Delhi District Court
State vs Mohan on 7 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS AMARDEEP KAUR
ACJM (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CR. CASE NO. 6424/2018
STATE VS. MOHAN
FIR NO. 454/2018
PS MAHENDRA PARK
Unique ID no. of the case : DLNT02-012486-2018
Date of commission of offence : 29.09.2018
Name of complainant : Sh. Anil Tyagi
Name and address of accused : Mohan
S/o Sh. Bijender
R/o A-1269, Jahangirpuri, Delhi
Offence complained of : Section 454/380 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of institution: 28.11.2018
Date of reserving the order: 03.02.2026
Date of order : 07.02.2026
Final order : Conviction
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 20.09.2018, at about 08:00 PM, at MCD office, Jahangirpuri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mahendra Park, the accused committed lurking house trespass and also FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 1 of 17 committed theft of one broken door of latrine from the above said office. It is thereby alleged that the accused has committed offences punishable u/s 454/380 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet under section 173 Cr.PC was filed by the IO for offence punishable u/s 454/380 IPC. The cognizance of offence was taken and copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused. After compliance of provisions U/s 207 Cr PC, the charge was framed against the accused for the offence U/s 454/380 IPC on 11.12.2018.
3. Matter was then listed for PE. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 09 witnesses including Sh. Anil Tyagi, complainant (PW 1), Ct. Mukesh Kumar (PW 2), Ct. Pradeep (PW 3), HC Manna Lal (PW 4), Dr. Shipra Rampal (PW 5), Dr. Rajeev Kumar (PW 6), Dr. Abhilasha KK (PW 7), Dr. R.P. Singh (PW 8) and ASI Kamaljeet (PW 9).
4. Sh. Anil Tyagi, complainant entered the witness box as PW-1. He deposed that he was working as Store Keeper at MCD Store (Horticulture Department) at the green belt at the backside of H No. J-4, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. He deposed that on 29.09.2017, at about 08:00 pm, he saw the accused taking away one broken iron gate (toilet gate) belonging to the Horticulture Department, which was to be repair/wielded by the department. He further deposed that the accused had entered the store after jumping the walls and was taking away the above said iron gate. He stated as he was returning to his duty FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 2 of 17 from a nearby juice shop namely Rasila Juice Shop, he saw the accused and apprehended him along with the stolen broken iron gate. He deposed that police arrived at the spot and on inquiry the name of the accused was revealed as Mohan. He proved his statement Ex. PW 1/A, arrest memo Ex. PW 1/B and personal search memo of the accused Ex. PW 1/C.
5. The witness PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. LAC for accused. During cross examination he admitted that he had not seen the accused breaking the door. He deposed that there was no guard at the said office. He deposed that he had not brought any documents to show that he was asked to work as a security guard for security purposes. He admitted that IO had not obtained any employment proof from him. He voluntarily deposed that IO took a photocopy of the attendance register showing his attendance in the said office. He deposed that the height of the said boundary wall including iron grills was around 6 feet. He deposed that he did not know the weight of the said iron gate. He further deposed that he saw the accused along with the iron gate outside the wall of the MCD office and the accused was accompanied by one another person, however, only the accused was apprehended at the spot. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement at the PS and he had not told to the IO or any of the police officials that he saw another associate of the accused as well while he was taking away the iron gate. He deposed that IO had not taken any photographs of the gate in his presence. He deposed that width of the said gate was around 2 and half feet and having the height of the around 6 feet. He denied the suggestion that it was not possible for one person to take away the gate from the boundary wall of the MCD office. He denied the suggestion that on the day of incident accused had asked water from him and he had a dispute with accused and he had FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 3 of 17 beaten him.
6. PW-2 Ct. Mukesh Kumar deposed that on 29.09.2018, he along with ASI Kamaljeet Singh received DD No. 42 A, upon which they went to MCD Office, Jahangirpuri where they met complainant Anil Tyagi who produced accused Mohan. He deposed that IO recorded the statement of Anil Tyagi and prepared rukka and handed over to him. He came back to the spot after registration of the FIR and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to IO. He deposed that they took accused to BJRM hospital where accused was medically examined. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. LAC for accused.
7. PW-3 Ct. Pradeep deposed that on 30.09.2018, he along with IO and accused Mohan @ Kalu filled dossier of the accused at DCP office and produced him before the court from where he was sent to JC. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. LAC for accused.
8. PW-4 HC Manna Lal deposed that on 20.09.2018, at around 09:04 pm, he was on duty as duty officer and received DD No. 42 A. The same was conveyed to ASI Kamaljeet for necessary action, who went to spot along with Ct. Mukesh. He proved the attested copy of said DD Ex. PW 4/A, computerized copy FIR Ex. PW 4/B, endorsement rukka vide Ex. PW 4/C and certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act FIR Ex. PW 4/D. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. LAC for the accused. He denied the suggestion that no rukka was received by him or that FIR was ante-time or ante-dated or that he was FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 4 of 17 deposing falsely.
9. PW-5 Dr. Shipra Rampal deposed that on 23.10.2018, she was the chairman of the medical board constituted to estimate the age of Mohan @ Kalu who was examined physically, dentally and radiologically. After examination, the estimated age of the accused was opined to be between 18 to 20 years. She proved the report in this regard Ex. PW 5/A. The witness is duly cross examined by Ld. LAC for the accused. She deposed that there was no probability that the above said person could be below the age of the 18 years.
10. PW-6 Dr. Rajeev Kumar deposed that on 23.10.2018, he was one of the members of the medical board constituted to estimate the age of accused and after physically examining him, the estimated age of accused was opined to be in between 18 to 20 years. The witness is duly cross examined by Ld. LAC of the accused.
11. PW-7 Dr. Abhilasha K K deposed that on 23.10.2018, he was one of the members of the Medical Board constituted to estimate the age of the accused and accused was examined physically, dentally and radiologically. He deposed that he performed the dental examination and after examination, the estimated age of the said person was opined to be in between 18-20 years. The witness is duly cross examined by Ld. LAC for the accused.
FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 5 of 17
12. PW-8 Dr. R.P. Singh deposed that on 23.10.2018, he was one of the members of Medical Board constituted to estimate the age of accused and after examination report was prepared Ex. PW 5/A. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. LAC for the accused. He admitted that the examination in the present case was not done by him or in her presence. Voluntarily he deposed that he signed report Ex. PW 5/A as the board member in the normal course of his duties.
13. PW 9 ASI Kamaljeet Singh deposed that on 29.09.2018, he had received DD No. 42A regarding present offence. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Mukesh had went to spot i.e. MCD Office Jahangir Puri, in front of J-Block and there they met with complainant Anil Tyagi who produced accused before them. He deposed that upon inquiry his name was revealed as Mohan and complainant had told him that accused Mohan was taking away a broken door of latrine of said office. Thereafter, he recorded statement of complainant. He prepared tehrir Ex. PW 9/A and he handed over the same to Ct. Mukesh for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he had arrested accused and conducted his personal search. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Mukesh took accused to BJRM hospital and after getting conducted his medical examination there he was brought to PS and there he was lodged into the PS cell.
14. The witness PW-9 proved the site plan Ex. PW 9/B. He deposed that the accused pleaded juvenility at the time of his arrest however he could not produce any document to support the same. Nevertheless he investigated the claim of the accused and applied for getting a bone age ossification test of the accused through application Ex. PW 9/C. He deposed that ossification test of accused was conducted in BJRM Hospital on 16.10.2018 Ex. PW 9/D. He deposed that in bone age FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 6 of 17 ossification report the accused was declared as major by concerned doctors vide report Ex PW 5/A.
15. In his cross examination by Ld LADC, the witness PW-9, denied the suggestion that it was not possible for the accused to climb the said boundary wall for the reason that the height of the said wall was very high and the height of the accused was very less. The witness also deposed that he had not seized the subject iron gate and that he had not also done the photography of the same or prepared any sketch of it. He further deposed that the weight of the iron gate was approximately as per his guess work was around 30 to 35 kg. He deposed that when he had reached the spot public persons had gathered on the spot and he tried to join those public persons in the investigation but none of them joined the investigation and he did not serve any notice to those public persons. He deposed that the complainant was the store keeper of the said MCD office as informed by the complainant and as per his investigation at that point of time there was only store keeper and no watchman/guard was deputed at the gate of the MCD office. He deposed that as per his investigation there was only one accused in the present matter and no other person was accompanying the accused.
16. No other witness was summoned. Thus, PE closed vide order dated 11.06.2025 and matter was listed for statement of accused.
17. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr PC was recorded on 14.10.2025 wherein accused submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 7 of 17 the present matter and the recovery has been planted upon him. He further submitted that he does not wish to lead DE.
18. The matter was thereafter fixed for final arguments which was led by both Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused at length.
19. I have perused the arguments lead at bar in light of the evidence adduced on record and the relevant legal provisions.
20. The accused in the present case is charged for the commission of offence u/s 448/380 IPC. The same are reproduced herein below:-
Section 380 IPC: 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 448 IPC: -Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
21. Further the offence of house trespass is defined in section 442 IPC which is reproduce herein below:-
FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 8 of 17 Section 442- Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house-trespass".
22. Further section 441 IPC provides the definition of criminal trespass as below:-
"Section 441- Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".
23. The prosecution to establish its case has examined the complainant as PW-1 who in his testimony has correctly identified the accused before this court. In his testimony, he has deposed that on 29.09.2017, at about 08:00 pm while he was returning to his office (MCD Store, Horticulture Department), from a nearby juice shop, he saw the accused carrying an iron gate (toilet gate) which was lying broken in the office and was to be repaired/ welded. He deposed that he apprehended the accused and intimated the police at 100 number. He deposed that the accused had possibly jumped over the wall of the MCD office and stolen the iron gate which he was taking away. The witness in his examination also proved his complaint recorded by the IO Ex. PW1/A, arrest memo Ex PW1/B and personal search memo Ex PW1/C. FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 9 of 17
24. Another important witness of the prosecution is the IO who was one of the first persons to reach the spot. In his testimony as PW-9, he has deposed that on 29.09.2018 he reached the spot wherein he met the complainant Anil Tyagi PW-1, who produced before him the present accused and stated that he was found taking away the broken door of the latrine of the office. Thereafter, he arrested the accused, prepared all the formal documents, conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet before the court.
25. The testimony of the witness PW-1 is on lines with his previous statement as recorded by the IO u/s 161 Cr PC and no major contradiction or improvement has been observed in the same. Further, no contradiction from his previous statement has been confronted by Ld. LADC during his cross examination.
26. However, during the arguments Ld. LADC has attempted to establish a doubt upon the testimony of PW-1 with the submission that the testimony of the witness cannot be relied upon as his presence at the spot has not been duly established since the IO as well as the witness has not placed on record any employment proof or copy of any attendance register etc.
27. Ld. LADC has further submitted that the testimony of the witness is otherwise also illogical since it cannot be presumed that the accused who is a person of lean built could carry a heavy iron gate which is around 2ft. x 6ft by jumping the boundary wall, which itself, is around 6 ft. in height.
FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 10 of 17
28. Ld. LADC has also submitted that the witness has improved his statement since for the first time in his evidence he has deposed that the accused was accompanied by another person regarding which he had made no submission to the IO. It is his submission that the witness had introduced this fresh fact only to fill the gaps in his testimony after the witness was questioned as to how the present accused can be expected to carry a heavy iron gate all by himself. Lastly, it is contended by Ld. LADC that even if the entire testimony of the witness PW-1 is assumed to be true, the same is not sufficient to establish the offence u/s 454 IPC since admittedly none of the prosecution witnesses including PW-1 has seen the accused enter or exit from the MCD office where the subject iron gate was allegedly stolen. Further, the subject property of the theft i.e. the iron gate itself was neither seized by the IO nor was exhibited in evidence before the court either by its physical production or through its photographs or sketch and thus the offence of theft (Section 380 IPC) is also not proved. It is also stated that the case of the prosecution is not reliable since no public persons have been examined to establish its case.
29. I have meticulously examined the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses. It is a settled law that in all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 11 of 17 trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.
30. Firstly, it is to be noted that the accused has no where through the trial disputed his own presence at the spot. Further, though he has denied committing the offence of tresspass or theft, he has in his defence suggested to witness PW-1 that the accused had sought water from the complainant, the complainant refused the same and instead beat him. Thus, clearly suggesting that the accused as well as the complainant was were very well present at the spot. Thus, absence of attendance register of the complainant, his employment proof or inconsistency regarding his designation is immaterial.
31. Now with regards to the submissions of Ld. LADC for the accused that the testimony of PW-1 that accused jumped over a wall of 6 ft., lifted on his own a heavy iron gate and somehow took it out of the MCD office all by himself and was thereafter apprehended while carrying it away, seems highly improbable considering the built and the height of the accused, this court is of the view that the defence so attempted to be established by Ld. LADC is merely presumptive in nature and has no factual or scientific evidence to support the same. There is nothing to indicate on record that the subject iron gate was so heavy that the same could not have been lifted by one person. There is also nothing to indicate that the accused herein was under some medical or physical inability so as to make it so improbable that he could not have by himself lifted the gate. It is correct that upon being suggested so, witness PW-1 in his testimony has deposed that the accused was accompanied by another person about whom he had not FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 12 of 17 mentioned to the IO. However the witness during his examination has himself explained that since the second person who was accompanying the accused had run away from the spot, he complained to the IO only regarding the present accused who was apprehended by him at the spot.
32. The explanation so offered by the witness seems justified and resonates with the conduct as can be expected from a rational prudent human being. Where only one accused was apprehended at the spot, it is more than normal to expect that a rational person would focus his complaint only on the one apprehended and not worry about the one who escaped, specially in trivial offences like theft etc. This court is thus not convinced that the witness by introducing the existence of the second accused had made a substantial improvement in his stand in order to fill the gaps in the case of the prosecution.
33. Lastly, while it is true that witness PW-1 has not seen the accused enter or exist the office and had not seen him or apprehended him while in the act of theft, he has testified having seen the accused around the MCD office carrying the iron gate which was kept in the toilet for repair. This circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish that the accused must have gained access to the said iron gate by entering the MCD office to steal the same. Absence of direct evidence of theft by itself is not a ground to absolve the guilt of the accused.
34. Another defence as contended by Ld LADC is that the offences alleged cannot be said to have been established since the case property itself was never FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 13 of 17 seized by the IO or brought before the court. It is his submission that in absence of the subject property of theft being brought before the court, the commission of the alleged offences cannot be established.
35. While it is true that the IO was duty bound to have seized the stolen property and/or produced the same before this court during the trial or prove the same by its photographs etc. and he failed to do so in the present case, failure to do the same by itself cannot negate the effect of deposition made by PW-1 on oath.
36. The legal position regarding production of corpus delicti i.e. the body of crime, the iron gate in this case, is well settled by a long line of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Rama Nand and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1981) 1 SCC 511, wherein the court held that it is true that in law, a conviction for an offence, does not necessarily depend upon the corpus delicti being found. There may be reliable evidence, direct or circumstantial, of the commission of the murder though the corpus delicti are not traceable.
37. Further, failure of the IO to conduct an effective investigation including his failure to seize or produce the case property cannot be the sole ground of defence for the accused. A criminal trial cannot be dependent on the conduct of the Investigating Officer alone. It is also a settled law that every illegality or irregularity in investigation does not vitiate the entire proceedings, much less effect the credibility of an otherwise trustworthy testimony of an eye witness.
FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 14 of 17 Reference can be made in the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar - AIR 1998 SC 1850 and Paras Yadav vs. State of Bihar - AIR 1999 SC 644.
38. In the instant case, the case property was a door of a toilet which was removed for repairs and was to be soon welded. Considering the nature of the property, it seems probable that the IO in his judgment thought it to be best, not to be seized, since the toilet door, if not timely installed would have caused grave inconvenience to the staff of the MCD office. While it could have certainly supported the case of the prosecution if the IO had for the purpose of identification of the case property had taken its photographs and placed the same along with the charge sheet or in his evidence in court. However, his failure to do so due to ignorance of procedure or error of judgment etc. cannot be read as a negative evidence that no such door existed or was stolen by the accused from MCD office on 29.09.2018 as deposed by PW-1 on oath.
39. Now while the prosecution through the testimony of witness PW-1 has duly established its case that the accused entered the MCD office and stole an iron gate, the accused on the contrary has offered no submission whatsoever as to what was he doing at the spot. Instead, he has made only a vague submission unsupported by any evidence that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant whom he had approached for water.
40. The accused during the cross examination of PW-1 has suggested FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 15 of 17 through Ld LADC that the complainant refused water to him due to which a dispute arose between the complainant and the accused and the complainant beat him. Now as discussed before no submission has been made as to why the accused was present near the MCD office on the said time and date. Further there is no submission as to why he sought water from the complainant and why the consequent refusal if any, led to a dispute of such grave nature that the complainant who had no previous animosity or association with the accused, called the police and got an FIR registered against him.
41. Again while the accused has alleged that the complainant had beaten him, no injuries including bruises and abrasions are mentioned in his MLC prepared right after his arrest. Further, no questions in this regard have been asked by Ld. LADC to the medical witnesses i.e. PW-5 to PW-8. Thus, in absence of any evidence to support the defence as suggested by the accused including any apparent motive which could be associated with the complainant or the IO to falsely implicate the accused, the submissions made by the Ld. LADC are nothing but mere fallacies.
42. In view the discussion above therefore, this court is of the view that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt that the accused entered the office of the MCD by jumping the wall and stole the iron gate. Accused Mohan S/o Sh. Bijender is thus convicted for the offences punishable U/s 454/380 IPC.
FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 16 of 17
43. Since nothing else survives, file be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by AMARDEEP AMARDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2026.02.07 16:33:31 +0530 Announced in open (Amardeep Kaur) court on 07.02.2026 A.C.J.M.(North) Rohini Court Delhi FIR No. 454/2018 Page No. 17 of 17