Delhi District Court
State vs . Christopher & Ors. on 31 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PAWAN KUMAR: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE01 (SOUTHEAST), SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Christopher & Ors.
FIR No. 64/1996
U/s 25 Arms Act & Section 120B IPC
P.S. Lodhi Colony
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 792/12
Unique Identification No. : 02403R0155462006
Date of Institution : 14.05.1996
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 13.03.2014
Date of judgment : 31.03.2014
Name of the complainant : Inspector Pawan Kumar
Operation Cell, Lodhi Colony.
Date of the commission of offence: 17.02.1996
FIR No. 64/1996
P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.1 of 19
Name of accused : (i) Mohd. Iqbal
s/o Late Shri Basir Ahmed
r/o 50, Gali No.12, Ramesh Park,
Shakarpur, Delhi
(ii) Mohd. Umar
s/o Mohd. Nawab Ali
r/o 5/176, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi
(iii) Sompal
s/o Shri Ajaib Singh
r/o villageKhandrawali
P.S. Kandhla, DistrictMuzaffar Nagar
Uttar Pradesh
Offence complained of : U/s 25 Arms Act read with
Section 120 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 25 Arms Act read with
Section 120 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Accused persons, namely, Iqbal,
Sompal & Umar are acquitted.
Date of Institution :14.05.1996
Date on which case reserved for
FIR No. 64/1996
P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.2 of 19
judgment : 13.03.2014
Date of judgment : 31.03.2014
In the present case, the accused persons, namely, Iqbal, Sompal, Umar,
Christopher Zellweger, Akbar Ali, Pappu Yadav, Anis Ahmed @ Lamboo, Arif Bhatt,
Hazi Anis, Accused Muneer Ahmed, Mohd. Usman, Arif Ahmed, Hazi Mansoor
Hassan, Ausaf Ahmed, Ravinder Garg, Hafiz Mehmood, Phushpender, Mohd. Hasan
Poddar, Mohd. Gholi Zaide Mehmad Kayan, Hasin Guldagee, Tari, Iqbal @ Kana,
Arif, Suleman, Mohd. Ayub, Rafiq Ahmed, Hamid @ Kranti, Hazi Anis @ Mota were
named in the chargesheet on the allegations of offences punishable U/s 25 Arms Act
read with Section 120B IPC. The present case FIR arises out of the written
complaint to the Duty Officer/SHO P.S. Lodhi Colony made by Inspector Pawan
Kumar.
The case of the prosecution as culled out from the chargesheet in brief
is that In the year 1996, one secret information was received by Inspector Pawan
Kumar that Pakistan ISI was sending huge quantity of weapons and explosive through
tourist buses in India for terrorist crimes. This information was developed and on
17.02.1996he received an information that a tourist bus No.GR18894 of red colour was present near Mahinder Workshop behind Patiala Petrol Pump in the area of Jahangir Puri and which may be involved in bringing the weapons being sent by ISI Pakistan. The information was brought to the notice of senior officer and a daily diary was recored. The complainant constituted a raiding party consisting of himself, FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.3 of 19 Inspector Suresh Chand, SI Arvind Verma, Ct. Surender, Ct. Yogesh and they reached at the above place at about 02:00PM. They noticed a bus No.GR18894 outside the Mahinder work Shop and two persons were found sitting in the bus. He disclosed his identity and asked them about their identity. One person told his name as Christopher Zellweger, a swiss national owner of the bus and the other person as Mohd. Hassan Padar, r/o Lahor Pakistan. On his inquiry whether any weapons or explosive was in the bus, both the persons denied. In the meantime, one passersby who told his name as Prushotam Batra joined the investigation. The aforesaid bus was brought to Operation Cell, Lodhi Colony and on interrogation 361 pistols loaded with magazines and 367 extra magazines, one raxin bag containing 3738 cartridges was also found. Senior officer was informed about the recovery. Sketches of the pistols & magazines were prepared. Recovered pistols were kept in four boxes and sealed with seal of PKB. Cartridges were kept in raxin bag. Material found in the aforesaid pistols were kept on other raxin bag. The weapons and other recovery articles were seized. He prepared the seizure memo of documents and the articles which were found in the bus. Both the accused persons were arrested in this case and personal search was conducted. During the personal search of accused Mohd. Hassan Paddar, one Irani passport was recovered. MEA was informed about the arrest of the foreign national. Both the accused made disclosures Ex PW7/C and Ex PW7/D. Both the accused persons were taken into police custody remand and the places / guest houses where they had stayed were checked and the guest owner examined and we collected three photographs of Mehmad Kaya who had stayed in Tourist camp in room no. 108 in FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.4 of 19 front of LNJP hospital. Accused Mohd. Hassan Paddar had taken the police party to hotel Oxford in chuna mandi, Paharganj where he was staying in a fictitious name of Sahid Majid. The case property as well as bus was deposited in the malkhana through Insp. Suresh Chand on the day of recovery. Accused Mohd. Hassan had disclosed the name of Mohd. Usman, Mohd. Umar and Hazi Anis @ Lambu, the contacts of Tariq of Lahor, Pakistan to whom the weapon was to be given but it was found that these persons had already been arrested by the Karol Bagh police in another case of Arms Act. All three accused namely Mohd. Usman, Mohd. Umar and Hazi Anis @ Lambu were produced in the court in pursuance of the production warrant and after formal arrest, the police custody remand of the aforesaid accused persons was taken in the present case. The accused Mohd. Iqbal was arrested on disclosure statement of accused Md. Umar. Five pistols and magazines were recovered from his possession. The investigation regarding the accused Sompal was conducted by Insp. Suresh. The weapons recovered in this case were sent to FSL for examination. The investigation regarding the other accused persons was conducted by different police officers as the different teams were prepared on the instruction of senior officer. During the investigation he arrested the accused S.M. Usman ( since expired) and one pistol allegedly supplied by accused Mohd. Umar was recovered from his possession. He prepared the disclosure statement of accused Pushpender, Hazi Tariq Anis, Akbar Ali, Suleman, Arif Bhatt and Mohd. Asif which are already Ex PW2/E, Ex.PW7/K, Ex. PW7/L & Ex.PW7/M. During the course of investigation, FSL result was collected and request for sanction under Arms Act was made. FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.5 of 19
2. On the basis of the above mentioned complaint, the present FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of material placed on record, separate charge was framed against the accused persons, namely, Pappu Yadav @ Virender, Iqbal Ahmed @ Balle, Mohd. Umar, Haji Anis @ Mota, Sompal, Arif Anis Ahmed @ Lamboo & Akbar Ali for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act read with Section 120B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial, accused persons, namely, Suleman Mohd. Ayub, Rafiq Ahmed & Hamid @ Kranti expired.
Accused persons, namely Hazi Anees @ Mota, Mohd. Hasan Poddar, Mohd. Gholi Zaide Mehmad Kayan, Hasin Guldagee , Tari, Iqbal @ Kana & Arif were declared proclaimed offenders/absconder.
Accused persons, namely, Christopher Zellweger, Akbar Ali, Pappu Yadav, Anis Ahmed @ Lamboo, Arif Bhatt & Hazi Anis convicted on their plea of guilt.
Accused persons, namely, Muneer Ahmed, Mohd. Usman, Arif Ahmed, Hazi Mansoor Hassan, Ausaf Ahmed, Ravinder Garg, Hafiz Mehmood & Pushpender have been discharged vide order dated 02.08.2007.
FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.6 of 19
5. Prosecution examined seven witnesses in order to prove their case.
PW2 Inspector Rajeshwar Kumar deposed that on 23.02.1996 he interrogated the accused Mohd. Umar while he was in custody of Inspector Pawan Kumar and recorded his disclosure statement. He disclosed that he can get recovered eight pistols from his residence at Kanpur. He (PW2) along with Inspector Rajender Prasad, SI Surender Kumar & accused Mohd. Umar went to Kanpur in two government vehicles vide DD entry No.38 Ex.PW2/AB. The accused led them to his house where his mother aged about 85 years old met them. Nothing was recovered from the search of the house. They came back to Delhi and reinterrogated the accused. Accused disclosed that he had sold the pistols to Mohd. Iqbal vide disclosure statement Ex.PW3/B. In pursuant to the disclosure statement, the witness along with Inspector Rajender Prasad, SI Surender Kumar and the accused Mohd. Umar had gone to Ramesh Park where the accused Mohd. Umar led the police party at house No.50, Gali No.12, Ramesh Park, Chhatar Pur Delhi and pointed the accused Mohd. Iqbal and stated that he had sold 7 pistols and magazines to him. Mohd. Iqbal was apprehended and he admitted the receiving of the said pistols and magazines. The disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Iqbal was recorded Ex.PW3/H. At the instance of accused Mohd. Iqbal, 5 pistols loaded with magazines and 5 more magazines wrapped in a used towel tied with green plastic string was got recovered. The witness prepared the sketch of the pistols and magazine Ex.PW3/C1 to Ex.PW3/C6. The aforesaid case property was taken into possession vide memo FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.7 of 19 Ex.PW3/E and sealed with seal of RK. The seal after use was handed over to Inspector Rajender Prasad. He arrested the accused Mohd. Iqbal and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW3/E. The witness joined the investigation with Inspector Pawan Kumar, the deposition pertains to accused Usman (since died) and the accused Hazi Anees (since proclaimed offender) and the same is not required to be mentioned for the trial of the present accused persons. The case property was produced and the same is Ex.P1 collectively. The bus in which the alleged arms were recovered was not disputed by the accused persons.
PW3 ACP Surender Kumar was the member of the investigating team led by PW2 and deposed the similar facts as deposed by PW2 and the same are not repeated for the sake of brevity.
PW4 Inspector Harender Singh deposed that on 28.03.1996 Inspector Suresh Chand prepared a raiding party consisting of PW4 Inspector Puran Singh, Ct. Kailash & other constable on the basis of information. The raiding party along with informer went to Tpoint Wazirabad, Seelampur Road in official Maruti van. The accused Sompal was coming from Loni Flyover side having a black colour bag in his hand. On pointing out of secret informer, Inspector Suresh Chand with the assistance of the police staff apprehended the accused Sompal. On search of the bag carried by the accused, found one green colour polythene containing one pistol loaded with magazine folded in newspaper Dainik Jagran dated 11.03.1996. There was no cartridge in the magazine. IO prepared the sketch of the pistol Ex.PW4/A. The FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.8 of 19 aforesaid newspaper was taken on the file and recovered pistol along with magazine were seized in the same polythene by putting in bag and sealed with seal of SCJ vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. The accused was arrested and personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW4/C. The disclosure statement of accused Sompal Ex.PW2/B was recorded. The witness identified the accused.
PW7 retired ACP Pawan Kumar deposed that in 1996 he was posted as Inspector Operation Cell Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. There was a secret information regarding sending of huge quantity of weapons and explosives from ISI Pakistan through tourist buses in India. On 17.02.1996 he received an information that a red colour tourist bus No.GR18894 present Near Mahender Workshop behind Patiala Petrol Pump in the area of Jahangir Puri may be involved in bringing weapons being sent by ISI Pakistan. The information was brought into notice of senior officer and daily diary was recorded. He consitituted a raiding party consisting of himself, Inspector Suresh Chand, SI Arvind Verma, Ct. Surender and Ct. Yogesh. They reached at the spot at about 02:00PM. They noticed the aforesaid bus at the spot and found two persons sitting inside it. He asked them regarding their identity. One person disclosed his name as Christopher Zellveger and other person as Mohd. Hassan Podar. One his request, one passerby namely Purushottam Batra joined the investigation. The bus was brought to Operation Cell Lodhi Colony for purpose of inspection. The bus was thoroughly checked and a concealed cavity was found in the luggage area near the Petrol Tank on which iron seat was found tied with screw. The seat was opened and a huge quantity of weapons were found in the cavity. The FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.9 of 19 weapons were found in five corrugated boxes. On counting weapons, they were found 361 pistols loaded with magazines and 367 extra magazines. One raxine bag was found containing 3738 cartridges. The weapons were got photographed. He prepared the rukka Ex.PW7/A and got the FIR registered through SI Arvind Verma. He prepared the sketch of pistols & magazines which are Ex.PW5/B to Ex.PW5/N. The recovered weapons were kept in four boxes. 116, 115 & 130 pistols were kept in three boxes and 367 magazines were kept in other box after sealing with seal of PKB. The cartridges were kept in raxine bag and sealed. The alleged weapons were seized through seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. He seized the small iron sheets vide memos Ex.PW5/R. He seized the currency notes of Pakistan produced by Christopher vide memo Ex.PW5/S. He also seized 63 US dollars and Rs.12,120/ from the accused Mohd. Hassan Podar vide memo Ex.PW5/D. He seized the documents and articles found in the bus vide memo Ex.PW5/Q & Ex.PW7/B. Both the accused were arrested and their personal search was conducted vdie memos Ex.PW5/O & Ex.PW5/P. Ministry of External Affairs was informed about the arrest of foreign nationals. The witness recorded the disclosure statement of both the accused which are Ex.PW7/C & Ex.PW7/D. The case property as well as bus were deposited in malkhana.
PW5 ACP Suresh Chand deposed that Inspector Pawan Kumar prepared a raiding party comprising of the witness, SI Sastish Kadyan, SI Arvind Verma and two constables vide DD No.16 dated 17.02.1996 on receiving the secret information. They reached at the spot i.e. Jahangir Puri Near Patiala Petrol Pump, FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.10 of 19 Workshop of Mahender Singh Body Builder. During the investigation, he accompanied the IO/PW7. His further deposition are on the same line as stated by PW7 in his testimony and the same is not repeated for the sake of brevity.
PW5 was also member of raiding party which apprehended the accused Sompal and recovered one pistol and magazine. In this regard, his deposition is same as stated by PW4 in his testimony.
PW1 ASI Mangat Ram (duty officer) is a formal witness. He produced the carbon copy of FIR Ex.PW1/A. PW6 Shri B. K. Singh (Joint CP, Crime Branch) deposed that in the year 1996 he was posted as Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District. On 23.07.1996 the present case file was put before me along with the copies of the seizure memos, FSL report, disclosure statement etc. and after examining the material evidence placed on record, I accorded the Sanction U/s 39 Arms Act against the 25 accused persons as mentioned in the sanction order. The Sanction U/s 39 Arms Act is Ex.PW6/A. (OSR).
6. Vide separate statement U/s 294 Cr.P.C. dated 25.10.2013, the accused Mohd. Umar has admitted the genuineness of preparation of FSL report dated 14.05.1996 Ex.PX.
Vide separate statement U/s 294 Cr.P.C. dated 20.11.2013, the accused Mohd. Iqbal and accused Sompal have admitted the genuineness of FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.11 of 19 preparation of FSL report dated 14.05.1996 Ex.PX.
7. After examining the material prosecution witnessed qua accused persons facing the trial, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused as mandated by Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances came in evidence put to the accused persons for explanation.
8. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the accused persons.
9. The case of the prosecution qua accused Mohd. Umar is that he was arrested on the disclosure statement of other coaccused. He disclosed that he can get recovered the arms from his house at Kanpur. He was taken to his native village in police custody but nothing could be recovered. In his further disclosure statement, he disclosed that he had sold 7 pistols and magazines to other coaccused namely Mohd. Iqbal. At his instance the accused Mohd. Iqbal was apprehended and 5 pistols and magazines were recovered at the instance of accused Iqbal. As far as the accused Mohd. Umar is concerned no arms and ammunition or other case property was recovered from his possession or in pursuance to his disclosure statement. As such there is no evidence against the accused Mohd. Umar except his own disclosure statement and disclosure statement of other coaccused. The disclosure statement as such is irrelevant U/s 27 Indian Evidence Act and therefore the same cannot be considered for convicting the accused. Hence, the accused Umar is acquitted for the FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.12 of 19 charge offence U/s 25 Arms Act read with Section 120B IPC.
The case of the prosecution qua accused Iqbal Ahmed is that he was arrested in pursuance to the disclosure statement made by coaccused Mohd. Umar. It is further alleged that the accused Iqbal Ahmed got recovered 5 pistols loaded with magazines and 5 spare magazines from his house at Ramesh Park. PW2 & PW3 are the material witnesses qua accused Iqbal Ahmed. They both were the member of raiding party which recovered the alleged weapons from the house of the accused. Both the witnesses failed to recollect the DD entry of departure or arrival of the police party. It is further admitted that no notice was given to the neighbours of the accused to join the investigation. They had not noted down the name and particulars of the neighbours. No handing over memo of the seal was prepared. PW3 stated that the neighbours were not ready to join the investigation despite requests. Admittedly number of public persons were gathered at the spot from where the alleged recovery was effected. No information of raid was given to the concerned police station Shakarpur. PW3 failed to tell the number of room in the house of the accused.
10. There are contradiction in the testimony of PW2 and PW3. PW2 deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused at the spot in the presence of member of raiding party, whereas PW3 stated that disclosure statement of accused was recorded in his handwriting on the dictation of PW2.
11. PW4 & PW5 are the material prosecution witness qua charges against FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.13 of 19 accused Sompal. They were the member of raiding party which recovered the alleged arms from the possession of the accused. In his crossexamination, PW4 stated that the IO had made DD entry in the office of Operation Cell. He also stated that there was gas godown near the spot but IO had not approached the gas agency and no notice was given to any public person who refused to join investigation. IO requested some public persons to join the investigation. As per the prosecution the alleged pistol was found wrapped in a newspaper MarkX. On request of the counsel, it was observed by the court during crossexamination that the newspaper has no wrinkles and only crease folds. No information was given either before or after the arrest to the local police station.
12. It is admitted by PW5 that the place of apprehension of the accused Sompal was a public place and he requested some public persons to join investigation at the time of search and arrest of the accused but they refused and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. No notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C. was given to any public persons to join investigation. The accused did not try to run away or made hue and cry at the time when he was apprehended. Admittedly search of the IO or any other member of raiding party was not offered before the search of the accused.
13. In this case, no public witness has been joined in the investigation when the alleged arms and ammunition were recovered and also the alleged articles (case property) was recovered at the instance of the accused from his residence. FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.14 of 19 Admittedly, both the places were public place and public persons were present. The witnesses are silent as to nonjoining of the public persons in their deposition. No notice was given to the any public person to join the investigation as the same is not part of the record and not came out in the testimony of witnesses. The testimony of official witness does not find corroboration from any independent source. In my view, the nonjoining of public witness is fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when no reasonable explanation has been given by the prosecution for non joining of public witnesses. In the case of Chanan Singh Vs. State 1986 Crl. Rev. No.720 (P&H) 94, it was held that it was obligatory on the part of the police to join independent witnesses and the statement of official witness that witnesses refused to join investigation was rejected as an afterthought.
14. It is well settled proposition that non joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Even Section 100 (4) CrPC casts statutory duty upon the official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society, which is not done in the present case. In the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Crl LJ 127 Delhi, it has been held as under: "Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should have deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.15 of 19 was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the IO should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
15. In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi V/s State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
'' It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC''.
16. In Roop Chand V/s The State of Haryana,1999 (1) C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under: FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.16 of 19 It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for nonjoining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful''.
17. As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, which is reproduced herein for ready reference: Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides as under: ''22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II The FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.17 of 19 following matters shall, amongst others, be entered :
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty.
This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal. Note : The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained.
18. In the present case, the above said provision appears to have not been complied with by prosecution. The relevant entries regarding the arrival and departure of the police official has not been proved on record. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as Rattan Lal V/s State, 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court "wherein it has been observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
FIR No. 64/1996 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.18 of 19
19. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled legal proposition that the any benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Thus, this court is of the considered view that the benefit of doubt in the present case be given to the accused and he entitled to be exonerated on the charges against him in the present case.
20. In these circumstances, there is reasonable doubt of the alleged arms and ammunitions having been recovered from the possession of the accused persons. It being so, benefit of same is given to the accused. Hence, the accused persons, namely, Iqbal, Sompal & Mohd. Umar are acquitted of the charge U/s 25 Arms Act, 1959 framed against them by giving him benefit of doubt.
Pronounced in open court (PAWAN KUMAR)
on 31.03.2014 MM01 (SouthEast): Saket Courts:
New Delhi:31.03.2014
FIR No. 64/1996
P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.19 of 19