Delhi District Court
State vs Furqan on 18 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: MS. SAYESHA CHADHA, DJS
FIR No. 305/15
PS : Chandni Mahal
U/s 457/380/511 IPC
State vs. Furqan
Date of Institution of case: 26.02.2016
Date when Judgment reserved: 13.02.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 18.03.2025
JUDGMENT
A. Case No. : 303960/2016
B. Date of Institution of Case : 26.02.2016
C. Date of Commission of Offence : 20.11.2015
D. Name of the complainant : Sh. Faimuddin
E. Name of the Accused : Furqan s/o Sh. Abdul Jabbar
& his parentage and residence R/o H.No.482, Gali Bahar
Wali, Chatta Lal Miyan,
Chandni Mahal, Delhi.
F. Offences complained of : U/s 457/380/511 Indian
Penal Code
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final order : Acquittal
I. Date of such order : 18.03.2025
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:
State Vs. Furqan FIR No. 305/2015 PS Chandni Mahal 1/11
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 20.11.2015 at about 02.09 am at H No.494, Chhatta Lal Miyan, Chandni Mahal, Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of PS Chandni Mahal, accused committed lurking house trespass in order to commit theft in the above said property and accused entered in the abovesaid property in the above said manner and attempt to commit theft and thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 457/380/511 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC).
2. Upon conclusion of investigation, a final report was filed before the court on 26.02.2016 against the accused. Cognizance of offence punishable u/s 457/380/511 IPC was taken. Upon summoning, the accused appeared and copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C). Thereafter, charge for offence punishable u/s 457/380/511 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution was given the opportunity to substantiate the allegations against the accused. The prosecution examined 5 (five) witnesses in support of its case:
4. PW-1 Ct. Mahinder Singh has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 19/20.11.2015, his duty timing were from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. At around 2:30 am, one call was received in the PS vide dd no 5A and the same was marked to SI Thakur Singh. He along with SI Thakur went to the spot of the incident that was house No State Vs. Furqan FIR No. 305/2015 PS Chandni Mahal 2/11 494 Chattalal Miya, Chandni Mahal, where he met the complainant namely Faimuddin. IO recorded the complaint of the complainant and prepared the Rukka. He handed over the same to him for getting the case registered. He left the spot and went to the PS and handed over the Rukka to the duty officer concerned for getting the case registered. After the registration of the case, he along with HC Anil Kumar went to the spot of incident. He handed over the original Rukka and copy of the FIR to HC Anil. HC Anil had prepared the site plan and searched the CCTV footage of the incident. Accused could not be found at the spot or nearby places. HC Anil recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC.
During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-1 admitted that no incident took place in his presence. He admitted that the accused was not present at the incident spot when he reached the incident spot. He admitted that he did not see the accused person involved in this case. He also cannot identify the accused person involved in this case. He denied that accused falsely implicated in the this case. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
5. PW-2 SI Thakur Singh has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 20.11.2015, his duty timing were from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. At around 2:30 am, one call was received in the PS vide dd no 5A and the same was marked to him. He along with Ct. Mahinder went to the spot of the incident that is house no 494 Chattalal Miya, Chandni Mahal, where he met the complainant State Vs. Furqan FIR No. 305/2015 PS Chandni Mahal 3/11 namely Faimuddin. He recorded the statement of the complainant Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point 'A' and prepared the Rukka Ex. PW2/B bearing his signature at point 'A'. He handed over the same to Ct. Mahinder for getting the case registered. Ct. Mahinder left the spot and went to the PS for getting the case registered. After the registration of the case Ct. Mahinder along with HC Anil Kumar came to the spot of incident. Thereafter, HC Anil/IO recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC and discharged him from the proceedings.
During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-2 admitted that no incident took place in his presence. He admitted that the accused was not present at the incident spot when he reached the incident spot. He did not examined any witness except complainant. He admitted that he recorded the statement of the complainant and no other investigation was done by him. He denied that accused falsely implicated in the this case. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW-3 HC Vikas Kumar has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 30.11.2015, he joined the investigation of this case with HC Anil Kumar and went to the spot of the incident that is house No. 494 Chattalal Miya, Chandni Mahal where they met the complainant Faimuddin. Thereafter, the IO obtained the CCTV footage from the complainant and seized the same vide seizure memo. IO checked the CCTV footage of the camera installed at the house of complainant Fahimuddin and complainant identified State Vs. Furqan FIR No. 305/2015 PS Chandni Mahal 4/11 accused by watching in the CCTV footage. Thereafter, he alongwith IO searched accused but he could not be traced. Then IO seized the CD containing CCTV footage vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/C along-with the certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-4/B. On the same day, at about 12:30 pm during investigation IO arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW-5/A bearing his signature at point B from Gali Bahar Wali Chata Lal Miyan and carried out his personal search Ex.PW-5/B bearing his signature at point B and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-5/C bearing his signature at point B and prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of accused Ex.PW-5/D bearing his signature at point B. Accused was taken for medical examination to LNJP hospital. Thereafter, IO got prepared his dossier at PS Kamla Market. Accused was produced before the concerned court and he was sent to JC. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement. He has correctly identified accused. The CD has already played in testimony of PW-5 IO / SI Anil Kumar Ex.P-1. CD seized by the witness shown to him and he has correctly identified the same Ex.P-1.
During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-3 denied that the public persons other than complainant were present at the spot. IO did not joined any public witness residing in the neighboring houses/shops in investigation. He denied that all the proceedings were done while sitting in the PS. He denied that the police has taken the sign of complainant on blank State Vs. Furqan FIR No. 305/2015 PS Chandni Mahal 5/11 paper. They reached at the spot at around 11:00 am. He denied that the accused was wrongly implicated in the present case. He denied that proper investigation was not done and he was deposing falsely.
7. PW-4 Faimuddin has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 20.11.2015, at about 02:00 am he was not feeling well and watching the TV. At about 02:09 am, he heard the noise of the door at the ground floor. Thereafter, he checked the CCTV footage of the camera installed in their house and found that his neighbor Furkan entered into his house and after sometime he exit from his house. After that he called his brother Salimuddin and search his house for any stolen article but nothing was found stolen from his house. Thereafter in called the police by dialing 100. After some time police officials came at the spot and recorded his statement Ex PW2/A bearing his signature at point B. IO prepared the site plan at his instance Ex.PW-4/A bearing his signature at point A. On 30/11/2015, he handed over the CCTV footage of the alleged incident to the IO in one CD along-with certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-4/B. IO seized the CD containing CCTV footage vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/C bearing his signature at point A. The CD handed over by him to the IO Ex.P-1. Thereafter, IO recorded his supplementary statement and he was discharged. He has correctly identified accused. CD played in the court room and the witness refuses to identify accused saying that the video was blurred therefore he cannot recognize who was entering the house.
State Vs. Furqan FIR No. 305/2015 PS Chandni Mahal 6/11 During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. APP for the State, PW-4 admitted that on 20.11.2015, a person entered his house at around at 2:09 AM. He did not remember now whether he told the police that accused Furkan entered his house. The witness confronting his complaint Ex. PW-2/A from point A to A1 where witness said that the accused Furkan entered and exit from his house. He denied that he won over by the accused that is why he was not recognizing the accused in the CD. He denied that he was giving falsely evidence to save the accused. He denied that since his health was not well and he did not want to come to the court again and again that is why today he was not recognizing the accused Furkan in the CD.
During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-4 denied that his house is in front of accused's house. He denied that entrance gate of his house was in front of house of accused. He denied that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. He admitted that the accused Furkan has not stolen anything from his house. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
8. PW-5 SI Anil Kumar has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 20.11.2015, after the registration of FIR, the investigation of the present case was marked to him. After that he alongwith Ct. Mahender went to the spot i.e. H. No. 494, Chatta Lal Miya, Chandni Mahal, Delhi. There he met SI Thakur Singh and the complainant. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of SI State Vs. Furqan FIR No. 305/2015 PS Chandni Mahal 7/11 Thakur Singh u/s 161 Cr.PC and he was discharged. he prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant Ex.PW-4/A bearing his signature at point B. He checked the CCTV footage of the camera installed at the house of complainant. Complainant identified accused as Furkan who was his neighbor by seen in the CCTV footage. He searched for accused but he could not be traced. On 30.11.2015, he seized the CD containing CCTV footage vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/C bearing his signature at point B, along- with the certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-4/B. On the same day, at about 12:30 pm during investigation he arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW-5/A bearing his signature at point A from Gali Bahar Wali Chata Lal Miyan and carriedout his personal search Ex.PW-5/B bearing his signature at point A and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-5/C bearing his signature at point A and prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of accused Ex.PW-5/D bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, accused was taken for medical examination by Ct.Vikas to LNJP hospital. Thereafter, accused was produced before the concerned court and he was sent to JC. After the completion of investigation he filed the chargesheet before the concerned court. He has correctly identified accused. CD seized by the witness shown to him and he has correctly identified the same. The CD exhibited as Ex.P-1. IO brought the CD player and the laptop and the laptop and the CD Ex.P1 played in the court with the permission of the court. He has correctly identified the CD as the one which was handed over by the complainant Faimuddin to him. He has correctly State Vs. Furqan FIR No. 305/2015 PS Chandni Mahal 8/11 identified accused from the CD.
During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-5 stated that the distance of the spot from the PS was about 1 KM. He did remember the time as to when the duty officer assigned him the present FIR. It took around 10-12 minutes to reach at the spot after the investigation was marked to him. When he reached at the spot, he met the complainant and SI Thakur Singh. He admitted that he had not seized the DVR. He denied that the CD handed over by the complainant was a tampered one. He denied that the video was blurred. He voluntarily stated that he can clearly see the face of accused Furkan. He admitted that when the accused was exiting the house of complainant there was nothing in his hand. He denied that all the proceedings were done while sitting in the PS. He denied that the police has taken the sign of complainant on blank paper. He reached at the spot at around 4:15 AM. He denied that the accused was wrongly implicated in the present case. He denied that proper investigation was not done and he was deposing falsely.
9. Vide separate statement of the accused recorded u/s 294 CrPC, the accused were admitted FIR Ex.A-1, the certificate under Section 65 B, Indian Evidence Act Ex. A-2 and DD No. 5A dt. 20.11.2015 Ex. A3 without admitting the contents of the same.
10. The prosecution evidence was closed on 23.10.2024 and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 read with section 281 of Cr.P.C on 05.12.2024, wherein he pleaded his State Vs. Furqan FIR No. 305/2015 PS Chandni Mahal 9/11 innocence and stated to have been falsely implicated. The accused has not opted to lead defence evidence. Final arguments were heard. I have cogitated over the submissions made by ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused person.
DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREON:
11. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. LAC for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
12. In order to ensure seamless appraisal of evidence, the court has framed the following points of determination.
1. Whether the accused on 20.11.2015 at about 02.09 am, at H.No.494, Chhatta Lal Miyan, Chandni Mahal, Delhi, accused committed lurking house trespass in order to commit theft.
II. Whether on the alleged date and time, the accused entered in the above said property in the above said manner and attempted to commit theft.
13. The onus of proving both the points of determination shall be on the prosecution.
14. Complainant has resiled from his statement recorded in examination-in-chief. Even in the questions put in cross- examination by the LD. APP for the State, witness has stated that he does not remember if he gave any statement to the police State Vs. Furqan FIR No. 305/2015 PS Chandni Mahal 10/11 incriminating the accused. As per the statement of PW-1 Ct. Mahender Singh, the accused was not found at the scene of crime. The accused is not even visible in the CD on record.
15. There is no other public witness who was examined by the prosecution. No recovery has been effected from the accuesd.
16. The presence of the accused at the scene of crime has not been established. The only evidence available on record is the testimony of the police officials which cannot be relied upon without corroboration. Their version is in stark contrast with the version of the complainant. None of them were allegedly the eye witnesses in this case.
17. Since the complainant has resiled from his statement, no recovery has been effected and presence of the accused at the spot cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused, namely, Furqan s/o Sh. Abdul Jabbar is entitled to be acquitted u/s 457/380/411 IPC.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed by SAYESHA SAYESHA CHADHA CHADHA Date:
today. 2025.03.18
16:36:47 +0530
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
[This judgment contains 11 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Furqan FIR No. 305/2015 PS Chandni Mahal 11/11