar LIST OF DOCUMENTS-
Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit Proved by/ Attested by
Ex. PW-1/A Statement of complain- PW-1
ant
Ex. PW-4/A DD No. 4A PW-4
Ex. PW-4/B Arrest memo PW-4
Ex. PW-4/C Personal Search memo PW-4
Ex. PW-4/D Disclosure statement of PW-4
accused
Ex. PW-5/A Rukka PW-5
Ex. PW-5/B Site plan PW-5
Ex. P-1 FIR No. 16/2016 Admitted by accused
Ex. P-2 Certificate u/s 65-B In- Admitted by accused
dian Evidence Act
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS-
Material Object No. Description of the Ex- Proved by/ Attested by
hibit
Ex. P-1 Case property/Iron Rod PW-1, PW-2
Ex. P-2 Case property/Torch PW-1, PW-2
5. In brief, the deposition of prosecution witnesses is reproduced as below:
5.1. PW-1/ Praveen Kumar Khatri/complainant deposed that on 20.03.2016 he was on night duty and around 04:30 am he was inspecting the metro station prior to its opening at 05:00 AM. He was informed by the housekeeping staff namely Anil Yadav that some noise was coming Digitally FIR No.16/2016 State V. Suresh PS Rithala Metro Page No. 3 / 14 signed by AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.02 16:16:01 +0530 from gate no. 1. He checked the same gate from concourse level and found one person stealing the hardware articles and another was standing at guard. Thereafter, he along with CISF officers and housekeeping staff apprehended the accused Suresh, the other co-accused fled from the spot. Thereafter, he made call at 100 number. SI Shiv Kumar came at the spot. Thereafter, the accused was handed over to the concerned IO. IO recorded his statement Ex. PW-1/A, prepared site plan, prepared the pullanda of the recovered articles i.e. iron rod etc. and sealed the same. The witness correctly identified the case property i.e. iron rod and torch Ex. P-1 and the accused before the Court. The witness was duly cross-examined.
5.2. PW-2/Anil Yadav deposed that on 20.03.2016 he was posted as House Keeping staff at Surajmal Stadium Metro Station and was on night duty. When he along with the other housekeeping staff was cleaning the metro station prior to its opening at 05:00 AM they noticed some noise coming from gate no. 1 and informed Praveen Kumar Khatri (complainant). Complainant checked the gate from concourse level and found one person stealing the hardware article and another person was standing at guard. Thereafter, complainant alongwith CISF officers and some housekeeping staff apprehended the accused Suresh while his associate fled the spot. Praveen made a call at 100 number and handed over the custody of accused to IO SI Shiv Kumar. IO recorded his statement. The witness correctly identified the accused before the Court.
The witness was duly cross-examined.
5.3. PW-3/ HC RN Singh deposed that on intervening night of 19- Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.02 FIR No.16/2016 State V. Suresh PS Rithala Metro Page No. 4 / 14 16:16:06 +0530 20.03.2016 he was posted as HC (CISF) at Surajmal Stadium Metro Station. In the morning at about 05:00 AM he along with other housekeeping staff noticed some noise from the gate of abovementioned metro station. When they checked they found that two boys were trying to steal hardware articles. He along with complainant, Anil Kumar Yadav and other housekeeping staff reached the above mentioned place and apprehended one of the accused Suresh whereas the associate fled from the spot. Praveen Khatri made a call at 100 number and handed over the custody of accused to IO. IO recorded his statement. The witness correctly identified the accused before the Court. The witness was duly cross-
examined.
5.4. PW-4/ HC Amarpal deposed that on 20.03.2016 he was posted at PS Rithala Metro as Constable. On that day, he joined the investigation with IO SI Shiv Kumar who received DD No. 4A Ex. PW-4/A regarding apprehension of accused at Surajmal Stadium metro station. Thereafter, he along with IO reached at the spot and met station controller/complainant, Anil Yadav and CISF officials who handed over custody of accused to IO. IO recorded statement of Praveen Khatri, prepared rukka and got the case registered. After getting the case registered, he went to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. IO arrested Suresh vide arrest memo Ex. PW-4/B and personal search memo Ex. PW-4/C, recorded disclosure statement Ex. PW-4/D, prepared pullanda of recovered articles i.e. iron rod, torch and put the same in a bag and sealed it. The witness correctly identified the case property Ex. P-1 and the accused before the Court. The witness was duly cross-examined.
FIR No.16/2016 State V. Suresh PS Rithala Metro Page No. 5 / 14 AAKANKSHA Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA Date: 2026.04.02 16:16:10 +0530 5.5. PW-5/ Retd. Inspector Shiv Kumar deposed that on 20.03.2016 he was posted as SI at PS Rithala Metro when he received DD No. 4A complaining of someone trying to steal hardware articles of caller whom the caller had apprehended. He reached the spot along with Ct. Amarpal and met complainant who handed over the custody of accused to him. He recorded statement of complainant, prepared rukka and handed it to Ct. Amarpal who got the FIR registered. When Ct. Amarpal reached back at the spot and handed original rukka and copy of FIR to him, he prepared site plan, interrogated the accused, recorded disclosure statement, arrested the accused and personally searched the accused. Then Ct. Amarpal took accused to SGM Hospital for medical examination and kept him in police lockup. IO recorded his statement. The witness correctly identified the accused before the Court. The witness was duly cross-examined.
5.6. Vide separate statement of accused recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C., PW/DO HC Dinesh Kumar was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 23.10.2018.
6. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. on 13.06.2025 wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to accused, to which he asserted his innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated and police prepared false document to falsely implicate him.
AAKANKSHA The accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.
Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA Date: 2026.04.02 16:16:14 +05307. At the stage of final arguments, Ld. APP for State submitted that FIR No.16/2016 State V. Suresh PS Rithala Metro Page No. 6 / 14 prosecution has been able to successfully prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of five witnesses, accused was apprehended on the spot by complainant and hence prayed that accused be convicted for the offences he is charged with.
8. Per contra, it was vehemently argued by Ld. defence counsel that the incident is of 04.30 AM but the complaint has been made after two hours at 06.30 AM. That accused has been caught stealing the hardware and it is very unusual for any offender to stay in the premises for two hours even after stealing. He further submitted that the PCR call was made at 05.45 AM i.e. after more than 01 hour of the alleged incident. Actually, PW1 was made to sign on blank papers and even from the statement of IO, it is clear that he reached the spot after one hour. There is no CCTV footage and no public witness and the entire proceedings have been undertaken in the police station itself. Thus, he prayed to acquit the accused.
9. After hearing arguments and perusal of record, the appreciation of evidence and finding of this Court is as follows:
10. It is settled proposition of law that the prosecution has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of AAKANKSHA Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA Date: 2026.04.02 FIR No.16/2016 State V. Suresh PS Rithala Metro Page No. 7 / 14 16:16:20 +0530 doubt necessarily has to go to the accused. In the present case, accused Suresh has been charged with commission of offence u/s 380/457/511 IPC.
11. Before appreciating evidence, it would be pertinent to mention the relevant provisions:
Section 380 Indian Penal Code reads as under:
"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."
Section 457 Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for lurking house trespass or house breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.
Section 511 Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for attempt to commit such offences whose attempt the Code does not specifically prescribe punishment for.
12. In the present case, five prosecution witnesses have been examined by the prosecution viz. PW-1/ complainant/ station controller, PW-2/Anil Yadav/ house-keeping staff, PW-3/HC RN Singh, PW-4/ HC Amarpal and PW-5/Retd. Inspt. Shiv Kumar who is the investigating officer. All the prosecution witnesses are police witnesses or formal witnesses. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses can be concisely stated as- On 20.03.2016 at around 04:30 am before opening the gate of Surajmal Stadium Metro Station which opens at 05:00 am, while inspecting the said metro station the house-keeping staff Anil Yadav/ PW-2 heard some noise FIR No.16/2016 State V. Suresh PS Rithala Metro Page No. 8 / 14 AAKANKSHA Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA Date: 2026.04.02 16:16:25 +0530 from gate no.1 and immediately informed the station controller/PW-2. Thereafter, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 rushed towards the spot and saw accused Suresh and his associate stealing hardware articles from gate no.1. They caught hold of accused Suresh while his associate fled the spot. Then PW-1 made a call at 100 number, upon which PW-4 and IO/PW-5 reached the spot and accused Suresh was handed over to the IO. Thereafter, all the procedural formalities viz. recording of statement, arresting and searching the accused, recording of disclosure statement of accused, seizing of articles took place.
13. Admittedly, there is no independent public witness examined by prosecution and thus, indisputably, the present case rests on circumstantial evidence. The law on conviction in case of circumstantial evidence has been crystallized by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)4 SCC 116 in para no. 151 as:
"It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. This is trite law and no decision has taken a contrary view. What some cases have held is only this: Where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a court."
14. In the present case, the accused has failed to lead defence evidence but has cross-examined the prosecution witnesses to suggest that there is FIR No.16/2016 State V. Suresh PS Rithala Metro Page No. 9 / 14 Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.02 16:16:29 +0530 no public witness, there was discrepancy in the arrival and departure timings of the police officials, the accused was deliberately and falsely implicated in the case due to an argument ensuing between complainant and accused. Going by the settled law as held in Sharad Birdichand Sarda (supra), the prosecution must also stand on its own legs. Although it is alleged that accused was apprehended on the spot but there appears material infirmities in the prosecution story. Upon cursory examination of testimony of prosecution witnesses, there appears material gaps in the time of arrival of police officials and the happening of the incident. PW-1 who is the complainant and the station controller, deposed that he heard noises at gate no.1 at around 04:30 am prior to opening the gates of metro station at 05:00 am. PW-2/house-keeping staff also corroborated this statement. However, in his own statement given to police which is Ex.
PW-1/A, PW-1 has stated that the incident was of 05:00 am, as opposed to his testimony that it was around 04:30 am when he heard noise. Also, PW-3 has also deposed the time of incident as 05:00 am.
15. Furthermore, no independent public witness has been examined by the prosecution. The same is self-explained as regards the time of incident mentioned in the complaint. When the prosecution witnesses deposed that the alleged incident occurred prior to opening the gates of the metro station, the chances of presence of public witnesses at the scene gets obliterated. However, PW-5/IO has deposed that he entered the place of incident at around 05:50 am and left at around 10:30 am. The arrest memo Ex. PW-4/B records time of arrest of accused as 08:30 am. PW-1 deposed that IO reached the spot at around 06:30 am, whereafter the procedure of AAKANKSHA FIR No.16/2016 State V. Suresh PS Rithala Metro Page No. 10 / 14 Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA Date: 2026.04.02 16:16:33 +0530 search, seizure, arrest continued. Meaning thereby that at the time of seizure of case property, the metro station was open to the public. Thus the recovery is alleged to have been effected from a public place when the metro station was open to public at large. Thus, at the place and time of the alleged recovery of case property and apprehension of the accused, public persons would in all likelihood have been present and available or have at least passed by the spot. In such circumstances, absence of independent public person to witness the arrest and seizure of case property casts a doubt over fairness of investigation.
16. In case titled as Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crimes 55 Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana observed as under:-
"5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
6. In the present case, the State examined two witnesses namely, Harbans Singh ASI who appeared as PW1 and Kartar Singh. PW2. Both the witnesses supported the prosecution version in terms of the recovery of opium from the person of the petitioner, but there was no public witness who had joined. It is not necessary in such recoveries that public witnesses must be joined, but attempt must be made to join the public witnesses. There can be cases when public witnesses are reluctant to join or are not available. All the same, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt having been made to join a public witness or that they were not available. A stereo-type statement of non-availability will not be sufficient particularly when at the relevant time, it was not difficult to procure the service of public witness. This reflects adversely on the prosecution version".
17. Considering the aforesaid observations, the omission/failure on the AAKANKSHA FIR No.16/2016 State V. Suresh PS Rithala Metro Page No. 11 / 14 Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA Date: 2026.04.02 16:16:37 +0530 part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.
18. Having said that, this Court is also conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. However, in the present case, public witness was ever asked to join the investigation at all which casts serious doubt over the investigation undertaken. Further, there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the Prosecution version.
19. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to prove that any of the prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2 or PW-3 were in fact present on the spot. Accused has categorically cross-examined the above witnesses to cast a doubt over their attendance on the date of alleged incident but despite the said questions, none of these witnesses produced the proof of their presence on the spot at the date and time of the alleged incident. As admitted by prosecution witnesses themselves, that there was no CCTV camera installed at the place where accused is alleged to have been stealing the hardware material. In such circumstances, an additional duty was cast upon the prosecution to prove its case based on circumstantial evidence. Accused also questioned PW-4 and PW-5 regarding the time of their arrival and departure from the place of incident. And there appears material contradiction in their testimony as regards their arrival and departure time. They have failed to prove their arrival and departure entries, despite being questioned by the defence counsel. Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.02 16:16:42 +0530 FIR No.16/2016 State V. Suresh PS Rithala Metro Page No. 12 / 14
20. PW-1 deposed that the incident occurred at around 04:30 am. When they saw two persons trying to steal hardware material from gate no.1, they rushed to the spot and managed to catch hold of accused Suresh while co-accused was successful in running away. Then PW-1 made a call at 100 number and IO/PW-5 reached the spot at around 06:30 am. To the contrary, IO/PW-5 deposed that he received DD entry at 05:45 am and he reached the spot at around 05:50 am vide metro as the distance between the police station and the place of incident was 1.5 km only. To add to further contradiction, PW-4 who accompanied the IO to the spot, deposed that the distance from police station to the place of incident was around 30 minutes.
21. Further, if incident occurred at around 04:30 am and according to PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 they immediately rushed to the spot and caught hold of accused and called at 100 number, then there appears to be a considerable delay in recording of the DD entry at 05:45 am which is evident from Ex. PW-4/A. Further, as per IO he reached the spot within 5 minutes at 05:50 am through metro. But PW-4 who accompanied the IO deposed having reached the spot which was 30 minutes far from place of incident. Also, as per complainant, IO reached the spot at around 06:30 am. There, thus, appears contradiction in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses as regards the entry and departure of police officials at the spot, in material particulars. This contradiction holds importance also because of the fact that there is no public witness to the alleged recovery or arrest, there is no CCTV footage or any independent evidence as regards FIR No.16/2016 State V. Suresh PS Rithala Metro Page No. 13 / 14 Digitally signed by AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.02 16:16:46 +0530 implication of accused in alleged offence and the entire prosecution story is hinged upon evidence of formal/police witnesses.
22. In criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty, and the burden of proving the guilt of accused solely rests upon the prosecution by leading positive evidence. The guilt of accused is not to be proved by mere preponderance of probabilities but it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot take the place of proof. In the present case, the evidence apparent on record is insufficient for bringing home the guilt of the accused and it cannot be held that prosecution has been able to successfully prove all the charges against accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
23. Accordingly, accused Suresh S/o Joni Madan Lal is held 'not guilty'. Accused is thus acquitted of the charges levelled against him u/s 380/457/511 IPC.
Announced in open Court Digitally today, on 02nd April, 2026. signed by AAKANKSHA AAKANKSHA Date:
2026.04.02 16:16:50 [AAKANKSHA] +0530 Judicial Magistrate First Class-03(North-West)/ Rohini/Delhi 02.04.2026 FIR No.16/2016 State V. Suresh PS Rithala Metro Page No. 14 / 14