Delhi District Court
State vs Avdesh on 4 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA ARORA:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04: NORTH-WEST
DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 280/2011
PS Shalimar Bagh
State Vs. Avdhesh
Date of Institution: 01.09.2011
Date of Judgment : 04.04.2025.
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 527993/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 04.08.2011
(c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Amit Tripathi
(d) Name of Accused persons, : Avdhesh S/o Ramesh their parentage & residence R/o Village Kalwa Tilpur, Tehsil Aligarh PS Sarai August, District Etta, UP.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 457/380 IPC (f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty (g) Final order : Conviction
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) This judgment pertains to the trial of the accused Avdhesh S/o Ramesh, who has been charged under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for allegedly com-
FIR No. 280/2011 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 457/380 IPC State Vs. Avdhesh Page No. 1 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.04.04 13:47:26 +0530
mitting lurking house trespass by night and theft from a building used for custody of property at Modern Public School, BM Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, on 04.08.2011 at about 2:00 AM. The accused was apprehended at the spot by PW1 and PW2, and the stolen articles, namely one CPU and one Samsung white keyboard, were recovered from his pos- session.
2) After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court, cognizance of the offence was taken and accused was summoned. After he entered appearance, copy of the chargesheet alongwith the documents was supplied to the ac- cused in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) Charge was then framed against the accused Avdhesh on 13.10.2011 for the commission of offences under Section 457/380 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 06 witnesses.
5) PW1 Sh. Naval Kishore deposed that he has been working as security guard at Modern Public School, BM Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and on 03.08.2011, he was on duty at Gate no. 2 of the school. At around 2.00 am, he heard the screams of an-
FIR No. 280/2011 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 457/380 IPC State Vs. Avdhesh Page No. 2 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.04.04 13:47:34 +0530 other security guard namely Amit who was on duty at Gate no. 1, he was shouting Chor Chor. Naval Kishore immedi- ately ran towards him and noticed that one person who was jumping out of the school boundary wall with a bag in his hand. Naval Kishore has apprehended that boy and checked the said bag and found containing some computer parts i.e. key board, etc. After arrival of police officials at the spot, he handed over the custody of accused to the police. He also identified the accused in the Court. He also identified the case property i.e. keyboard make Sumsung and one CPU with a chit of MPS 20 in the Court.
6) PW-2 Amit Tripathi deposed that on 03.08.2011, he was on night duty at main gate of Modern Public School, BM-Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi as security guard. At about 2.15 am, he noticed that one person having one bag with him trying to jump the wall of the school. He alongwith his colleague Nawal Kishore run towards him and apprehended him. He made a call at 100 number and after some time police arrived at the spot, and on checking the above said bag, same was found containing one CPU, keyboard, mouse were found in the said bag. At the PS, statement of Amit was recorded which is Ex.PW2/A. Police also seized the recovered case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. Accused was ar- rested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C. He identified the ac- cused in the Court. He also identified the case property i.e. FIR No. 280/2011 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 457/380 IPC State Vs. Avdhesh Page No. 3 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.04.04 13:47:40 +0530 keyboard make Sumsung and one CPU with a chit of MPS 20 in the Court.
7) PW-3 Ct. Brij Mohan deposed that on 04.08.2011, he was posted at PS Shalimar Bagh and on that day, he was on beat duty and at about 2.45 am, when he reached near Modern Public School, BM-Block Shaliamar Bagh, he saw that SI Suresh and HC Dalbir were already present there. One per- son namely Amit Tripathi was also there who had produced one accused before SI Suresh. Name of accused was revealed as Avdhesh. Thereafter, IO SI Suresh prepared tehrir and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, IO arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/E respectively. IO seized the recovered case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW2/F. Thereafter, accused was taken to BJRM Hospital for medical examination. He identi- fied the accused in the Court. He also identified the case property i.e. keyboard make Sumsung and one CPU with a chit of MPS 20 Ex.P-1 (colly) in the Court.
8) PW-4 ASI Dalbir deposed that on 03.11.2011, he was on emergency duty at PS Shalimar Bagh. IO Suresh Chand re- ceived an information vide DD entry no. 12-B that one per- son has been caught red handed at Modern Public, BM- Block, who was trying to do some theft in the school. At about 2.30 am, he alongwith the IO left from PS Shalimar FIR No. 280/2011 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 457/380 IPC State Vs. Avdhesh Page No. 4 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.04.04 13:47:45 +0530 Bagh on private bike and reached at the spot there they we met security guard of the school (complainant Amit Tri- pathi), who had caught the accused person with the posses- sion of one CPU and Key Board (stolen property) which the accused has stolen from the school. Then the IO recorded the statement of the complainant i.e. the original tehrir Ex.PW2/A and handed over the same to ASI Dalbir for regis- tration of FIR. Then he left the spot and went to PS Shalimar Bagh and got the present case FIR registered, same is Ex.Y-1, and came back to the spot alongwith the copy of FIR and the original tehrir. Then the IO prepared the seizure memo of the case property Ex.PW2/B. Then the IO sealed the case property into one bag and sealed it with the seal of SC, and handed over the seal to ASI Dalbir. Then the IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW2/F. IO arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/E. He identified the accused in the Court. He also identified the case property i.e. keyboard make Sumsung and one CPU with a chit of MPS 20 Ex.P-1 (colly) in the Court.
9) PW-5 Smt. Ravinder Gumber, Office Superintendent, Mod-
ern Public School, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi deposed that at the time of incident, Amit Tripathi and Naval Kishore were Guards who were out sourced on contract basis. The docu- ment was issued to that effect which is Ex.PW5/A and one duty Chart is marked as Mark-PW5/B. FIR No. 280/2011 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 457/380 IPC State Vs. Avdhesh Page No. 5 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.04.04 13:47:51 +0530
10) PW-6 Inspector Suresh Chaudhary deposed that on 04.08.2011, on receiving of DD no. 12-B Ex.Y-2, he along- with HC Dalbir went to the spot i.e. Modern Public School, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where the security guard namely Amit Tripathi had apprehended accused and he handed over him the same alongwith a CPU in a bag. Meanwhile, Beat Ct. Brij Mohan also came to the spot. Inspector Suresh Chaud- hary recorded the statement of Amit Tripathi and prepared the rukka Ex.PW6/A and sent the Constable to PS for regis- tration of FIR and after some time, he returned to the spot with copy of FIR and original tehrir, handed them over to IO. IO arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/E respectively. IO prepared the site plan Ex.PW2/D at the instance of complainant Amit Tripathi. IO seized the CPE and Key board vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. IO had also recorded the disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW2/F. Identity of accused is not dis- puted by the Ld. Defence counsel. He also identified the case property i.e. keyboard make Sumsung and one CPU with a chit of MPS 20 Ex.P-1 (colly) in the Court.
11) Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the ac- cused person who maintained his innocence. Accused stated FIR No. 280/2011 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 457/380 IPC State Vs. Avdhesh Page No. 6 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.04.04 13:47:56 +0530 that " I have been falsely implicated in the present case. I was returning from my job in the late night hours, and was passing through the road, in between the park and the school wall and I was caught by the school guard without any reason and later on, I have been falsely implicated in the present case." Accused has chosen to lead no defence evidence.
12) Final arguments were then advanced on behalf of the State wherein it has been argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused persons be found guilty in the case. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that sufficient material has not been brought on record to prove that the ac- cused committed the present offence.
13) The arguments as advanced by both the parties have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
14) It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatso- ever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
FIR No. 280/2011 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 457/380 IPC State Vs. Avdhesh Page No. 7 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.04.04 13:48:02 +0530
15) The prosecution alleges that the accused unlawfully entered the school building at night with the intention of committing theft and successfully removed certain electronic items. How- ever, he was apprehended by PW1 and PW2, who were present at the scene, and the stolen articles were seized in their presence.
16) Ld counsel for accused argued that accused was not inside the school premises but was merely passing through an adja- cent park when he was wrongfully apprehended. The prose- cution has failed to produce CCTV footage, despite PW1 ad- mitting in cross-examination that CCTV cameras were in- stalled.
Appraisal of Evidence:
17) Both PW1 and PW2 were present at the scene and appre-
hended the accused red-handed inside the school premises. Their depositions are consistent and corroborative, with no material contradictions in their statements. Cross-examina- tion of PW1 and PW2 did not reveal any motive for falsely implicating the accused. In Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2009 SC 44), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if eyewitness testimony is consistent and trustworthy, minor contradictions do not affect its reliability. In the present case, the testimony of PW1 and PW2 is credible, natural, and in- spires confidence.
FIR No. 280/2011 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 457/380 IPC State Vs. Avdhesh Page No. 8 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.04.04 13:48:07 +0530
18) The stolen CPU and keyboard were recovered from the pos-
session of the accused at the spot, which strengthens the pros- ecution's case. As per Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when a person is found in possession of stolen property soon after the theft, the presumption is that he is the thief, unless he can explain otherwise. In Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar (2013) 16 SCC 392, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that recovery of stolen property from the accused is a strong piece of evidence in proving theft, unless satisfac- torily explained by the accused. The accused failed to provide a reasonable explanation for possession of the stolen goods, reinforcing his guilt.
19) The defence argued that since CCTV cameras were installed, failure to produce footage should raise doubt. However, ab- sence of CCTV footage does not automatically negate direct eyewitness testimony, especially when recovery is estab- lished. In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979 AIR 1408), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that failure to produce supporting documentary evidence (like CCTV) does not necessarily weaken a case if eyewitness testimony is reli- able and corroborated by other facts. In the present case, the absence of CCTV footage does not create a reasonable doubt when there is direct evidence of eyewitnesses and recovery of stolen property.
FIR No. 280/2011 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 457/380 IPC State Vs. Avdhesh Page No. 9 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.04.04 13:48:13 +0530
20) The accused claimed he was simply crossing through a park near the school and was falsely implicated. However, no de- fence witnesses or evidence were produced to support this claim. In Hari Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 1997 SC 2434), the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that a mere denial without any supporting evidence does not create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. The defence's version is un- substantiated and appears to be an afterthought.
21) Based on the eyewitness testimony of PW1 and PW2, the re-
covery of stolen property from the accused, and the failure of the accused to provide a plausible explanation, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
22) Based on the eyewitness testimony of PW1 and PW2, the re-
covery of stolen property from the accused, and the failure of the accused to provide a plausible explanation, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion:
FIR No. 280/2011 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 457/380 IPC State Vs. Avdhesh Page No. 10 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.04.04 13:48:20 +0530
23) Accordingly, this court holds the accused Avdhesh S/o Ramesh guilty and stands convicted for the offenses punish-
able under Sections 457/380 IPC in FIR No. 280/2011 PS Shalimar Bagh.
24) Let the accused be heard on the quantum of sentence on the next date.
Announced in the open Court on 04.04.2025.
DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.04.04 13:48:27 +0530 (DIVYA ARORA) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 11 pages and each page bears my signature. DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.04.04 13:48:34 +0530 (DIVYA ARORA) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 280/2011 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 457/380 IPC State Vs. Avdhesh Page No. 11 of 11