Interim Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: 1
FIR No. 80003511/2026
State Vs. Naveen
	PS: Roop Nagar
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-13, CENTRAL DISTRICT, DELHI
(Presided by: Ms. Rashi Raheja)
FIR No. 80003511/2026
Under Sections 305(a)/331(3)/317(2) BNS
Police Station Roop Nagar
State
Vs.
Naveen
S/o Lt. Sh. Veerpal
R/o H No. A207 Lal Bagh,
Azadpur, Delhi.
…Accused
Date of Institution : 25.06.2026
Date of Judgment : 28.09.2026
Final Order : Convicted
JUDGMENT
1 Brief facts of the case:
1.1 In the instant case, the accused namely Naveen has been
arraigned to face trial for commission of offence punishable
u/s 331(3)/305(a)/317(2) BNS based on an FIR by the
complainant.
1.2 The case of the prosecution is that on that on 11.01.2026,
between 12:45 PM and 05:30 PM, accused Naveen S/o Late
Sh. Veer Pal allegedly broke open the lock of the house of the
complainant and entered therein with the intention to commit
-- 1 of 14 --
2
FIR No. 80003511/2026
State Vs. Naveen
	PS: Roop Nagar
theft. Thereafter, the accused committed theft of two mobile
phones, i.e. Realme Narzo and Samsung, along with water
steel taps, flush wall and water meter from the said house. On
29.04.2026, at A-207, Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi, the accused
was found in possession of the stolen Realme Narzo mobile
phone belonging to the complainant Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal,
which was allegedly kept on the bed in the said house, and
that the accused had dishonestly received or retained the same
knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen.
1.3 The complete copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the
accused and charge u/s 331(3)/305(a)/317(2) BNS was
framed against the accused on 06.07.2026. Thereafter, the
charge was read out and explained to the accused to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2 Prosecution Evidence:
2.1
PW-1 Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal: The witness deposed that he
was residing at the abovesaid address alongwith his family.
On 11.01.2026 at 12:00 Noon, he alongwith his wife went to
Model Town. Thereafter, at about 03:00 PM, they came back
to their abovesaid house and saw that the lock of the back
door of the house was broken and the door was already open.
Thereafter, when they searched their house, it was found that
04-05 water taps were stolen alongwith two mobile phones
i.e. make Samsung and Realme Narzo and one water meter
which was installed outside the house. Thereafter, he checked
the CCTV cameras installed outside and inside their house
-- 2 of 14 --
3
FIR No. 80003511/2026
State Vs. Naveen
	PS: Roop Nagar
and one boy was clearly seen entering and exiting the house
after committing the said theft. He stayed inside their house
for about 40 minutes. Thereafter, he informed about the
incident at the PS telephonically and also lodged the online
FIR regarding the incident. Thereafter, IO came to his house
and he showed him the spot of incident and he prepared the
site plan of the spot at his instance, which is now Ex. PW-1/A
bearing his signature at point A. He also handed over the
CCTV footage of the incident in one pendrive alongwith
certificate u/s 63(4)(C) BSA to the IO. The said certificate is
Ex. PW-1/B bearing his signature at point A. The pendrive
make Sandisk, colour red and black, was shown to the
witness and the witness correctly identified the same. The
pendrive is Ex. P-1. One photograph of the accused of the
relevant day was shown to the witness and the witness
correctly identified the accused, who was wearing red colour
cap and black full sleeve T-shirt and lower and sandals. The
said photograph is Ex. P-2. He recorded his statement qua the
said facts on 13.01.2026 and he was discharged. Later on, he
got the information from the IO that one of the stolen mobile
phones, make Realme Narzo, was recovered from the
accused. He got the abovesaid mobile phone and got the same
released on superdari. He brought the said mobile phone
make Realme Narzo. The said mobile phone is Ex. P-3 and
three photographs of the said mobile phone were shown to
the witness and the witness correctly identified the mobile
phone. The said photographs are Ex. P-4 (colly). The incident
-- 3 of 14 --
4
FIR No. 80003511/2026
State Vs. Naveen
	PS: Roop Nagar
took place on 11.01.2026. The accused present in the Court
was correctly identifiedby him. The said pendrive already Ex.
P-1 was played with the permission of the Court and the same
was found containing two video files of two different cameras
installed at two different locations outside the house of the
complainant. The perusal of both the CCTV footages clearly
showed that the accused, who was wearing red colour cap and
black colour full sleeve T-shirt and lower and sandals, was
standing outside the house of the complainant at around 01:40
PM and broke open the lock of the said house using a brick at
around 01:48 PM and trespassed into the said house.
Thereafter, at about 02:02 PM, the accused could be seen
exiting the said house alongwith a polybag containing
articles. The complainant clearly identified the said CCTV
footages of his house and that of the accused. The footage
contained the date, time and day of the recording of the said
footage i.e. 11.01.2026, Sunday. The witness was cross-
examined at length by Ld. LADC for the accused.
2.2
PW-2/Ct. Ravinder: The witness stated that on 29.04.2026, he
was posted as Ct. at PS Roop Nagar. On that day, he joined
the investigation with IO/HC Sachin Kumar. The accused
was in police custody. The accused was taken to his house
and at his instance, recovery of one mobile phone was made
from the bed of the accused. The mobile phone make Realme
Narzo was found to be stolen in the present case. IO seized
the aforesaid mobile phone, which is Ex. PW2/A bearing his
signature at point A. IO made videography of the recovery on
-- 4 of 14 --
5
FIR No. 80003511/2026
State Vs. Naveen
	PS: Roop Nagar
e-Sakshya. Thereafter, they returned to PS after medical
examination of the accused and after the case property was
deposited in PS Malkhana. IO recorded supplementary
disclosure statement of the accused, which is Ex. PW2/B
bearing his signature at point A. IO also prepared the
recovery site plan, which is Ex. PW2/C bearing his signature
at point A. The accused was sent to JC. IO recorded his
statement. The accused was present in the Court and was
correctly identified by the witness. The case property had
already been identified in the testimony of PW-1. The witness
was cross-examined by Ld. LADC for the accused.
2.3
PW-3/Ct. Nasim Alam: The witness stated that on
27.04.2026, he alongwith IO/HC Sachin Kumar was doing
beat patrolling duty in the area of A Block, Kamla Nagar,
Delhi. While doing patrolling duty, they found one person in
a suspicious condition and gave him a signal to stop.
However, after seeing them, he started taking quick steps.
Thereafter, he was overpowered by the witness alongwith
IO/HC Sachin Kumar. He was inquired about, upon which he
disclosed his name as Naveen. His previous involvement was
checked and he was found to be involved in various cases. IO
arrested the accused vide arrest memo, which is Ex. PW3/A
bearing the witness's signature at point A. IO conducted the
personal search of the accused vide personal search memo,
which is Ex. PW3/B bearing the witness's signature at point
A. IO recorded the disclosure and supplementary disclosure
statements, which are Ex. PW3/C and Ex. PW3/D
-- 5 of 14 --
6
FIR No. 80003511/2026
State Vs. Naveen
	PS: Roop Nagar
respectively, both bearing the witness's signature at point A.
IO recorded his statement. The accused was present in the
Court today and was correctly identified by the witness. The
witness was cross-examined by Ld. LADC for the accused.
2.4
PW-4/ Sandeep: The witness stated that on 11.01.2026, while
he was posted as HC at PS Roop Nagar, the present e-FIR
was marked to him. He went to the place of incident i.e.
A-107, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. He met the complainant, Sh.
Rakesh Aggarwal. The complainant stated that on
11.01.2026, some unknown person had, after breaking the
lock of his house, committed theft of 02 mobile phones, water
motor and 04 water taps. He had prepared the site plan at the
instance of the complainant, which is already Ex. PW-1/A
bearing his signature at point B. He had recorded the
statement of the complainant u/s 180 BNSS. He had taken
into possession the CCTV footage. On the basis of the said
CCTV footage, he had obtained photographs of the accused.
Thereafter, the case was transferred to the other IO as he had
undergone a training course. The photographs of the accused
are already Ex. P-2. The pendrive containing the CCTV
footage is already Ex. P-1. Nil, opportunity given for cross-
examination.
2.5
PW-5/HC Sachin Kumar: The witness stated that on
27.04.2026, while he was posted as HC at PS Roop Nagar,
further investigation of the present case was marked to him.
During the course of investigation, the identity of the accused
was revealed as Naveen, who was involved in other criminal
-- 6 of 14 --
7
FIR No. 80003511/2026
State Vs. Naveen
	PS: Roop Nagar
cases. They had apprehended the accused. He had arrested
him vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-3/A bearing his
signature at point B. He had served the reasons of arrest and
grounds of arrest upon the accused, which are Ex. PW-5/A
and Ex. PW-5/B, both bearing his signature at point A. He
had conducted his personal search vide memo already Ex.
PW-3/B bearing his signature at point B. He had recorded his
disclosure statement already Ex. PW-3/C bearing his
signature at point B. The accused disclosed that he could get
the case property recovered. On the same day, he had
recorded his supplementary disclosure statement already Ex.
PW-3/D bearing his signature at point B. On 29.04.2026, one
mobile phone make Realme was recovered at the instance of
the accused. He had seized the same vide seizure memo
already Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signature at point B. On the
same day, he had recorded his disclosure statement, which is
already Ex. PW-2/B bearing his signature at point B. He had
prepared the site plan of the place of recovery, which is
already Ex. PW-2/C bearing his signature at point B. The
above said mobile phone was released on superdarinama as
per the direction of the Hon'ble Court vide panchnama, which
is Ex. PW-5/C bearing his signature at point A. At this stage,
the witness correctly identified the mobile phone i.e. Realme
vide 02 photographs, which are already Ex. P-4 (colly.). At
this stage, the witness correctly identified the accused, who
was produced from JC. He had prepared the chargesheet and
filed it before the concerned Court. The witness stated that
-- 7 of 14 --
8
FIR No. 80003511/2026
State Vs. Naveen
	PS: Roop Nagar
inadvertently he had not cited the Duty Officer as PW in the
list of witnesses of the chargesheet. Nil, opportunity given for
cross-examination.
3 Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC.
3.1 On completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was
examined u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C wherein he denied all the
allegations levelled against him. He further stated that he has
been falsely implicated in the present matter. An opportunity
was granted to the accused to lead evidence but he did not
lead evidence. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the
State and the accused.
4 Final arguments:
4.1 Submissions advanced on behalf of the State-
Ld. APP for the state argued that there was no substantial
delay in the registration of the FIR in the present matter. It is
further stated that all the witnesses have supported the
prosecution and nothing contrary has come on record in his
cross-examination. The accused did not step into the witness
box and did not lead evidence in which case a presumption
can be raised that accused is guilty of the offence for which
they have been charged. It is further stated that the
prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused is liable to be
convicted.
-- 8 of 14 --
9
FIR No. 80003511/2026
State Vs. Naveen
	PS: Roop Nagar
4.2 Submissions advanced on behalf of accused.
It is argued by Ld. LADC for the accused that no public
person has been made a witness and the complainant has not
personally seen the incident. It is further argued that the
complainant has failed to produce the bills and the accused is
seen only carrying a polythene bag and the alleged stolen
articles are not visible. It is, therefore, argued that the
prosecution has failed in proving the case beyond reasonable
doubt and hence, accused is entitled to acquittal in the present
matter.
4.3 Heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State
and Ld. LADC for the accused. This court has considered the
submissions so advanced and carefully perused the material
on record.
5 Appreciation of facts/ analysis and findings:
5.1 It is cardinal principle of law that the accused is presumed to
be innocent until proven guilty. The case of the prosecution
should stand on its own leg and the burden of proving the
guilt of the accused lies exclusively on the prosecution. The
prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt, if any, must go in
favour of the accused.
5.2 The prosecution has in total examined 05 witnesses in order
to prove the guilt of the accused person. Apart from the
complainant, remaining 04 witnesses are witnesses of
investigation therefore, it is utmost important that the
-- 9 of 14 --
10
FIR No. 80003511/2026
State Vs. Naveen
	PS: Roop Nagar
testimony of the complainant is reliable, trustworthy and
inspires confidence especially when no other public person
has been made a witness by the prosecution.
5.3 Coming to the testimony of PW-1, the complainant has
deposed that on 11.01.2026 at 12.00 noon, he alongwith his
wife went to Model Town and when they came back at
03.00PM, they found that the lock of the back door of the
house bearing no. A-107, Kamla Nagar, Delhi was broken
and the door was open. On searching the house, it was found
that 4-5 water taps alongwith water meter and 02 mobile
phones make Samsung and Realme Narzo were stolen. The
complainant checked the CCTV cameras installed outside and
inside the house. In the CCTV camera, one boy was clearly
seen entering and exiting the house after committing theft. He
telephonically informed about the incident at the PS
concerned and lodged an online FIR regarding the incident.
IO went to his house and he showed the spot of incident. He
proved site plan Ex. PW-1/A by identifying his signature at
point A. He also proved his signature at point A on certificate
u/s 63(4)(c) BSA Ex. PW-1/B which was handed over to the
IO alongwith the CCTV footage of the incident. He identified
the pendrive Ex. PW-1. He identified the photograph of the
accused Ex. PW-2 which was extracted from the above
CCTV footage. The witness correctly identified the accused
in the court. He also identified the accused in the CCTV
footage as the person wearing red colour cap, black colour
full sleeve T-shirt, lower and sandals standing outside the
-- 10 of 14 --
11
FIR No. 80003511/2026
State Vs. Naveen
	PS: Roop Nagar
house of the complainant at 01.40PM. The accused is seen
opening the lock of the house using brick and thereafter,
entering in the house. The accused can be seen exiting the
house with a polythene containing stolen articles. The footage
contains date i.e. 11.01.2026 and time of the incident.
Therefore, the complainant has not only the identified the
accused in person but has also provided authenticity to the
CCTV footage available on record as he had filed requisite
certificate under Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam the CCTV
footage.
5.4 In the cross-examination of the witness, one of the points
taken by the Ld. LADC of the accused is that of the witness
was not present at the spot and that he did not see the incident
himself. However, such an argument is not tenable as thefts
are generally committed in such houses which are found
locked and nobody is present at the house so as to avoid the
chances of being getting caught. The other ground taken is
that the statement of the complainant was recorded after two
days of the registration of the FIR. It is to be noted that the
complainant got the online FIR registered immediately
wherein the complainant has mentioned details of the stolen
property. Delay caused by the police in recording of the
statement of the complainant cannot be attributed to the
complainant especially when the complainant has voluntarily
deposed that the SHO of the concerned PS came to the spot
on the same date. The next point taken is non-providing of the
bills of the alleged stolen property, however, it is a matter of
-- 11 of 14 --
12
FIR No. 80003511/2026
State Vs. Naveen
	PS: Roop Nagar
common parlance that generally bills are not kept for longer
durations. It is also to be noted that the matter is not related to
deciding ownership of the stolen property for which
production of the bills is mandatory rather it is related to
deciding the alleged facts of house-breaking and stealing the
property therefore, non-production of the bills is not fatal to
the case of prosecution.
5.5 All the investigating witnesses PW-2 to PW-5 have identified
the accused. With respect to the recovery of the alleged
mobile phone, it is to be seen as to from where the mobile
phone was recovered. PW-2 deposed that the accused was
taken to his house while he was in police custody and at his
instance, recovery of one mobile phone was made from the
bed of the accused. Therefore, it is not the case that the
mobile phone was recovered from a place to which general
public had access rather it was recovered from the house of
the accused. Hence, chances of plantation of the mobile
phone upon the accused are ruled out. With respect to
arresting of the accused before recording his disclosure
statement, it has been explained by PW-3 that the arrest was
made as he saw the accused committing the alleged offence in
the CCTV footage 2-3 months prior to the apprehension of
the accused. Even the reasons of the arrest Ex. PW-5/A
mentions one of the reasons as committing theft in the above
mentioned FIR. Therefore, the arrest of the accused is
justified.
5.6 With respect to the arguments that the CCTV footage does
-- 12 of 14 --
13
FIR No. 80003511/2026
State Vs. Naveen
	PS: Roop Nagar
not show the accused carrying the mobile phone, however,
the accused is seen in the CCTV footage entering the house of
the complainant and thereafter, getting out of the house of the
complainant with a polythene. When the complainant reached
the house, he found that the articles as mentioned above have
been stolen which sufficiently prove that the last person who
was seen in the house had stolen the articles and as the mobile
phone has been recovered from the accused, the presumption
in Section 119 Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhinam is drawn against
the accused. Therefore, nothing contrary could be extracted
from the complainant in his cross-examination and the
testimony of the witness/complainant appears to be reliable
and trustworthy.
5.7 With respect to examination of independent witnesses, it was
held by the Hon’ble Apex Court i
n Rizwan Khan vs The State
Of Chhattisgarh (decided on 10 September, 2020 AIR 2020
Supreme Court 4297) as under:
“It is settled law that the testimony of the
official witnesses cannot be rejected on the
ground of non-corroboration by independent
witness. As observed and held by this Court in
catena of decisions, examination of
independent witnesses is not an indispensable
requirement and such non-examination is not
necessarily fatal to the prosecution case”
5.8 In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, the
prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt,
by way of the oral and document evidence, that the accused
Naveen on 11.01.2026, between 12:45 PM and 03:00 PM,
-- 13 of 14 --
14
FIR No. 80003511/2026
State Vs. Naveen
	PS: Roop Nagar
entered the house of the complainant by breaking open the
lock of the main door using a brick and after entering the
house, he committed theft of certain articles including
Realme Narzo mobile which was later on recovered from his
possession. Hence, accused Naveen stands convicted for
offence u/s 305(a)/331(3) BNS. As the accused has been
convicted for the above sections, he is acquitted for offence
u/s 317(2) BNS as the charge was framed in alternative.
Pronounced in Open Court today.
(RASHI RAHEJA)
JMFC-13, Central District,
Tis Hazari, Delhi, 28.09.2026
-- 14 of 14 --