Delhi District Court
State vs Pawan on 1 August, 2025
CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANSHUL SINGHAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLWT02-018717-2023
Cr. Case: 10621/2023
FIR No.: 449/2023
PS: Moti Nagar
U/s.: 454/380/411 IPC
State
versus
Pawan
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar,
R/o WZ-183C, Basai Darapur, Moti Nagar, Delhi
.... Accused
JUDGMENT
Date of Commission of Offence : 23.08.2023 Name of Complainant : Sunil Rajbhar Offence Complained of : u/s. 454/380/411 IPC Plea of Accused : Not Guilty Date when judgment was reserved : 01.08.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 01.08.2025 Final Order : Convicted FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 1 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. In the present case, the accused Pawan is facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 454/380/411 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) on the allegation that on 23.08.2023 at about 06:30 am at H.No. E-10, Ist Floor, Sudarshan Park, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Moti Nagar, the accused committed lurking house trespass and house breaking by entering into the aforementioned house with the intention to commit theft and committed theft of one black purse inside of which there was Blacksilver Logo, containing two Aadhaar Cards and Rs.150/- in cash belonging to complainant's son from the aforesaid house and the abovesaid purse was recovered from the possession of the accused which he dishonestly received or retained knowing or having reason to believe the same to be the stolen property.
COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL
2. Chargesheet was filed against the accused on 21.10.2023 on which cognizance was taken by this court on the same day. Accused entered appearance on 21.10.2023 and copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused on the same day. After due compliance of Section 207 CrPC, charge for offences u/s. 454/380/411 IPC was framed against the accused on 24.11.2023 by this court, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Statement of accused u/s. 294 CrPC was recorded on 23.05.2025, pursuant to which the accused admitted copy the FIR No.0449/2023 dated 23.08.2023, certificate u/s 65 B IEA, GD No.0058 A dated 23.08.2023 without admitting its contents and the same FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 2 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 were exhibited as Ex.A1-A3.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 3 witnesses, i.e., Sh. Sunil Rajbhar (PW-1), HC Vikram Meena (PW-2) and SI Vikas Rathee (PW-3), whose respective testimonies are discussed hereinafter. During prosecution evidence, following evidence has come on record:
1. Complaint Ex.PW1/A
2. Site plan Ex.PW1/B
3. Seizure memo of purse Ex.PW1/C
4. Arrest memo Ex.PW1/D
5. Personal search memo Ex.PW1/E
6. Seizure memo of items recovered (do not Ex.PW2/A to pertains to this case) Ex.PW2/C
7. Rukka Ex.PW3/A
8. Disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW3/B
9. Case property Ex.P1(colly)
4. PW-1, Sh. Sunil Rajbhar has deposed that on 23.08.2023 when he was sleeping at his house alongwith his wife and children, at about 06.30 am, his wife started shouting 'chor chor'. When he woke up, he saw that his wife has caught accused as accused were trying to run away. Immediately PW-1 alongwith his sons caught hold of accused. His son Vishal called the police on 100 number. Thereafter, the IO came at the spot and accused was handed over to the IO. IO searched accused and the purse of PW-1's son was recovered from the possession of accused. PW-1 has further deposed that accused might have entered in the said FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 3 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 house from the front door since it was not locked at that time. IO registered PW-1 complaint and prepared the rukka, site plan at PW-1 instance. IO also prepared the seizure memo of the purse of his son Vishal. IO arrested accused and also conducted personal search of accused vide arrest memo and personal search memo. MHC (M) has produced the case property i.e. one black man's wallet and there was an inscription of Quiksilver inside the wallet and it contained two Aadhaar Cards, one bearing the name of Vishal and the other bearing the name of Anil Kumar as well as Rs.150/- in cash. PW-1 correctly identified the same as the one which was recovered from the possession of accused. The witness correctly identified the accused before the court. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel and discharged.
5. PW-2, HC Vikram Meena, deposed that on 23.08.2023 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as Head Constable and on that day, at about 6:30 am, IO SI Vikas had received a PCR Call regarding theft. Then PW-2 alongwith IO went to the spot at E-10, First Floor Sudershan Park, where they met complainant Sunil who had handed over custody of accused alongwith a black colored wallet recovered from accused. Upon interrogation, accused disclosed his name and address. Then IO seized the said wallet and recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared the tehrir which was handed over to PW-2 for registration of FIR. Then PW-2 went to the police station, got the FIR registered and then returned to the spot with the copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over the same to the IO. Then IO prepared the site plan and accused was arrested and personally searched. Then IO recorded accused FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 4 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 disclosure statement where he had confessed to have stolen AC copper wire, 06 goldflake cigarette and side mirror of a car from jurisdiction of PS Moti Nagar. Then accused had taken PW-2 and the IO to his house and got the said items recovered. The IO then seized the same and then PW-3 had taken accused to ABG Hospital for medical examination and thereafter brought accused to the police station where accused was sent to lock up after serving food. The witness correctly identified the accused before the court. PW-2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel and discharged.
6. PW-3, SI Vikas Rathee, deposed that on 23.08.2023, he was posted as Sub Inspector with PS Moti Nagar. On that day, he received DD No.58A regarding theft at H.No.E-10, FF, Sudershan Park, Delhi. He alongwith HC Vikram went to spot and met with complainant who handed over accused to him alongwith one wallet upon which quicksilver was written which was containing Aadhaar Card and Rs.150/-. PW-3 recorded the statement of complainant and endorsed the same. PW-3 prepared rukka and handed over the same to HC Vikram for registration of FIR. After sometime, HC Vikram returned to spot with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. PW-3 prepared the site plan and seized the said wallet alongwith its content. PW-3 arrested and personally searched accused vide memos. PW-3 also recorded disclosure statement of accused. From the possession of accused, cigarettes, side mirrors of innova car and some copper wire were also recovered and PW-3 seized the same vide seizure memos. Thereafter, they returned to the police station. PW-3 deposited the case FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 5 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 property in the maalkhana and accused was put behind bars after his medical examination. During investigation, PW-3 handed over the copies of seizure memos and concerned case properties to the IO's of different case from which they were stolen. The witness correctly identified the accused before the court. PW-3 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel and discharged.
7. PE was closed vide order dated 18.07.2025 on submissions of Ld. APP for the State.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
8. Statement of accused was recorded separately u/s. 313 Cr.P.C on 01.08.2025, in which all the incriminating testimonies and other pieces of evidence were put to him. The accused denied the allegations leveled against him and stated that he was roaming in the street and the complainant confronted him and asked him as to why he was roaming in the street. He has further stated that after some minor altercations between him and the complainant, the complainant in connivance with other neighbours falsely implicated the accused in the present matter. Accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS Ld. APP for the State
9. Ld. APP for State argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution and their testimony has remained unrebutted. He has stressed on the fact that the accused has been duly identified by FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 6 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 the witnesses in court, the case property has been duly identified, the witnesses have supported the prosecution and that the accused was caught red-handed by PW-1, Sh. Sunil Rajbhar. He has further submitted that on a combined reading of testimony of prosecution witnesses, commission of offences u/s. 454/380/411 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Ld. LAC for the Accused
10. On the other hand, Ld. LAC for the accused stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and he was shown to the witnesses at the police station itself. The case, he argued, is based on circumstantial evidence at best and there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. He has further pointed out several contradictions in the case of the prosecution. All of the said contradictions as pointed by Ld. LAC have been stated and dealt with hereinafter. Ld. LAC has further stated that accused is liable to be acquitted as the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as there are material contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
11. Arguments were heard at length from both the sides and the case file has been carefully perused.
In respect of charge u/s. 380 IPC
12. The first offence under consideration is offence u/s. 380 IPC.
FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 7 of 21CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 Section 380 IPC prescribes punishment for theft in a dwelling house, etc. Theft is defined under section 378 IPC. Sections 378 and 380 IPC are reproduced as under:
378. Theft.--Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
380. Theft in dwelling house, etc.--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.
13. Thus, a person is said to have committed theft in a dwelling house, if he moves a movable property in a building used for human dwelling or for custody of property, with dishonest intention out of the possession of another person and without such person's consent.
14. PW-1, i.e., the complainant, has deposed before the court that the accused entered his house and committed theft of purse of his son. He has further deposed that he woke up when his wife started shouting 'chor chor' and caught hold of the accused in the house itself and the son of the witness called the police at number 100 and the accused was handed over to the IO as soon as the IO arrived. IO then seized the stolen purse vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. The witness has duly supported the case of the prosecution and has identified the accused and the case property during his testimony before the court.
FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 8 of 21CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023
15. Ld. LAC for the accused, while submitting that the case against the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, has pointed out various contradictions in the statements of the witnesses.
16. Ld. LAC has drawn the attention of this court towards the statement of the complainant as PW-1 wherein the complainant has admitted that the gate of the first floor as well as ground floor was unlocked, however, before the police the witness has merely stated that the door of the house was open and the specifics have not been mentioned to the police. Ld. LAC for the accused has further submitted that the IO did not take the statements of any of the other tenants who had come to the scene of the crime.
17. Ld. LAC has stressed that the omissions as mentioned above are material omissions which go to the root of the matter. Ld. LAC has further submitted that the omission to record the statement of any of the other tenants shows that the recovery of the purse and other things mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/C is planted on the accused and that the complainant, PW-1 is deposing falsely in order to implicate the accused in this false case.
18. Ld. LAC has further stated that the accused never entered the house of the complainant and accused is facing trial due to a concocted story by the complainant. He has further stated that the accused was merely roaming of the street and the complainant asked the accused the reasons why accused was roaming in the street and due to some minor altercations, complainant in connivance with other neighbours has FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 9 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 falsely implicated the accused in the present matter.
19. Mere omissions to state to the police as to which door of the house was open cannot be said to be material omission on part of the complainant, especially when the complainant has himself admitted that the gate of the house was open. The complainant has remained consistent in his stand regarding the theft of the purse from his house by the accused. It is to be noted that even a person of ordinary prudence may skip mentioning the minute details.
20. In Appa Bhai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1998 SC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that undue importance must not be given to minor discrepancies and if the same do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case, such discrepancy may be discarded. The testimony of PW-1 is consistent with his statement given to the police, save for minor inconsistencies, and nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to impute falsehood.
21. In respect of the infirmities pointed out by Ld. LAC regarding the arrest of the accused and preparation of arrest memo, seizure memo and personal search memo, it is to be noted that those are merely procedural lacunas and the same do not negate the testimonies given by the complainant, PW-1. Preparation of the seizure memo and the personal search memo at the police station or at the spot do not change the fact that the purse was in fact seized from the possession of the accused and that he was searched by the police officials. Further, the fact of arrest of the accused is not disputed.
FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 10 of 21CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023
22. In respect of PW-1 i.e., the complainant, there are imputations by way of suggestions during cross-examination that the complainant is falsely implicating the accused because the complainant was under
apprehension that the accused might commit theft in his house and in the houses of the tenants. However, except for bald statements there is nothing on record to suggest otherwise. It is well settled law that the complainant cannot be stated to be an interested witness unless and until any cogent motive to falsely implicate the accused is imputed and proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Moreover, accused was duly identified by the complainant. No material or evidence has been placed on record to show any animosity or even prior acquaintance between PW-1, the complainant and the accused.
23. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 (as reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yogesh Singh v. Mahaveer Singh & Anr., AIR 2016 SC 5160) where it has been observed as follows:
A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 11 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.
24. When the facts of the present case are viewed from the prism of the above stated legal position, it is clear that except the imputations on the complainant by way of suggestions during cross-examination, there is nothing on record to show that there was any motive on the part of the complainant for falsely implicating the accused in the present case.
25. All the ingredients of the offence of theft u/s. 378 and 380 IPC have been fulfilled in the present matter. The moving of movable property, i.e., the mobile phones by the accused from the custody of the complainant and from her house with dishonest intention and without the consent of the complainant stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence punishable u/s. 380 IPC, i.e., theft in dwelling house, etc. In respect of charge u/s. 411 IPC
26. The second offence under consideration is offence u/s. 411 IPC. Section 411 IPC prescribes punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen property. Section 410 IPC defines stolen property. Sections 410 and 411 IPC are reproduced as under:
410. Stolen property.--Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as "stolen FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 12 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 property", whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property.
411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.--Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
27. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hiralal Babulal Soni vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 INSC 266, reiterated the ingredients of offence u/s. 411 IPC and same are reproduced as under:
32. In order to bring home the charge under Section 411 of the IPC, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove:
(i) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused;
(ii) that some persons other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it and
(iii) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property (See: 'Trimbak vs. State of M.P'-
AIR 1954 SC 39).
28. In respect of the second ingredient of the offence u/s. 411 IPC, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held in Rajjaua vs The State, AIR 1959 All 718, as follows:
While pointing out the second ingredient of Section 411 FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 13 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 I. P. C., their Lordships of the Supreme Court were only reiterating the well recognised distinction between a receiver and a thief. When the thief removes the stolen property from the possession of its owner and takes it into his own possession, he not only commits theft but is also in possession of stolen property knowing it to be stolen. He cannot, however, be convicted of both the offences. If he is the thief he possesses the stolen property in his capacity as a thief, and not as a receiver. It has, therefore, been held that the same person cannot be convicted of theft as well as of receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen."
29. It is proved from the statement of PW-1, the complainant, that the accused had stolen purse from the house of the complainant and was caught red-handed in the house itself with the purse. It is in view of the recovery of stolen purse from the possession of the accused that Ld. APP for the State has sought conviction of the accused for commission of offence u/s. 411 IPC.
30. However, in view of the above-mentioned judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, this court is of the considered opinion that since the accused has been found guilty for the offence of theft, having stolen the purse from the house of the complainant, accordingly, the accused cannot also be held guilty of receiving or retaining stolen property in terms of the provisions of section 411 IPC. As already held by Hon'ble Superior Courts, "A thief possesses the stolen property as a thief and not as a receiver." Thus, the charge u/s. 411 IPC does not hold any water and accused cannot be said FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 14 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 to have committed offence u/s. 411 IPC.
In respect of charge u/s. 454 IPC
31. The third offence under consideration is offence u/s. 454 IPC which prescribes punishment for commission of lurking house-trespass, or house-breaking, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment. Section 454 IPC reads as under:
454. Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.--
Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house- breaking, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; And if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to ten years.
32. In order to prove either of the two, i.e., Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, it is essential for the prosecution to establish that the accused has committed house trespass. The offence of criminal trespass is defined u/s. 441 IPC, offence of house trespass is defined u/s. 442 IPC and aggravated offences are defined thereafter. Section 441 and 442 IPC define criminal trespass and house trespass as under:
441. Criminal trespass.--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 FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 15 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".
442. House-trespass.--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".
Explanation.--The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.
33. As stated above, PW-1, i.e., the complainant, has deposed before the court that the accused entered his house and committed theft of a purse. He has further deposed that his wife caught hold of the accused in the house itself. This statement of the complainant proves that the accused had entered the house of the complainant with intent to commit an offence, i.e., theft and had in fact committed theft of a purse.
34. As already discussed above, accused has failed to bring anything on record to prove that PW-1 is an interested witness and that the witness is trying to falsely implicate the accused in the present matter. Complainant has also duly identified the accused before the court.
35. Commission of either of the two offences, i.e., lurking house- trespass, or house-breaking results in punishment u/s. 454 IPC. Section 443 IPC defines lurking house-trespass as under:
443. Lurking house-trespass.--Whoever commits house-
trespass having taken precautions to conceal such house- trespass from some person who has a right to exclude or eject the trespasser from the building, tent or vessel which is the subject of the trespass, is said to commit "lurking house-trespass".
FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 16 of 21CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023
36. After careful perusal of testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses from PW-1 to PW-3, there is nothing on record to remotely show that the accused had tried to conceal such house-trespass from the owner thereof, i.e., PW-1, the complainant. There is not even a single allegation in this regard by any of the prosecution witnesses.
37. In this regard, reliance is placed by this court on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Akhaya Behera vs. State Of Orissa, 1996 Cri.L.J. 334, wherein it was held as follows:
"House-trespass" is defined in Section 442. House- trespass may be aggravated by being committed in a surreptitious or in a violent manner. The former aggravated form of house-trespass is designated as "lurking house-trespass", the latter is designated as "house-breaking". The offence of "criminal trespass" as defined in Section 441, may be aggravated in several ways. It may be aggravated by the way in which it is committed and by the ends for which it is committed. House-trespass in every form may be aggravated by the time at which it is committed. Trespass of this sort has for obvious reasons, always been considered as a more serious offence when committed by night than when committed by day. More aggravated form of that sort of criminal trespass have been designated as house- trespass, lurking house-trespass, house breaking, lurking house-trespass by night and house breaking by night. In order to constitute lurking house-trespass the offender must take some active means to conceal his presence. The mere fact that a house-trespass it committed by night and darkness helped the accused to conceal his presence, does not make the offence one of lurking house-trespass. The mere fact that a house-trespass was FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 17 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 committed by night does not make the offence one of lurking house-trespass within the meaning of Section
457. In order to constitute lurking house-trespass, the offender must take some active means to conceal his presence. Where the accused made no attempt to conceal himself offence punishable under Section 457 is not committed.
(Emphasis Supplied)
38. It is clear from the perusal of the evidences placed on record and the testimonies of the witnesses, that the accused did not take any active steps to conceal his presence in the house of the complainant. Hence, in absence of any evidence in this regard, oral or documentary, it cannot be said that the accused has committed lurking house-trespass or lurking house-trespass within the meaning of sections 443 or 454 IPC.
39. The complainant, i.e., PW-1 has categorically stated in his statement before the court that the door at the ground floor and the first floor were open. Since the main door of the house was already unlocked when the accused entered the house of the complainant, hence, it cannot be said that the accused has entered the house in any one or more of the six ways as mentioned u/s. 445 of IPC, i.e., House-breaking and it cannot be said that the accused has committed house-breaking within the meaning of sections 445 or 457 IPC.
40. It is to be noted here that the accused has not been charged for offence u/s. 451 (II) IPC. In this regard, reliance is placed by this court on the provisions of section 222(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which states as follows:
FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 18 of 21CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023
222. When offence proved included in offence charged.
--(1)When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.
41. In view of the above discussion, it is established that accused had committed criminal trespass in a building used as a human dwelling, and thus, he had committed house trespass with intent to commit theft in a dwelling house which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years within the meaning of section 442 IPC, and accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence punishable u/s. 451 (II) IPC, i.e., house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, when the offence intended is theft and prosecution has failed to establish that the accused has committed offence punishable u/s. 454 IPC.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
42. All the material particulars deposed by PW-1 has been corroborated by the police witnesses. No material contradiction has been brought forth in the cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses. This goes on to support the version of the complainant given in her testimony before this court and the complaint given immediately after the theft to the police. The reliable deposition given by the witnesses against the accused, read with the identification of the accused FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 19 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 by the witnesses before the court, imply that the disclosure statement is not the only evidence against the accused. There is continuity in the entire chain of events narrated by the prosecution witnesses, where there is no contradiction as regards the event of entering the house and the theft and the fact that the accused was caught red handed.
43. Thus, there is no reason to doubt the testimony of the complainant and the other prosecution witnesses and there is nothing that has come in the testimony of the complainant and the other prosecution witnesses which would amount to any material contradiction or inconsistency. Hence, the case as against the accused stands established by the prosecution. The accused on the other hand has failed to explain the incriminating prosecution evidence in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC. He has chosen to not lead any evidence to disprove the case of the prosecution. Thus the accused has failed to raise any reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution, which is otherwise consistent.
44. From the testimony of the witnesses and material present on record, as discussed above, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused entered the house of the complainant with intent to commit theft and thereby committed theft of purse containing two aadhaar cards and Rs.150/- in cash. The accused has been correctly identified by the witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution and the defence has not brought any evidence to discredit these testimonies.
45. As a cumulative effect of the observations made above, I am of FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 20 of 21 CNR No. DLWT02-018717-2023 the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Pawan S/o Sh. Raj Kumar and he is hereby convicted for offences punishable under sections 380 and 451 (II) Indian Penal Code. The accused is acquitted of offences under sections 411 and 454 IPC.
46. One copy of this judgment be given to the accused free of cost and against due acknowledgment. Digitally signed ANSHUL by ANSHUL SINGHAL SINGHAL Date: 2025.08.01 16:47:16 +0530 Announced in Open Court (Anshul Singhal) on 01.08.2025 JMFC-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Note: This judgment contains 21 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signedANSHUL by ANSHUL SINGHAL SINGHAL Date: 2025.08.01 16:47:11 +0530 (Anshul Singhal) JMFC-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 449/23 State vs. Pawan Page No. 21 of 21