Delhi District Court
State vs Ashu on 25 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, (NEW DELHI), PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
State Vs. Ashu
FIR No. 150/2022
U/s 380 & 454 IPC / 411 IPC
PS : Kishangarh
Date of Institution : 14.03.2022
Date of Judgment : 26.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 2310/22
2. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Johny Mao, S/o Sh.
Kaihe Ashine, R/o H. No. 79/9,
2nd Floor, Kishangarh Village,
Delhi.
3. Date of commission of offence : 09.02.2022
4. Name of accused : Ashu S/o Sh. Ghanshyam,
R/o H. No. 705A, Ward No. 6,
Mehrauli, Delhi.
5. Offence charged : 380 & 454 IPC / 411 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Raghav Khurana
8. Final Order : ACQUITTAL
Digitally signed
by ANIMESH
KUMAR
ANIMESH Date:
KUMAR 2025.11.26
19:41:54
+0530
State Vs. Ashu, FIR No. 150/2022,
PS Kishangarh, Judgment dated 26.11.2025 Page No. 1 of 8
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1.Briefly stating, the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint filed by Sh. Johny Mao. As per the complaint, on 09.02.2022 at around 1:30 PM, the complainant left her home situated at 79/9, Yogesh House, Kishangarh Village, Delhi after locking the same. When she came back at around 4 PM, she saw that the lock of the main gate of her house was broken and door was closed. Thereafter, she opened the door and entered inside where she saw that the articles and clothes in her house were in scattered condition. She found out that her aadhar card was missing from her house. Thereafter, she informed the police about the incident. During the course of the investigation, the accused was apprehended and the stolen aadhar card of the complainant was recovered from his possession.
2.After the registration of the FIR, the investigation was conducted by the police officials of PS Kishangarh and was concluded by filing the charge sheet. Charge for the offence punishable u/s 380 & 454 IPC / 411 IPC against the accused vide order dated 13.04.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to face trial.
State Vs. Ashu, FIR No. 150/2022, PS Kishangarh, Judgment dated 26.11.2025 Page No. 2 of 8
3.In order to bring home the guilt against the accused Ashu for the offence punishable u/s 380 & 454 IPC / 411 IPC, the prosecution examined HC Rajbir Singh as PW-1.
4.PW-2 is the investigating officer of the present case. He had reached at the spot after receiving the information about the incident vide DD No. 69A. Thereafter, he went to the spot i.e. 79/9, 2nd Floor, Kishangarh Village and met the complainant. He recorded the statement of the complainant Ex. PW-1/A. He had called the crime team at the spot and inspection of the house was conducted. He prepared the rukka and got the present FIR registered. He also formally arrested the accused in the present case and also seized the aadhar card of the complainant seized from his possession.
5.It should be noted that the complainant and only eye witness of the present case was not examined by the prosecution. She could not be traced even when summons were issued to her through the DCP concerned. The remaining witnesses were the police officials who were not the eye-witnesses of the incident.
6.In the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused, the prosecution can never hope to prove the State Vs. Ashu, FIR No. 150/2022, PS Kishangarh, Judgment dated 26.11.2025 Page No. 3 of 8 allegations levelled against the accused. Remaining witnesses in the present case are official witnesses, whose testimonies even if taken together would also be insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused persons in the present case.
7.Prosecution evidence was closed, vide order dated 25.11.2025, as recording of any further prosecution evidence in the present case would result in to wastage of judicial time, money, resources and will also cause unnecessary oppression to the accused who have anyhow faced the ordeal of the trial in the present case for last ten years. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Govind & Ors. vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104 (2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that:
"...In cases where the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak for there is no prospect of the case and again conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion of a future date."
8.Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused persons. The present case State Vs. Ashu, FIR No. 150/2022, PS Kishangarh, Judgment dated 26.11.2025 Page No. 4 of 8 pertains to an FIR of the year 2018 and continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused persons would tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P. Ramchandra Rao vs. Satte of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its power available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right of speedy trial to the accused.
9.Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Mahrashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Abr. 1996 JCC 507, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
10.Since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, recording of his statement U/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with.
11.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. State Vs. Ashu, FIR No. 150/2022, PS Kishangarh, Judgment dated 26.11.2025 Page No. 5 of 8
12.In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"i) The onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does is shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less.
ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
13.It is a settled law as well as matter of common knowledge that evidence of complainant/ victim and other public witnesses is the best available evidence and the case can be proved beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of testimony of said witness only. Also, the identity of the accused in a criminal trial is of utmost importance. The prosecution is required to establish the identity of the accused in a criminal State Vs. Ashu, FIR No. 150/2022, PS Kishangarh, Judgment dated 26.11.2025 Page No. 6 of 8 trial beyond reasonable doubts. Any dent made in the identity of the accused would prove fatal to the case of the prosecution.
14.In the present case, the complainant and only eye-witness examined by the prosecution could not be examined by the prosecution. No recovery public witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Even if it assumed that the aadhar card of the complainant was recovered from the possession of the accused, the same would not be sufficient to prove that it was the accused who had committed the house trespass and theft in the house of the complainant. The remaining witnesses were the police officials who did not see the incident. Their testimonies would be of no help to the prosecution as they were not the eye-witness of the incident. No CCTV footage of the incident was brought on record by the prosecution. No other public persons were examined by the prosecution. Also, the identity of the case property allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused could also not be properly established by the prosecution as the complainant could never be examined.
15.Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances, this Court State Vs. Ashu, FIR No. 150/2022, PS Kishangarh, Judgment dated 26.11.2025 Page No. 7 of 8 is of the opinion that offences have not been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the accused cannot be held guilty.
16.Therefore, benefit of doubt goes to the credit of accused and accordingly the accused namely Ashu S/o Ghanshyam is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 380 & 454 IPC / 411 IPC.
Pronounced in open Court, on this Day of 26th November, 2025.
This judgment consists of 8 signed pages.
ANIMESH Digitally signed by
ANIMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.11.26
19:42:08 +0530
(ANIMESH KUMAR)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-02
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts State Vs. Ashu, FIR No. 150/2022, PS Kishangarh, Judgment dated 26.11.2025 Page No. 8 of 8