Delhi District Court
State vs Nitesh on 9 January, 2026
Page 1 of 13
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
JMFC-01, SAKET COURT (SOUTH) NEW DELHI.
FIR NO.: 511/2020
U/S: 380/457/511/34 IPC
PS: FATEHPUR BERI
STATE
VS.
(1). NITESH, S/O SH. SURENDER SHRIVASTAV,
R/o H. No. B-123, Devli Road, Devli Gaon, Tigri,
New Delhi.
(2). RAHUL, S/O SH. BABU LAL PRASAD SINGH,
R/o H. No. C-184, Jawahar Park, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi. .... ACCUSED PERSONS
1. CR Case No. : 4146/2021
2. The date of offence : 28.12.2020
3. The name of the complainant : Sh. Inderpal.
4. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. The date of order : 09.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, Nitesh and Rahul ("Accused persons") are facing trial for the allegation that on 28.12.2020 at about 02:00 am, at Ranjit Tea Stall, Khasra No.317, Main Mandi Road, Sultanpur, Delhi, accused persons, in furtherance of common Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No:511/2020 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Nitesh & Anr. 2026.01.09 17:12:28 +0530 Page 2 of 13 intention, entered in the aforementioned premises after sunset and before sunrise with intent to commit offence of theft having taking precautions to conceal their entry in the said premises from the owner of the property and attempted to commit theft by entering into the shop. Thus, the accused persons are charge- sheeted for the offence punishable u/s 457/380/511/34 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO. Consequently, accused persons were summoned after taking cognizance of offence. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the charge u/s 457/380/511/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined six witnesses. The complainant/PW-1 Sh. Inderpal has deposed that he runs a shop namely "Ranjit Tea Shop" situated at Khasra No. 317, Main Mandi Road, Sultanpur, New Delhi. On the day of incident, he received a call from one of his acquaintances informing him that someone had opened the shutter of his shop and entered inside. On receiving the phone call, he immediately reached the spot. He saw that a pick-up vehicle was parked in front of his shop and a person was standing near the vehicle. In total, five persons were present--one driver, two persons sitting inside the pick-up, one person standing near it, and one person inside the shop. Upon seeing him, the pick-up driver fled from the spot with the vehicle, and the person standing near the pick-up also managed to escape in the same vehicle. Thereafter, he went inside the shop where he found a boy Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.01.09
FIR No:511/2020 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Nitesh & Anr. 17:12:36
+0530
Page 3 of 13
who had already broken the lock. He apprehended that boy, who disclosed his name as Nitesh, son of Surender, resident of Devli Village. Meanwhile, members of the public and some neighbors also gathered there. Police officials on patrolling duty also reached the spot. He handed over the accused Nitesh to the police officials. He, alongwith the police officials and the accused, went to the police station in the police vehicle. He gave his statement vide Ex.PW1/A. The police officials prepared the site plan at his instance. The IO arrested the accused Nitesh in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B. The IO conducted the personal search of the accused Nitesh vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/C. The IO also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Nitesh. Thereafter, the IO recorded his further statement. Witness was duly cross-examined.
4. PW-2 HC Amit has deposed that on the intervening night of 27/28.12.2020, he was posted as a Constable at PS-Fatehpur Beri. On that day, he was on night ERV duty along with SI Om Prakash, and his duty hours were from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am. During patrolling, at about 02:15 am, when they were going from CDR Chowk towards Jonapur on Main Mandi Road and reached in front of Riyashat Farm, they noticed a crowd gathered there. Upon seeing the police party, the crowd dispersed. At the spot, they met a person namely Inderpal, S/o Sh. Rohtash, R/o Bhura Mohalla, Jonapur, New Delhi, who was the owner of Ranjit Tea Shop. Upon inquiry, they learned that he had apprehended a person named Nitesh. He produced the apprehended boy before him and informed SI Om Prakash that the boy had entered his tea shop by breaking open the shutter lock with the intention to Digitally commit theft. Upon further inquiry, they came to know that the ASHISH signed by ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No:511/2020 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Nitesh & Anr. 2026.01.09 17:12:45 +0530 Page 4 of 13 boy's name was Nitesh, S/o Sh. Surendra Shrivastava, R/o H. No. B-123, Devli Village, New Delhi. They made both the complainant and the accused sit in their ERV vehicle and took them to PS-Fatehpur Beri, where they were produced before the IO/SI Braham Pal Singh. The IO then recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Witness was duly cross-examined.
5. PW-3 Om Prakash (Retd. SI) has deposed that in the intervening night of 27/28.12.2020, he was posted as an SI at PS- Fatehpur Beri. On that day, his duty hours were from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. He, along with Ct. Amit, was on ERV duty. During patrolling in the Government Gypsy, at about 2:15 am, when they were going from the side of CDR Chowk towards Jonapur on Main Mandi Road, they reached in front of Riyashat Farm and saw that many people had gathered there. After seeing the police vehicle, the crowd dispersed. They stopped the vehicle, and there they met the owner of Ranjit Tea Stall, namely Sh. Inderpal, S/o Rohtash, R/o Bhura Mohalla, Jonapur. He produced a boy before them and informed them that the boy had entered his tea and sweets shop by breaking the shutter lock with the intention to commit theft. Upon inquiry, they came to know that the boy's name was Nitesh, S/o Surendra Shrivastava, R/o Devli Gaon, Delhi. Thereafter, they brought both the complainant and the accused in the police vehicle to the police station and produced them before SI Brahm Pal. The IO then recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Witness was duly cross-examined.
6. PW-4 Retd. SI Bhrampal Singh (IO of this case) has deposed that on 28.12.2020, he was on night emergency duty along with Ct. Chetan, and he was present at the police station.
Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No:511/2020 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Nitesh & Anr. 2026.01.09 17:12:57 +0530 Page 5 of 13 ERV Incharge SI Om Prakash, who was on duty along with Ct. Amit, brought Nitesh, S/o Surendra Shrivastava, R/o Devli, Khanpur. He came to know the name of the said accused upon inquiry. The complainant, Sh. Inderpal, S/o Sh. Rohtash, R/o Jonapur, Delhi, was also brought by the ERV officials, and he ascertained the complainant's name upon inquiry. He recorded the statement of the complainant regarding the incident vide Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, he prepared a tehrir and got the FIR registered vide Ex.PW4/A. After registration of the FIR, further investigation of the case was marked to him. He then inspected the site along with the complainant and prepared the site plan at the complainant's instance vide Ex.PW4/B. He searched for the weapon or instrument used by the accused to break the shutter; however, no such instrument was found. Since the place was on a public way, anyone could have taken the instrument. Thereafter, he conducted an inquiry from accused Nitesh and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW4/C. He then arrested accused Nitesh vide Ex.PW1/B. He conducted the personal search of accused Nitesh vide Ex.PW1/C. Subsequently, at the instance of accused Nitesh, he apprehended another accused, Rahul, S/o Babu Lal, R/o Sangam Vihar, in the area of Sangam Vihar, who was on his vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LY-2880 (pick- up). He brought accused Rahul along with the offending vehicle to PS-Fatehpur Beri. He inquired from accused Rahul and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW4/D. Thereafter, he arrested accused Rahul vide Ex.PW4/E. He conducted the personal search of accused Rahul vide Ex.PW4/F. He seized the offending vehicle vide Ex.PW4/G. He deposited the case property in the malkhana vide the seizure memo. He recorded the Digitally statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During ASHISH signed by ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No:511/2020 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Nitesh & Anr. 2026.01.09 17:13:47 +0530 Page 6 of 13 investigation, he came to know that accused Rahul had already filed an e-FIR regarding the theft of the offending vehicle on 28.12.2020 vide Ex.PW4/H. Accused Rahul had lodged this false FIR to save himself, as he was present along with accused Nitesh in the offending vehicle at the time of the incident. Thereafter, both accused persons were sent to AIIMS Hospital for their medical examination. After the medical examination, they were produced before the Duty MM, Saket Courts, from where they were sent to judicial custody. He then completed the investigation, prepared the charge-sheet, and submitted it before the concerned Court. Witness was duly cross-examined.
7. PW-5 Ct. Deepak has deposed that in the intervening night of 27/28.12.2020, he joined the investigation of the present case. The IO, SI Brahmpal, took accused Nitesh along with him and Ct. Rajveer to Jawahar Park, Sangam Vihar. There, at the instance of accused Nitesh, the second accused Rahul was apprehended from his house. The IO made inquiries from him and took into custody one Mahindra pick-up vehicle which was parked in front of the house of accused. Thereafter, the IO brought accused Rahul along with the Mahindra pick-up to the police station. At the police station, the IO further interrogated accused Rahul and thereafter arrested him vide arrest memo. He conducted the personal search of the accused Rahul vide the personal search memo. After the inquiry, the IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused. The IO seized the Mahindra pick-up vehicle vide seizure memo. Both the accused persons were taken to AIIMS Hospital for their medical examination. After the medical examination, they were produced before the Digitally Court, from where they were sent to judicial custody. The IO also signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No:511/2020 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Nitesh & Anr. 2026.01.09 17:13:53 +0530 Page 7 of 13 made inquiries from him and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Witness was duly cross-examined.
8. PW-6 Ct. Rajveer has deposed that on 28.12.2020, he joined the investigation of the present case. The IO, SI Brahmpal, took accused Nitesh along with him and Ct. Deepak to Jawahar Park, Sangam Vihar. There, at the instance of accused Nitesh, the second accused Rahul was apprehended from his house. The IO made inquiries from him and took into custody one Mahindra pick-up vehicle which was parked in front of the house of accused. Thereafter, the IO brought accused Rahul along with the Mahindra pick-up vehicle to the police station. At the police station, the IO further inquired from accused Rahul and thereafter arrested him vide arrest memo vide Ex.PW4/E. The IO conducted the personal search of accused Rahul vide personal search memo vide Ex.PW4/F. After inquiry, the IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Rahul vide Ex.PW4/D. The IO also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Nitesh vide Ex.PW4/C. The IO seized the Mahindra pick-up vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/G. Both accused persons were thereafter taken to AIIMS Hospital for their medical examination. After the medical examination, they were produced before the Court, from where they were sent to judicial custody. The IO also made inquiries from him and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Witness was duly cross-examined.
9. It is pertinent to mention that the accused persons have also admitted the genuineness of FIR and Certificate u/s 65B IEA supporting the FIR without admitting the content of the same.
Prosecution evidence was thereafter closed. Digitally
signed by
ASHISH
ASHISH KUMAR
KUMAR MEENA
FIR No:511/2020 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Nitesh & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.01.09
17:14:01
+0530
Page 8 of 13
10. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, to which they stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case and recovery of case property has been falsely implanted upon them. Further, the accused persons did not wish to lead defence evidence.
11. Final arguments heard. Case file perused. Short point for determination before this court is as under:-
''Whether that on 28.12.2020 at about 02:00 am, at Ranjit Tea Stall, Khasra No.317, Main Mandi Road, Sultanpur, Delhi, accused persons, in furtherance of common intention, entered in the aforementioned premises after sunset and before sunrise with intent to commit offence of theft having taking precautions to conceal their entry in the said premises from the owner of the property and attempted to commit theft by entering into the shop. Thus, the accused persons have committed an offence punishable u/s 457/380/511/34 IPC.
12. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that the ocular and the documentary evidence on record have proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for the state submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to convict the accused persons and hence prayed for conviction of accused persons as per the evidence produced by the prosecution Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA FIR No:511/2020 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Nitesh & Anr. 2026.01.09 17:14:08 +0530 Page 9 of 13 witnesses.
13. Ld. LAC for accused submitted that accused Nitesh is innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter. Ld. Counsel for the accused has pointed out the material contradiction made during the examination of prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that there are several contradictions in the statement of witnesses. Further, Ld. Counsel for accused Rahul has submitted that there is no iota of evidence qua the accused. It is submitted that the accused Rahul has been impleaded only on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Nitesh. There is no evidence to prove that the accused Rahul was present at the spot. Thus, it is submitted that the accused Rahul be acquitted.
14. Heard the arguments addressed by both parties at length and perused the available record.
15. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Since, there is a strong presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and rebuttal of the same always lies upon the prosecution. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal. Similar observations were Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
FIR No:511/2020 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Nitesh & Anr. 2026.01.09 17:14:13 +0530 Page 10 of 13 made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kaliram vs State of Himanchal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 and held that accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt. In another case titled as Mousam Singh Roy & ors. vs. State of West Benga (2003) 12 SCC 377, wherein it was held that burden of proof in criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. It was further observed that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.
16. It is the case of prosecution that on the day of incident, complainant received a call from one of his acquaintances informing him that someone had opened the shutter of his shop and entered inside. On receiving the phone call, he immediately reached the spot and saw that a pick-up vehicle was parked in front of his shop and a person was standing near the vehicle. In total, five persons were present--one driver, two persons sitting inside the pick-up, one person standing near it, and one person inside the shop. Upon seeing him, the pick-up driver fled from the spot with the vehicle, and the person standing near the pick- up also managed to escape in the same vehicle. Thereafter, he went inside the shop where he found an accused who had already broken the lock. He apprehended accused Nitesh red handed and informed the police official. Thereafter, police reached the spot and arrested the accused. During the course of investigation, on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Nitesh, the IO arrested the accused Rahul and seized the offending vehicle used Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR FIR No:511/2020 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Nitesh & Anr. KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2026.01.09
17:14:20
+0530
Page 11 of 13
in the commission offence. Thus, the accused persons have been charged u/s 457/380/511/34 IPC.
17. In order to prove Section 457/380/511/34 IPC, the prosecution must establish the identity of accused persons. In this regard, the prosecution has examined the complainant Inderpal as PW-1, who has deposed that the he had caught the accused Nitesh red handed while committing theft inside the shop premises. Thereafter, he immediately informed the police, who arrested the accused Nitesh at the spot. Statement of complainant is duly corroborated by each testimony of the police officials present at the Spot. PW-2 HC Amit, PW-SI Omprakash and PW- 4 SI Brahmapal Singh have unambiguously proved the deposition of the complainant. Moreover, this Court finds no reason as to why the complainant or the police officials would falsely implicate the accused Nitesh, there being no previous rivalry/enmity against him. The defence has failed to prove on record, any motive which could be assigned to the complainant for falsely implicating the accused, especially in light of the fact that the accused Nitesh was a stranger to the complainant. Not even an iota of evidence, much less cogent, has been brought on record, to prove the defence, advanced on behalf of the accused Nitesh that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. There nothing on record to discredit the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses Thus, it is duly proved that the accused Nitesh entered into the shop of the complainant after sunset and before sunrise with an intent to commit theft after taking precautions to conceal his entry. He broke locks to enter into the premises; however, he was caught red handed by the complainant while committing theft. The prosecution has proved Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No:511/2020 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Nitesh & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.01.09 17:14:26 +0530 Page 12 of 13 its case qua accused Nitesh beyond reasonable doubt.
18. Further, it is also the case of the prosecution that the complainant saw one pick-up vehicle parked in front of his shop.
Total Five persons were present near his shop. One accused (Nitesh) was present inside the shop and other accused persons were acting in furtherance of commission of the offence to assist the accused Nitesh. Upon arrest, the accused Nitesh disclosed involvement of the accused Rahul. Thus, on the basis of the said disclosure statement, the accused Rahul was arrested. The IO also recorded Rahul disclosure statement and seized the vehicle used in commission of offence.
19. As discussed above, Rahul is impleaded as an accused in the present matter only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused Nitesh, which is per se not admissible in evidence. Furthermore, the complainant neither in his testimony nor complaint has disclosed the registration number of the unknown vehicle parked in front his shop. Hence, the vehicle allegedly used in commission of offence has been seized by the IO on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Rahul, which also per se not admissible in evidence. There is no other evidence on record establish the identity of the accused Rahul. There is no evidence available on record to even show that the accused Rahul acted in furtherance of common intention with co-accused Nitesh or to show his active involvement in the present case.
20. Thus, in the backdrop of aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances and material available on record, the prosecution Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA FIR No:511/2020 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Nitesh & Anr. MEENA Date:
2026.01.09 17:14:39 +0530 Page 13 of 13 has proved the charges u/s 380/457/511/34 IPC against the accused Nitesh S/o Surender Shrivastava beyond reasonable doubts. Whereas, Accused Rahul Kumar S/o Sh. Babu Lal Prasad Singh is liable to get acquitted.
21. Hence, accused Rahul Kumar, S/o Sh. Babu Lal Prasad Singh stands acquitted for the offence punishable under section 380/457/511/34 IPC, he has been charged with. Ordered accordingly.
22. Whereas, the accused Nitesh S/o Surender Shrivastava is convicted for offences u/s 380/457/511/34 IPC.
23. Let the copy of judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
24. Let the convict be heard on point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.01.2026. IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT RUNS INTO THIRTEEN PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS SIGNATURE OF THE UNDERSIGNED.
Digitally signedASHISH by ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2026.01.09 17:14:48 +0530 (ASHISH KUMAR MEENA) JMFC-01/SAKET COURT(SOUTH), NEW DELHI/09.01.2026 FIR No:511/2020 PS: Fatehpur Beri State Vs. Nitesh & Anr.