Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Brief Statement of the Reasons For The Decision

1) The accused Rohtash has been sent to face trial for the commission of offences under Section 380/457/511 of the Indian Penal Code (herein PS Keshav Puram U/s 380/457/511 IPC referred to as 'IPC') upon the allegations that on 17.01.2018 at about 03:45 am at H No. G-56/1, Lawrence Road Industrial area, Hanuman Mandir, Keshav Puram Delhi he had attempted to commit house breaking by night in order to commit theft from Hanuman Mandir and while so attempting, he had broken the lock of the Mandir with the help of an iron rod.

2) After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court against the accused Rohtash upon which cognizance of the offences was taken and copy of the chargesheet alongwith the documents was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3) After consideration of submissions, charge was framed against the accused for the commission of offences under section 380/457/511 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

13)To prove the offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code which prescribes punishment for theft in a dwelling house/ place used as a custody of property, it was essential for the prosecution to prove the factum of theft as defined under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code.

PS Keshav Puram U/s 380/457/511 IPC Hence it was for the prosecution to prove that there was the intention to take dishonestly; that the property was movable property; that the property was taken out from the possession of any person without his consent; that there was some moving of the said property to such taking and that the theft was committed in a dwelling house or place used for safe custody of property. To prove the offence under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, it was for the prosecution to also prove that the accused had attempted to commit the theft.

Decision

19) In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to prove its case by creditworthy evidence which inspires the confidence of the Court and not on the basis of conjectures and surmises. However, in this case, the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus and failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and thus the accused Rohtash S/o Sh. Ram Charan, is given the benefit of the doubt and is hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 457/380/511 IPC in FIR no. 32/2018, PS Keshav Puram.