Delhi District Court
State vs Danish on 9 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-
08, SAKET COURTS,
DELHI
Presided over by- Mr. Bhavaya Karhail, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 3492/2024
e-FIR No. -: 80013190/2024
Police Station -: Jamia Nagar
Section(s) -: 380/457/411/34
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
DANISH
S/o Mr. Naseem Ahmad
R/o H. No. G-99, Abul Fazal Enclave,
Shaheen Bagh, Delhi.
...Accused
1. Name of Complainant :- Meraj Sarwar
2. Name of Accused Person :- Danish
3. Offence complained of or :- 380/457/411/34
proved
4. Plea of Accused Person :- NOT GUILTY
5. Date of Commission of :- 14.02.2024
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 12.04.2024
7. Date of Pronouncement :- 09.10.2024
8. Final Order :- Conviction
E-FIR No. 80013190/2024 State v. Danish Page 1 of 13
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 08.02.2024, between 04.00 AM to 05.00 AM at H. No. 4A, 161, 4 th floor, Jogabai, Jamia Nagar, within jurisdiction of PS Jamia Nagar, Accused Danish alongwith another unknown person, committed house breaking by night and committed theft in the house of complainant and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 380/457/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), for which the present FIR was lodged in PS Jamia Nagar.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable U/s 380/457/411/34 IPC was filed on behalf of the IO and the Accused persons were consequently summoned. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to them in terms of section 207 of CrPC. Perusal of file reveals that charge for commission of offences u/s 380/457/34 IPC was framed against the Accused Danish on 11.07.2024. Whereas, charge u/s 411 IPC was framed against accused Tausif to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter on 24.08.2024, complainant compounded the present matter with accused Tausif and trial commenced against accused Danish.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the Accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
E-FIR No. 80013190/2024 State v. Danish Page 2 of 13ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- Miraj Sarwar (Complainant in the present case) PW2 :- HC Vijay Kumar (IO of FIR No. 68/24) PW3 :- Ct. Vikas (participated in investigation of FIR No. 68/24) PW4 :- HC Ram Kishore (Complainant in FIR No. 68/24) PW5 :- HC Neeraj Kumar (IO in the present case) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A :- FIR.
Ex. PW1/B :- Pen drive containing CCTV footage and Certificate u/s 65B IEA.
Ex. PW1/C :- Site plan.
Ex. PW1/D :- Seizure memo of pen drive.
Ex. P-1 :- Photographs.
Ex. PW2/A :- GD No. 92A.
Ex. PW2/B :- Rukka for registration of FIR No. 68/24.
Ex. PW2/C :- FIR No. 68/24.
Ex. PW2/E :- Seizure memo of buttondar knife.
Ex. PW2/F :- Seizure memo of cash and wallet.
Ex. PW2/H :- Personal search memo.
Ex. PW2/I :- Site plan.
Ex. PW2/J :- Disclosure statement.
Ex. PW3/A :- Arrest memo.
Ex. PW3/C :- Personal search memo.
Ex. PW3/D :- Disclosure statement.
Ex. PW3/G :- Seizure memo of articles belonging to
complainant.
Ex. PW3/H :- Black colour jacket.
Ex. PW3/I :- Maroon coloured jacket.
Ex. PW3/J :- Recovery site plan.
E-FIR No. 80013190/2024 State v. Danish Page 3 of 13
Ex. PW5/A :- Supplementary statement.
Ex. PW5/B :- Age memo of Tausif.
4. PW-1/Sh. Meraj Sarwar deposed that he reported a theft of his vehicle on 08.02.2024 from the morning hours of 04.00 (24 hours format) to 05.00 on 08.02.2024. The theft occurred at the above-mentioned address and his Iphone, HP Laptop, Digital watch, cash to the tune of Rs. 11000 and one tab. The FIR is Ex. PW1/A. At that time, he did not see the accused carrying the theft of the stolen objects. After examining the CCTV footage, PW-1 saw the accused present in the court carrying the theft. PW-1 gave the copy of the CCTV footage in the pen drive to the IO who had also recorded his detailed statement. Section 65B certificate for the same is Ex.
PW1/B. The pen drive annexed in the judicial record played in the court. It contains 12 items, in the folder named "folder", the folder contains 12 items totalling to 128.1 MB. Video 1- Exit MP4 contains the face of the accused Danish as identified by the witness. VID- 20240208-WA0016.MP4 clearly shows the face of the accused trying to housebreak in the house of the witness/complainant. Further videos contained in the pen drive show accused Danish infiltrating the property and then exiting after carrying away the stolen articles. Pen drive is Ex. MO-1. Site plan was prepared by the IO and is identified as Ex. PW1/C. IO had seized the pen drive vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW1/D. Photographs taken from the video files showing the accused carrying out theft is Ex. P1 (Colly). PW-1 correctly identified the accused in court. PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
E-FIR No. 80013190/2024 State v. Danish Page 4 of 135. PW-2/HC Vijay Kumar deposed that he was posted at PS Jamia Nagar and on 12.02.2024, after obtaining information vide GD No. 92A, he reached Tikona Park, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, Delhi. GD number is Ex. PW2/A. After reaching the spot, PW-2 met HC Ram Kishore and Ct. Vikas who had apprehended accused Danish and had recovered a buttondar knife from his possession. On recovering this illegal knife. The complaint statement of HC Ram Kishore was recorded, same is Ex. PW2/B. Ct. Vikas was dispatched to PS Jamia Nagar for the purpose of registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Vikas returned back to the spot and handed PW-2 over a copy of FIR, which is Ex. PW2/C. PW-2 immediately commenced his investigation and prepared a sketch of the buttondar knife which is Ex. PW2/D. The buttondar knife was seized vide seizure memo, which is is Ex. PW2/E. Cash and purse recovered from the accused was seized vide seizure memo, which is Ex. PW2/F. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo, which is Ex. PW2/G. His personal search was conducted vide memo which is Ex. PW2/H. Site plan was prepared which is Ex. PW2/I. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded which is Ex. PW2/J. In the said disclosure statement, the accused admitted about carrying out theft which was the subject matter of FIR No. 80013190 dt. 08.02.2024. He admitted that after house breaking, he carried out the theft of articles, the details of which are recorded in the disclosure statement. Accused was also seen in the CCTV footage carrying out the theft. Photographs of the accused carrying out theft are shown to the witness and he has correctly identified the same. Same is Ex. P- 1(Colly). The pen drive annexed in the judicial record played in the E-FIR No. 80013190/2024 State v. Danish Page 5 of 13 court which is Ex. MO-1, same was being played. Witness has correctly recognised the face of the accused trying to housebreak the house of the complainant. The case property which is the buttondar knife is a subject matter of FIR No. 0068 dt. 13.02.2024 which has also been tried before this court. Accused and one buttondar knife in a white transparent plastic box were correctly identified by PW-2 in court. Same is Ex. MO-2. PW-2 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6. PW-3/Ct. Vikash deposed that on 12.02.2024, he and Ct. Ram Kishore were performing area patrolling duty. At about 10.00 PM, we reached near Tikona Park, Jamia Nagar, where one person after looking at them started fleeing. They apprehended him and on his cursory search a buttondar knife was recovered from his right side pant pocket. They informed DO of PS Jamia Nagar in response to which HC Vijay arrived at the spot. The complaint statement of HC Ram Kishore was recorded, same is Ex. PW2/B. PW-3 was dispatched to PS Jamia Nagar for the purpose of registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, PW-3 returned back to the spot and handed him over a copy of FIR, which is Ex. PW2/C. IO immediately commenced the investigation and prepared a sketch of the buttondar knife which is Ex. PW2/D. The buttondar knife was seized vide seizure memo, which is Ex. PW2/E. Cash and purse recovered from the accused was seized vide seizure memo, which is Ex. PW2/F. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo, which is already Ex. PW2/G. His personal search was conducted vide memo which is Ex. PW2/H. Site plan was prepared which is Ex. PW2/I. Disclosure E-FIR No. 80013190/2024 State v. Danish Page 6 of 13 statement of the accused was recorded which is Ex. PW2/J. In the said disclosure statement, the accused admitted about carrying out theft which was the subject matter of FIR No. 80013190 dt. 08.02.2024. He admitted that after house breaking, he carried out the theft of articles, the details of which are recorded in the disclosure statement. Accused was also seen in the CCTV footage carrying out the theft. The buttondar knife in a white transparent plastic box was correctly identified by PW-3. Same is Ex. MO-2. The cash and purse recovered is Ex. MO-3. PW-3 assisted HC Neeraj in the investigation of the present case, i.e., e-FIR No. 13190/24. HC Neeraj pursuant to the information obtained from the disclosure statement of the earlier case had commenced his investigation as the FIR was already registered and CCTV footage had shown the involvement of the accused. In the present case, accused was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW3/A. Accused Tausif was also arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW3/B. Personal search of accused Tausif was conducted vide memo which is Ex. PW3/C. Disclosure statement of accused Danish and Tausif were duly recorded which are which is Ex. PW3/D, Ex. PW3/E and Ex. PW3/F. Pursuant to the disclosure statement, one Iphone, one digital watch and one HP laptop were duly seized vide Ex. PW3/G. Black colour jacket was also seized which is Ex. PW3/H. One maroon colour jacket was also seized which is Ex. PW3/I. A recovery site plan was also prepared vide Ex. PW3/J. The pen drive annexed in the judicial record was being played in the court which is Ex. MO-1, same was being played. Witness has correctly recognised the face of the accused trying to housebreak the house of the complainant. The case property which is E-FIR No. 80013190/2024 State v. Danish Page 7 of 13 the buttondar knife is a subject matter of FIR No. 0068 dt. 13.02.2024 which has also been tried before this court. Photographs of accused carrying out theft are shown to the witness and he has correctly identified the same. Same is already Ex. P-1(Colly). PW-3 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
7. PW-4/HC Ram Kishore deposed that on 12.02.2024, he and Ct. Vikas were performing area patrolling duty. At about 10.00 PM, they reached near Tikona Park, Jamia Nagar, where one person after looking at us started fleeing. They apprehended him and on his cursory search a buttondar knife was recovered from his right side pant pocket. They informed DO of PS Jamia Nagar in response to which HC Vijay arrived at the spot. The complaint statement of mine was recorded, same is Ex. PW2/B. Ct. Vikas was dispatched to PS Jamia Nagar for the purpose of registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Vikas returned back to the spot and handed IO over a copy of FIR, which is Ex. PW2/C. IO immediately commenced the investigation and prepared a sketch of the buttondar knife which is Ex. PW2/D. The buttondar knife was seized vide seizure memo, which is Ex. PW2/E. Cash and purse recovered from the accused was seized vide seizure memo, which is Ex. PW2/F. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo, which is Ex. PW2/G. His personal search was conducted vide memo which is Ex. PW2/H. Site plan was prepared which is Ex. PW2/I. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded which is Ex. PW2/J. In the said disclosure statement, the accused admitted about carrying out theft which was the subject matter of FIR No. 80013190 dt. 08.02.2024. He admitted E-FIR No. 80013190/2024 State v. Danish Page 8 of 13 that after house breaking, he carried out the theft of articles, the details of which are recorded in the disclosure statement. Accused was also seen in the CCTV footage carrying out the theft. The buttondar knife in a white transparent plastic box, same was bearing the seal of the court. It was being opened with the permission of the court. It is shown to the witness and he has correctly identified the same. Same is Ex. MO-2. The cash and purse recovered is Ex. MO-3. The pen drive annexed in the judicial record is being played in the court which is Ex. MO-1, same was being played. Witness has correctly recognised the face of the accused trying to housebreak the house of the complainant. The case property which is the buttondar knife is a subject matter of FIR No. 0068 dt. 13.02.2024 which has also been tried before this court. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. The buttondar knife in a white transparent plastic box, same was opened and correctly identified by PW-4. Same is Ex. MO-
2. PW-4 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. PW-5/HC Neeraj Kumar deposed that on 10.02.2024, he reached 4A/161, 4th Floor, Jogabai Village, Jamia Nagar, where he met complainant Miraj Sarwar who lodged a new FIR. PW-5 took his supplementary statement which is Ex. PW5/A. He gave me a CCTV footage regarding the incident which was seized by PW-5, it is Ex. PW1/D. PW-5 prepared a site plan at the instance of the complainant, which is Ex. PW1/C. Later PW-5 came to know that accused Danish was arrested in case FIR No. 68/2024, then PW-5 formally arrested him vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW3/A. PW-5 also arrested accused Tausif vide arrest memo already Ex. PW3/B. Age memo for E-FIR No. 80013190/2024 State v. Danish Page 9 of 13 Tausif was created which is Ex. PW5/B. At the instance of the accused Danish, jacket was recovered which is already Ex. PW3/I. At the instance of Tausif, one digital watch and one HP Laptop was recovered, PW-5 seized the same vide seizure memo which is already Ex. PW3/G. At the instance of Tausif, a black jacket was recovered, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW3/F. A recovered site plan was also created at the instance of Tausif, which is Ex. PW3/J. The pen drive annexed in the judicial record was being played in the court which was Ex. MO-1, same was being played. Witness has correctly recognised the face of the accused trying to housebreak the house of the complainant. Accused was correctly identified by PW-5. Photographs of the incident and he had correctly recognized you. Same is already Ex. P-1 (Colly). PW-5 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
9. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the Accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of Accused was recorded without oath on 21.09.2024 under section 313 CrPC in which he stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he does not want to lead any defence evidence and matter was listed for final arguments.
E-FIR No. 80013190/2024 State v. Danish Page 10 of 13ARGUMENTS
10. 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.
11. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that there is sufficient material on record to convict the Accused for the said offences.
12. Per contra, the Ld. LADC for the Accused has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
13. For proving its case u/s 380/457 IPC, the prosecution was required to establish that the Accused had entered into the property i.e., house of the Complainant, at night, having made preparation to conceal their entry, in order to commit the theft. It was also required to be established that the Accused intending to take dishonestly the stolen items out of the possession of the Complainant and without the consent of the Complainant had moved it in order to such taking from the said house.
14. The case against the Accused is that on 08.02.2024 in between 04.00 AM to 05.00 AM, accused Danish alongwith one unknown person committed lurking house trespass and committed theft of Iphone, HP Laptop, LG Laptop digital watch and cash of Rs. 11,000/-. Accused Danish was arrested firstly in FIR No. 68/24 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act, wherein he disclosed of having committed theft at the house of the complainant. The case property was recovered from the person of accused Tausif, who was arrested at the instance E-FIR No. 80013190/2024 State v. Danish Page 11 of 13 of accused Danish. It is an admitted fact that there is no eye witness to the incident of theft and the primary incriminating evidence against the Accused was the CCTV footage, i.e., Ex. PW1/B.
15. PW-1/Complainant deposed during the trial regarding the alleged theft which took place at his house. He further deposed that he gave CCTV footage of the incident to the IO alongwith certificate u/s 65B IEA, Ex. PW1/B. The said pen drive was played during the course of his testimony. Accused Danish is visible in the said footage alongwith one more unknown person. The complainant also identified Danish as per the person who was visible in the CCTV footage. Screen shots from the said CCTV footage was also placed on record. As per the same, the incident occured at around 04.22 AM on 08.02.2024. Accused Danish is visible alongwith the other person trying to forceably gain entry into the house of the complainant and thereafter exiting the house while carrying away with the proceeds of the crime. Accused has not been able to challenge the veracity of either the complainant or the CCTV footage. The suggestion made by Ld. LADC for the accused that the image is doctored with the help of AI is baseless. Further, at the instance of Accused Danish, co-accused Tausif was arrested from whom the proceeds of crime were recovered.
16. Therefore, the prosecution has positively proven the identity of the accused Danish as per the person who had committed house breaking and theft at the house of complainant. Rest of the witnesses examined by the prosecution concerns mostly regarding the investigation conducted in the FIR No. 68/24 in which the accused E-FIR No. 80013190/2024 State v. Danish Page 12 of 13 was originally arrested and regarding other aspects of the investigation in the present case.
17. Despite their being no eye witness to the present case, the identify of accused Danish has been established with the help of the CCTV footage. Accused has failed to raise any reasonable suspicion or defect in the case of the prosecution. Considering the same, accused Danish is liable for the present offence.
18. Resultantly, the Accused persons namely, Danish S/o Sh. Naseem Ahmed is hereby found guilty. He is hereby convicted of the offence under Section 380/457/34 IPC.
Announced in open court on 09.10.2024 in the presence of the Accused.
The judgment contains 13 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
Bhavaya Digitally signed by Bhavaya
Karhail
Karhail Date: 2024.10.09 16:05:14
+0530
(BHAVAYA KARHAIL)
JMFC-08, South East District,
Saket Courts, Delhi,09.10.2024
E-FIR No. 80013190/2024 State v. Danish Page 13 of 13