Delhi District Court
State vs Sarvesh Kumar on 16 November, 2024
THE COURT OF SH. UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE v. SARVESH & ORS.
FIR No. -: 59/2010
Police Station -: Madhu Vihar
Section(s) -: 25 Arms Act
Cr. Case No. -: 75562/2016
1. CIS number : DLSH020001492010
2. Name of the complainant : HC Subhash
Belt No153/E
PS Madhu Vihar
3. Name of the accused, : 1. Sarvesh Kumar
parentage & residential S/o Sh. Bichy Lal
address R/o Village Nakoranpur, PS Marvi
Distt. Unnao, U.P.
Also at: D-1/620 JJ Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
2. Pankaj Kumar
S/o Sh. Jamuna Dass
R/o Mohalla Sonpat Nagar
GaliNo.1, PS Sasnigati,
Distt.Aligarh, U.P.
Also at: E-38 Gali No.3, Panchwati
Road Swami Shardanand Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
3. Rai Singh
S/o Sh. Sultan Singh
R/o Village Kuwatganj, PS
Mahrera, Distt. Eata, U.P.
Digitally signed
FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors.
Udbhav by Udbhav
Kumar Jain Page no. 1 of 27
Kumar Date:
2024.11.16
Jain 17:54:31
+0530
Also at: 407/1, Gali No.18,
Sangam Vihar, Delhi.
4. Raju Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Singh
R/o Village, Ghadoli, PO Kasganj,
PS Mirachi Distt. Eata U.P.
4. Offence complained of or : Section 25 Arms Act
proved
5. Date of commission of : 22.02.2010
offence
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Final Judgment : Acquittal
8. Date of judgment/order : 16.11.2024
Date of Institution: 30.04.2010
Date of Reserving Judgment: 03.06.2024
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment: 16.11.2024
Duration: 14 years 06 months
17 days
Argued by: Sh. Kapil Sharma, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Abbas Khan, Ld. Counsel for accused Raju and Pankaj.
Sh. Kanhi Lal, Ld. Counsel for accused Sarvesh and Rai
Singh.
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that on 22.02.2010, the complainant Head Constable Subhash with Constable Jitender, Constable Sandeep, Constable Pradeep and Constable Om Singh were checking passing vehicles after putting barricades near Sai chowk and at around 2:25 PM in the night an Indigo car with registration number DL- 8CNA-0644 was seen coming from Singla Sweets red light in which 4 boys were sitting. When they were signalled to stop, the driver of the car instead of Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Kumar Date:
2024.11.16 Page no. 2 of 27 Jain 17:54:40 +0530 stopping/slowing the vehicle, tried to flee from the spot. Constable Om Singh and Constable Pradeep stopped the vehicle by putting 2 barricades in front of the car. On suspicion, Constable Jitendra caught hold of the driver of the car, Constable Sandeep caught hold of the passenger sitting next to the driver. Two persons sitting at the back seat started to flee from their respective sides, complainant Head Constable Subhash caught hold of the boy who went from left side and the boy who was running from the right side was caught by Constable Om Singh. The complainant conducted personal search of the all the persons one by one. The person apprehended by complainant Head Constable Subhash was identified as Raju. The person apprehended by the Constable Om Singh was Sarvesh Kumar, while the one apprehended by Constable Sandeep was identified as Pankaj, and the one apprehended by Constable Jitender was identified as Rai Singh. On search of accused Raju, a country-made katta from the right pocket of his pants was recovered. During the formal search of Sarvesh, a country-made pistol was recovered from the left side behind his belt, and a live cartridge was found in his jacket pocket. The katta was loaded with one live cartridge. The persons in the driver's seat and the front passenger seat were found carrying buttondar knives in their right pockets. As such, it is alleged that the accused persons committed the offence under Sections 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter, "Arms Act") for which FIR No. 59/2010 was registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of FIR, the investigating officer (hereinafter 'IO') conducted investigation and on culmination of the same, chargesheet against the present accused persons namely Sarvesh Kumar, Pankaj Kumar, Rai Singh and Raju for the alleged commission of offence u/s 25 Arms Act was filed. Ld. Predecessor of this Court took cognizance of the offence vide order dated Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Kumar Date: Page no. 3 of 27 Jain 2024.11.16 17:54:46 +0530 30.04.2010. After taking cognizance of the offence, accused persons were produced/appeared before the Court. They were supplied the copy of documents relied upon in the charge sheet in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC").
3. Since prima facie offence against the accused persons was made out, Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2010 framed charge against accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 ASI T. Cecilan PW2 HC Om Singh PW3 HC Jitender PW4 Sandeep Singh PW5 HC Pradeep Kumar PW6 ASI Subhash PW7 Insp. C.L. Meena PW8 Insp. Deepak Pandey DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Computerized FIR Ex.PW1/B Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW2/A to Sketches of the country-made Ex. PW2/D pistol, live cartridges, and buttondar knife Ex.PW2/E to Seizure memos of country-made Ex.PW2/I pistols, live cartridges, used cartridges and buttondar knives Ex.PW2/J Seizure memo of Indica Car Ex.PW2/K Arrest memo of accused Raju FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav signed Page no. 4 of 27 Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
2024.11.16 Jain 17:54:52 +0530 Ex.P1 to Country-made pistols, live Ex.P8 cartridges, used cartridges and buttondar knives Ex. PW3/A to Disclosure statement of the Ex. PW3/D accused Raju, Sarvesh, Pankaj and Rai Singh Ex.P9 to Screwdriver, an iron cutter, and a Ex.P11 rod Ex.PW4/A Arrest memo of accused Sarvesh Ex.PW5/A Arrest memo of accused Rai Singh Ex.PW6/A Complaint Ex.PW6/B Arrest memo of accused Pankaj Ex. PW7/A Rukka Ex.PW7/A Site Plan Ex.PW8/A Application by PW-8 ADMITTED DOCUMENTS U/S 294 CrPC Ex. A1 Letter bearing no. 35/SO-A.DCP-
and Ex. I/East and 35A/SO-A.DCP-I/East both
A2 issued by Addl. DCP, East
Ex. A3 FSL Result
5. ASI T. Cecilan (PW-1) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 22.02.10, he was posted at PS Madhu Vihar as the duty officer and his duty hours were from 12:00 noon to 8:00 pm. On that day, Ct. Pradeep produced the rukka at about 5:25 pm which had been sent by SI C.L. Meena to the police station for the registration of an FIR. Based on this, FIR no. 59/10 was registered, and the computerized copy of the FIR was marked as Ex.PWI/A (OSR) bearing the signature of the witness at point A. An endorsement was made on the rukka as per Ex.PW1/B, bearing the signature of the witness at point A. After registering the FIR, the witness handed over a copy of the FIR and the original rukka to Ct. Pradeep to deliver to SI C.L. Meena for investigation.Digitally signed by
Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain
Kumar Jain Date: 2024.11.16
17:54:58 +0530
FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Page no. 5 of 27
5.1.On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Raju, Rai Singh and Pankaj, witness denied the suggestions that Ct. Pradeep had not brought any rukka for the registration of the FIR at the police station or that the IO, Ct.
Pradeep, and the accused persons were present in the police station and that all the writing work was completed there or that the officer was giving false testimony.
5.2.On his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused Sarvesh, witness denied the suggestions Ct. Pradeep had not brought any rukka for the registration of the FIR at the police station or that the FIR was backdated and back timed.
6. HC Om Singh (PW-2) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 22.02.10, he was posted at PS Madhu Vihar as a Constable. On that day, he along with HC Subhash, Ct. Jitender, Ct. Pradeep, and Ct. Sandeep, were present at Sai Chowk, Madhu Vihar conducting vehicle checks after setting up barricades. At about 2:25 am, an Indica Car No. DL 8 C-0644 approached from the direction of Singla Sweets. HC Subhash, who was carrying a torch, signalled the Indica car to stop. However, the driver of the car did not comply and attempted to drive away. In response, the officer and Ct. Pradeep set up a barricade in front of the car, which caused it to stop. The driver of the car was apprehended by Ct. Jitender, and the passenger seated beside the driver was apprehended by Ct. Sandeep. When the individuals were apprehended by the respective Constables, two persons sitting in the back seat of the car opened the door. The person sitting behind the driver's seat was apprehended by the witness and the person seated behind the front passenger was apprehended by HC Subhash. The individual apprehended by HC Subhash was identified as Raju. The person apprehended by the witness was Sarvesh Kumar, while the one apprehended by Ct. Sandeep was identified as Pankaj, and the one apprehended by Ct. Jitender was identified as Rai Singh. All the accused were Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors.
Kumar Date: Page no. 6 of 27
Jain 2024.11.16
17:55:04
+0530
present in court and identified by the witness. HC Subhash formally searched Raju, recovering a country-made katta from the right pocket of his pants. After the formal search, Raju was placed in the custody of Ct. Pradeep. During the formal search of Sarvesh, a country-made pistol was recovered from the left side behind his belt, and a live cartridge was found in his jacket pocket. The katta was loaded with one live cartridge. Sarvesh was then handed over to the witness. The individuals in the driver's seat and the front passenger seat were searched by HC Subhash, and a buttondar knife was recovered from the right pocket of both accused. Further inspection of the vehicle led to the discovery of a cutter (for cutting iron), a large screwdriver, a small screwdriver, and an iron rod from the back seat near the footboard. HC Subhash informed the duty officer at PS Madhu Vihar, and after some time, SI C.L. Meena arrived at the scene. HC Subhash handed over all the recovered items to SI C.L. Meena and briefly explained the incident. SI C.L. Meena prepared sketches of the country-made pistol, live cartridges, and buttondar knife, taking detailed measurements. Although the witness could not recall the exact measurements, he confirmed the sketches were prepared by the IO. The live cartridges were placed in a plastic box, and the katta and buttondar knife were sealed in separate cloth bundles with the seal of "CLM." The seal was then handed over to Ct. Subhash. The sketches of the country-made pistol, live cartridges, and buttondar knife are marked as Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/D, each bearing the officer's signature at point A. The case property including the country-made pistol, live cartridges, buttondar knife, and tools, were taken into possession via seizure memos Ex.PW2/E to Ex.PW2/I, each of them bearing the signature of the witness at point A. The Indica car was seized via seizure memo Ex.PW 2/J bearing the signature of the witness at point A. The IO prepared the rukka and sent Ct. Pradeep to the police station for the registration of the FIR. Ct. Pradeep returned to the scene with a copy of the FIR and the original rukka, which were handed over to the IO. The accused were then personally searched Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Kumar 2024.11.16 Date:
Page no. 7 of 27 Jain 17:55:10 +0530 and arrested by the IO with the arrest memo of Raju as Ex. PW2/K bearing the signature of the witness at point A. The IO interrogated the accused, and statement of the witness was recorded. Witness correctly identified the accused persons who were present in the Court. The witness correctly identified the country-made pistol as Ex. P1, the live cartridge as Ex. P2, and the used cartridge as Ex. P3, country-made pistol as Ex. P4, the live cartridge as Ex. P5, and the used cartridge as Ex. P6, a buttondar knife as Ex. P7, another buttondar knife as Ex. P8. The identity of the car (bearing No. DL- 8C NA-0644) was not disputed by the defense counsel.
6.1.On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness deposed that on that day, 20 to 25 vehicles were checked at the spot. No challan was issued at the time of the arrest of the accused. The speed of the Indica car in question was moderate. A cursory search of the accused persons was conducted by HC Subhash. Sarvesh and Raju, who were sitting in the back, attempted to escape. There were no public persons present at the scene at the time. Witness denied the suggestions that no weapons were recovered from any of the accused, that no picket was placed on the day of the arrest, that the case property was not recovered from the accused and that it was falsely planted on them, that all the paperwork was completed at the police station, that the accused were taken from their respective houses and falsely implicated in this case or that the officer was giving false testimony.
7. HC Jitender (PW-3) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 22.02.2010, he was posted at PS Madhu Vihar as Constable. On that day, he along with HC Subhash, Ct. Pradeep, Ct. Sandeep, and Ct. Om Singh, were present at Sai Chowk, Madhu Vihar, conducting vehicle checks after setting up barricades.
At approximately 2:25 a.m., a Tata Indica Car bearing No. DL-8C-NA-0644 approached from the direction of Shimla Sweet. HC Subhash signalled for the Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors.Jain 2024.11.16 Page no. 8 of 27 17:55:16 +0530 vehicle to stop using a torch, but instead of stopping the driver increased the car's speed. The team used the barricade to stop the vehicle. Due to the suspicious behaviour of the car occupants, the driver was apprehended by the witness, while Ct. Sandeep apprehended the passenger seated beside the driver. Two additional individuals seated in the back of the car were apprehended by HC Subhash and Ct. Om Singh. HC Subhash conducted a personal search of the individual he apprehended, later identified as Raju. During his search, a country-made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from Raju's possession, and the case property was handed over to Ct. Pradeep. Subsequently, HC Subhash searched Sarvesh and recovered a loaded katta and one live cartridge from him, which were handed over to Ct. Om Singh. HC Subhash then searched Pankaj and recovered a buttondar knife from his possession, handing him over to Ct. Sandeep. Lastly, a personal search of Rai Singh led to the recovery of another buttondar knife, which was handed over to Ct. Jitender. All four accused, present before the court, were correctly identified by the witness. After conducting a search of the vehicle, HC Subhash found an iron rod, a large screwdriver, and a small "kunda" screwdriver. Information regarding the incident was sent to PS Madhu Vihar, and SI C.L. Meena arrived at the scene. SI Meena was handed over all recovered case properties and the accused persons. SI Meena prepared a tehrir and gave it to Ct. Pradeep for FIR registration. SI Meena also measured the case property and prepared the sketch memos. The sketch memos of the katta, live cartridges, and buttondar knives, Ex. PW2/A to Ex. PW2/D as well as the seizure memos of all the recovered items, Ex. PW2/E to Ex.PW2/I, were prepared and signed by the relevant officers. Seizure memo of the car Ex. CW2/J prepared by the IO bears the signature of the witness at point B. The disclosure statement of the accused Raju, Sarvesh, Pankaj and Rai Singh were recorded as Ex. PW3/A to Ex. PW3/D respectively. The case property was sealed with the seal of CLM. The witness confirmed that they could identify Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Page no. 9 of 27 Kumar Date:
2024.11.16 Jain 17:55:22 +0530 the case property if shown. The country-made pistols, live and used cartridges, and buttondar knives Ex. P1 to P8 were correctly identified by the witness. Additional case properties, including screwdrivers, an iron cutter, and a rod, were also correctly identified and exhibited as Ex. P9 to P11. The identity of the car bearing no. DL 8C NA 0644 was not disputed by the defense counsel. All the accused persons were arrested in the presence of the IO, and their arrest memos were prepared, including Ex. PW2/K for Raju bearing the signature of the witness at point B. The accused Rai Singh was apprehended by the witness with the help of HC Subhash, Ct. Sandeep, and Ct. Pradeep, and a buttondar knife was recovered from his possession.
7.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness deposed that on the day of the incident, witness was with Ct. Pradeep, HC Subhash, Ct. Sandeep, and Ct. Om Singh. He was stationed at Sai Chowk at that time. When the car was stopped, four individuals were inside the vehicle. All the accused were personally searched by HC Subhash, and from the car, a cutter, a pechkas (screwdriver), and an iron rod were recovered. No silver or gold articles were found in the possession of the accused. All the case property was sealed in witness's presence at the scene. The FIR was registered first, followed by the seizure of the case property. He could not recall whether the cutter, iron rod, or pechkas were sealed or whether the IO had requested public persons to serve as witnesses. He denied the suggestion that he was not present during the investigation or that the recovery of the case property was false and fabricated. He also denied the claim that he was deposing falsely.
8. Sandeep Singh (PW-4) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 22.02.2010, he was posted at PS Madhu Vihar and assigned to picket duty at night. He was stationed near Singhla Sweet along with HC Subhash, Ct. Pradeep, Ct. Jitender, and Ct. Om Singh. An Indica car approached from the Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors.Kumar Date: Page no. 10 of 27 Jain 2024.11.16 17:55:30 +0530 direction of Singhla Sweet, and HC Subhash signalled with a torch to stop the car. However, the car attempted to flee, prompting Ct. Om Singh and Ct. Pradeep to stop the vehicle. Ct. Jitender apprehended the driver of the Indica car, while the witness apprehended the accused sitting in the passenger seat. HC Subhash and Ct. Om Singh apprehended two additional suspects. Witness apprehended accused Pankaj and found a buttondar knife in his possession. HC Subhash apprehended accused Raju from whom a country-made pistol was recovered. Ct. Om Singh apprehended accused Sarvesh from whom another country-made pistol was recovered. Ct. Jitender apprehended accused Raj Singh, who had a buttondar knife in his possession. Both accused Pankaj and Raju were present in court and correctly identified by the witness.
8.1. Since witness was resiling from his previous statement, Ld. APP for the State cross-examined the witness. Witness deposed that he is a BSC non-medical pass. The witness confirmed the events of 22.02.2010, when he was on duty at Sai Chowk as part of a vehicle checking operation after setting up a barricade. The witness, along with HC Subhash, Ct. Om Singh, and others, stopped a silver Indica car (bearing number DL8CNA-0644) around 2:25 a.m. that was occupied by four individuals. He corroborated that two of the accused tried to flee through the car's rear windows but were apprehended by HC Subhash and Ct. Om Singh. The witness identified the accused apprehended by HC Subhash as Raju, and the one apprehended by Ct. Om Singh as Sarvesh Kumar. He confirmed that during the bodily search, HC Subhash found a country-made pistol and two live cartridges from Raju's possession, which were handed over to Ct. Pradeep. Similarly, a loaded country-made pistol and one live cartridge were recovered from accused Sarvesh. The other two accused, Raj Singh and Pankaj, were found in possession of buttondar knives. Furthermore, the witness testified that an iron cutter, a large screwdriver, an iron rod, and a small "kundedar" screwdriver were recovered from the Indica Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors.Kumar Date:
Page no. 11 of 27 Jain 2024.11.16 17:55:36 +0530 car. HC Subhash then informed the duty officer of PS Madhu Vihar, and SI C.L Meena later arrived at the scene to take further action, including the preparation of sketch memos and seizure memos of the recovered items. The witness also confirmed signing various documents, including sketch memos, seizure memos, and disclosure statements related to the recovery of weapons from the accused. Although he acknowledged that due to the lapse of time, he was not able remember all the details, but he stood by the accuracy of his earlier recorded statement (Mark A).
8.2. On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness admitted that his deposition was in accordance with the suggestions of the Ld. APP for the State. Witness denied the suggestions that the Investigating Officer (IO) made him a witness in the case, but he had no knowledge about such fact or that he was giving false testimony.
9. HC Pradeep (PW-5) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on October 22, 2010, the witness, a Constable at PS Madhu Vihar, was part of a team that included HC Subhash, Ct. Jitender, Ct. Om Singh, and Ct. Sanjiv, conducting vehicle checks during a special picket duty at Sai Chowk. At approximately 2:25 AM, HC Subhash signalled a Tata Indica car (bearing number DL8CNA 0644) to stop, but the driver attempted to flee. Ct. Om Singh placed a barricade ahead of the vehicle to stop it. Upon checking the occupants of the car, the officers discovered that two individuals in the front seat had a knife recovered from them. Additionally, the two individuals in the back seat tried to escape but were apprehended. Each of these two individuals was found to possess a Desi Katta (country-made pistol) during a personal search. HC Subhash then conducted a search of the vehicle, recovering an iron cutter, two screwdrivers, and an iron rod. Afterward, HC Subhash conveyed the information to the police station (PS), and SI CL Meena arrived at the scene. The witness assisted Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors.Kumar Date:
Page no. 12 of 27 Jain 2024.11.16 17:55:43 +0530 in the process by recording statements and preparing the necessary documentation, as well as delivering the rukka (report) to the duty officer at the PS for FIR registration. Thereafter, IO prepared sketch and seizure memos for all the recovered arms and articles, Ex. PW2/A to Ex. PW2/J bearing the signature of the witness at point D. IO also recorded the disclosure statements of the accused persons as Ex. PW3/A to PW3/D bearing his signature at point D. Arrest memo of accused Sarvesh PW4/A bears his signature at point D and arrest memo of accused Rai Singh, Ex. PW5/A bears his signature at point D. The witness confirmed the presence and identity of the accused persons except accused Rai Singh whose identity was not disputed. Furthermore, the witness identified five sealed pulandas produced by MHC(M), which contained two Desi Kattas (country-made pistols), two buttondar knives, and two cartridges (one live and one spent shell).
9.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness was not able to remember if a rawangi was done at the time of leaving the PS. He could not recall how many vehicles were checked on the day of picket duty. The witness could not provide details about the speed of the accused's vehicle. HC Subhash conducted personal searches of all the accused persons. Ct. Om Singh and HC Subhash apprehended the accused persons who were attempting to flee from the spot. Witness admitted that the accused could not run away from the spot as they had just stepped out of the car. HC Subhash called the PS at around 2:45 AM from his mobile phone, but the witness did not remember his number. IO SI C L Meena arrived at the scene at about 3:00 to 3:15 AM. The distance from the PS to the spot was approximately 1 KM, and CL Meena arrived on his motorcycle, but the witness could not recall the registration number of the motorcycle. IO CL Meena arrived alone at the scene. The IO prepared the rukka at the spot, using support from the motorcycle. The witness could not specify how much time the IO took to write Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar 2024.11.16 Date:
FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Page no. 13 of 27 Jain 17:55:50 +0530 the rukka. Statements from all the police officials were recorded at the spot, but the witness did not remember how long it took to write those statements. He also could not remember whether the statements of the accused were recorded before or after preparing the rukka. The IO handed over the rukka between 5:00 to 5:30 AM. It took 15-20 minutes to register the FIR. They attempted to ask people moving around the spot, but none agreed to help. No other vehicles were stopped at the location after the apprehension of the accused persons. Witness denied the suggestions that no picket was placed at the spot on the day of the arrest of the accused, that the witness did not join the investigation with the IO at any point, that all the paperwork was completed while sitting in the police station by the IO, that the alleged weapons were planted on the accused persons in the PS as they were allegedly lifted from their respective houses to implicate them in the present case or that the witness became a witness in the current case solely due to being a subordinate of the IO. There were some inscriptions on the knife and desi pistol (katta), although the witness did not remember the specifics. When both pistols were shown to the witness again, the witness confirmed that there were no inscriptions on them. The witness voluntarily stated that he never said there were any inscriptions on the pistol, but there was some inscription (company seal) on the cartridge recovered which was identified by him from the cartridge shown to him. The witness was also shown two silver-colored knives, and he confirmed that there were no inscriptions on these, but there was some silver design on them. Witness further denied the suggestions that all the case property was not recovered from the accused persons, that it had been falsely planted on them or that the witness was deposing falsely.
10. ASI Subhash (PW-6) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 22.02.2010, the witness was posted as a Head Constable at PS Madhu Vihar. On that day, he along with Ct. Om Singh, Ct. Jitender, Ct. Sandeep, and Ct.
Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Kumar Date: Page no. 14 of 27 Jain 2024.11.16 17:55:57 +0530 Pradeep, were performing their duty at the picket at Sai Chowk Madhu Vihar red light. At about 02:25 AM, a silver color Indica car bearing registration no. DL 8CNA 0644 was approaching from the side of Singla Sweets. The witness signalled the car to stop, but the driver did not comply and instead accelerated the vehicle. Ct. Om Singh and Ct. Pradeep managed to block the car's path by putting up barricades. As a result of the barricades, the car stopped, and they found that four persons were inside. The individual sitting in the driver's seat disclosed his name as Rai Singh, from whose possession a knife was recovered. He was apprehended by Ct. Jitender. Another accused sitting beside the driver, who later identified himself as Pankaj, had another knife recovered from him and was apprehended by Ct. Sandeep. The two persons sitting in the back seat were apprehended by the witness and Ct. Om Singh. The individual apprehended by the witness identified himself as Raju, and from his possession, a pistol with one live cartridge inside it was recovered, along with another live cartridge from the right pocket of his jacket. The individual apprehended by Ct. Om Singh identified himself as Sarvesh, from whom another pistol and two live cartridges were recovered. From the car, they recovered one iron rod, one iron cutter, and two screwdrivers. The witness sent information to the PS and after some time, SI CL Meena arrived at the scene and interrogated the accused persons. The witness provided his complaint to the IO SI CL Meena who recorded it and the complaint Ex. PW- 6/A bears the signature of the witness at point A. Based on this complaint, the IO prepared the rukka and handed it over to Ct. Pradeep for the registration of the FIR. Ct. Pradeep went to the PS, registered the FIR, and then returned to the spot with the original rukka and a copy of the FIR. During the investigation, the IO prepared rough sketches of the two seized pistols (desi katta) and the two recovered knives, Ex. PW-2/A, Ex. PW-2/B, Ex. PW-2/C, and Ex. PW-2/D, all bearing the witness's signatures at point E. The two seized pistols (desi katta) and the two recovered knives were seized via seizure Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors.Kumar Date: Page no. 15 of 27 2024.11.16 Jain 17:56:03 +0530 memos, Ex. PW-2/E, Ex. PW-2/F, Ex. PW-2/G, and Ex. PW-2/H, all bearing the witness's signatures at point E. The seizure memos detailed the proceedings, and all the articles were seized in four different pullandas numbered 1 to 4. The IO also seized the recovered iron rod, iron cutter, and two screwdrivers via a seizure memo Ex. PW-2/I, bearing the witness's signature at point E. The Indica car was seized via a seizure memo Ex. PW- 2/J, bearing the witness's signature at point E. The IO arrested Raju vide arrest memo Ex. PW-2/K, bearing the witness's signature at point C. Sarvesh Kumar was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-4/A, bearing the witness's signature at point C. Pankaj was arrested vide arrest memo marked as Ex. PW-6/B, bearing the witness's signature at point A. Rai Singh was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-5/A, bearing the witness's signature at point C. The IO also prepared a site plan at the witness's instance. The disclosure statements of all four accused persons were recorded by the IO as Ex. PW-3/A, Ex. PW-3/B, Ex. PW-3/C, and Ex. PW-3/D, all bearing the witness's signature at point E. All the accused persons were present in court and correctly identified by the witness. The witness correctly identified all the arms and articles seized, already marked as Ex. P1 to Ex. P11.
10.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness deposed that they had made a departure DD entry regarding the day of the incident, but he did not remember the specific DD entry. Prior to apprehending the accused persons, they had checked 20-25 vehicles that passed through the picket. The witness did not record the registration numbers of the vehicles checked, and no such register was maintained regarding the inspection of vehicles at the picket. On that day, they did not issue any challan against any vehicle. There were instructions for picket checking, but there was no written order for inspection at the picket. The speed of the offending vehicle was approximately 30-35 km/h when they first observed it, and when the witness Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors.Kumar Date:
2024.11.16 Page no. 16 of 27 Jain 17:56:10 +0530 signalled for it to stop, the accused accelerated the vehicle. The vehicle was ultimately stopped when Ct. Om Singh and Ct. Pradeep put barricades in front of it. The witness clarified that they had no prior information regarding the accused or the offending vehicle. The accused attempted to escape from the car but were unsuccessful. The witness sent information to the PS regarding the apprehension of the accused persons, making a call around 02:35 AM, which was noted in the DD entry by the duty officer. The witness did not collect the call detail record. The IO arrived at the spot alone on his motorcycle at around 02:44 AM, but the witness does not recall the registration number of the motorcycle. The distance between the spot of apprehension and the PS is approximately 1.0-1.25 km. The rukka was prepared by the IO at the spot while sitting on the footpath (Patri). Streetlights were available at the location. Witness denied the suggestion that no rukka was prepared at the spot and that all proceedings were conducted while sitting in the PS. The rukka was drawn around 05:15 AM, and the disclosure statements of all the accused persons were also prepared by the IO at the spot. The witness's complaint was recorded at the scene, but his statement was later taken at the PS. Although some members of the public were passing by, none joined the recovery proceedings, and the IO did not serve any written notice to any public persons. No other vehicles were seized. Ct. Pradeep returned to the spot about one hour after taking the rukka for the registration of the FIR. Rough sketches of the desi katta and knives were drawn at the scene. The witness referred to the recovered articles as desi katta, which they equate to a pistol. He did not recall whether the seized articles were inscribed or if the IO put any special marks on the articles themselves. Witness denied the suggestion that they falsely implanted the alleged seized articles on the accused persons or that no picket was laid at the spot. When the Ld. Defence Counsel took out a pechkas (screwdriver) and confronted the witness stating that this was not a pechkas driver, the witness responded that it was a pechkas that has been modified to Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Kumar Page no. 17 of 27 Date:
Jain 2024.11.16
17:56:16
+0530
have a hook from the front side. It was also noted that the mobile phone was not seized at the time of seizing the offending items; it was seized later during the Jama talashi. Witness denied the suggestion that the case property was planted on the persons of the accused. He had telephonically informed the PS directly to the Duty Officer at about 2:35 AM, and SI Meena had arrived at the spot within 20 minutes. The accused persons disclosed their involvement in other cases in their disclosure statements; however, the witness does not know the particulars of all the cases in which the accused were involved. Witness denied the suggestion that the car was planted on the accused while the witness was sitting at the PS, that no investigation or documents were prepared at the spot, that the entire investigation and documents were prepared while sitting at the PS, that the witness never joined the investigation of the present case, that he had no personal knowledge of it, that the IO had not read his complaint to him or that he signed it without reading the contents. Witness did not remember whether he had arrested the accused persons in other cases where they disclosed their involvement. Lastly, witness denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
11. Insp. C.L. Meena (PW-7) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 22.02.2010, the witness was posted at PS Madhu Vihar as an SI and was on night emergency duty. He received information via DD No. 6A at about 2:35 AM regarding the apprehension of four persons with deadly weapons at Sai Chowk, Madhu Vihar market by HC Subhash and other police officers. Upon reaching the spot, the witness found HC Subhash, Ct. Jitender, Ct. Pradeep, Ct. Sandeep, and Ct. Om Singh present, along with the four apprehended persons, and received custody of the accused. The witness identified the accused Raju (whose identity was not disputed by the Ld. Counsel and for whom an exemption was moved) as carrying one country-made pistol and two live cartridges. Similarly, the witness identified Sarvesh Kumar (identity not Digitally signed FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors.
Udbhav by Udbhav
Kumar Jain Page no. 18 of 27
Kumar 2024.11.16
Date:
Jain 17:56:22
+0530
disputed) as also carrying one country-made pistol and two live cartridges. The witness confirmed that the accused Pankaj and Rai Singh, both present in court and correctly identified, were carrying one buttondar knife each. All the accused were traveling in an Indica car bearing registration no. DL 8CNA 0644 at the time of their apprehension by the police officers. The witness conducted a search of the Indica car, recovering an iron rod, a cutter, and screwdrivers. He prepared the sketches of both country-made pistols along with the live cartridges as Ex. PW2/A and PW2/B, both bearing the witness's signature at Point X. The witness also prepared sketches of both buttondar knives as Ex. PW2/C and PW2/D also bearing their signature at Point X. The country-made pistol recovered from accused Raju had a 15.6 cm long barrel, a 9 cm long handle, and a 10 cm long center area, while the cartridges were 7.4 cm long with "8 mm KF" engraved on the base. The pistol recovered from accused Sarvesh had a 14.3 cm long barrel, an 8.5 cm long handle, and a 10.8 cm long center area, with the same cartridge specifications. The buttondar knife recovered from accused Rai Singh measured 31.8 cm in total length, with a 14.6 cm blade and a 17.2 cm handle that had a design on it. The buttondar knife from accused Pankaj measured 23.8 cm in total length, with a 10.4 cm blade and a 13.4 cm handle, also featuring a design. Following this, a pulanda was prepared, and the case properties were duly seized, with the seal used for seizing all case properties marked as CLM. The seizure memos Ex. PW2/E, PW2/F, PW2/G, and PW2/H, all bear the witness's signature at Point X. The iron rod, screwdrivers, and other articles recovered from the Indica car were seized via a separate seizure memo Ex. PW2/I which bears the witness's signature at Point X. The Indica car was also seized through a separate memo Ex. PW2/J also bearing the witness's signature at Point X. The witness filled out the FSL form at the scene.
Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Kumar Jain Date: 2024.11.16 Jain 17:56:28 +0530 FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Page no. 19 of 27
11.1. He recorded the statement of HC Subhash Ex. PW6/A bearing the witness's signature at Point X. Based on this, the witness prepared the rukka, Ex. PW7/A bearing his signature at Point A. This rukka was handed over to Ct. Pradeep for the registration of the FIR. Ct. Pradeep left the spot with the tehrir and returned after registering the FIR, handing the witness a copy of the FIR Ex. PW1/A along with the original rukka. The witness prepared the site plan Ex. PW7/B, bearing his signature at Point A. The accused Raju, Sarvesh, Pankaj, and Rai Singh were arrested via memos Ex. PW2/K, PW4/A, PW6/B, and PW5/A, all bearing the witness's signature at Point X. The witness also conducted personal searches of all the accused persons, documented in memos Ex. PW7/C, PW7/D, PW7/E, and PW7/F, bearing his signature at Point X. Disclosure statements of all the accused were recorded vide Ex. PW3/A, PW3/B, PW3/C, and PW3/D all bearing the witness's signature at Point X. The witness, along with all police officers, accused persons, and case properties, returned to the PS, where all case properties were deposited in the malkhana. The witness recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. from all witnesses and produced the accused persons before the court, where they were sent to judicial custody. On 22.04.2010, the exhibits of the case were sent for FSL through MCMCP. The witness was subsequently transferred, and the chargesheet was submitted in court. The witness inspected all case properties Ex. P1 to P11 and confirmed that they were the same items seized from the accused persons. Identity of the Indica car bearing registration no. DL 8CNA 0644 was not disputed by the Ld. Counsels of all accused persons. Witness correctly identified accused Raju, Pankaj & Rai Singh. Identity of accused Sarvesh was not disputed by Ld. Counsel for accused.
11.2. On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness deposed that he had made a departure entry in the PS before leaving on that day, which was recorded as DD No. 6A, but no separate departure entry was Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Jain Kumar FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Kumar Date: Page no. 20 of 27 Jain 2024.11.16 17:56:35 +0530 made. The witness commuted on his personal motorcycle and noted that, due to the night hours and winter season, no public persons were present at the spot where the accused were apprehended which was on the road. The witness did not observe any other vehicles passing by at that time. Police officers had conducted a frisking search of the accused persons before the witness arrived, but the formal search and seizure were conducted by the witness. The witness recalled all the case properties seized and mentioned that they carried a 10 kit, which includes measuring instruments, as it is standard practice for an IO to have it when assigned a case. He remembered the date of the incident but could not recall the specific day of the week. While he could not specify the exact time he prepared the sketches of the case properties, he indicated it was around 4:00 AM. The witness stated that he had reviewed the police file when called to court for evidence, but he was discharged unexamined that day. Witness denied the suggestion that all the case properties were planted on the accused, that all documents were prepared while sitting at the PS, that the rukka was prepared at the PS, that he never visited the spot of the apprehension and that all disclosure statements were recorded while at the PS. The case properties were deposited in the malkhana on 22.02.2010 in the afternoon, but the witness could not specify the exact time of deposition. When asked who the CP of the Delhi Police department in the year was in 2010 on the date of the incident, the witness responded that he was unsure but thought it might be Sh. YS Dadwal. Witness denied the suggestion that there was unofficial communication from Sh. YS Dadwal in 2010 ordering the immediate arrest of all suspects under the Arms Act, as well as the notion that the accused persons were arrested due to such communication. The witness left the spot at around 6:00 AM and confirmed that no independent public persons were joined in the investigation. He acknowledged that all witnesses of recovery were police personnel, and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of all witnesses were recorded at the PS. The site plan was prepared at the instance Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors.Kumar Date: Page no. 21 of 27 2024.11.16 Jain 17:56:42 +0530 of HC Subhash at the spot along with all sketches. The witness admitted he had not obtained the signature of HC Subhash on the site plan, nor had he shown the position of the police barricade in it. Witness further denied the suggestion that the case properties recovered from the accused were planted on them by police officers, that all statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded at their whims and fancies or that he was deposing untruthfully being the IO of the case.
12. Insp. Deepak Pandey (PW-8) in his examination-in-chief deposed that in 2011, he was posted at PS Madhu Vihar as an SI. The Reader to the SHO handed them a ballistic FSL report dated 24.05.2011 and directed the witness to file it in the concerned court after obtaining sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act. Subsequently, the witness obtained the sanction from the Additional DCP, East District, Delhi, on 01.02.2012. He then moved an application in the concerned court as Ex. PW8/A, bearing the witness's signature at point A. Finally, the witness submitted the sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act along with the FSL report to the court.
12.1. On his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, witness deposed that he did not recall the timing when the Reader to the SHO handed over the FSL report to them. He was verbally directed to take the necessary action. The witness deposited the said documents in the court on 02.05.2012, having obtained them from the office in the evening hours on 01.02.2012. He had no knowledge of whether any separate ordersheet was recorded on 02.05.2012, the day he moved the application to deposit the sanction and the FSL report (noting that the concerned Ld. PO had made a note on their application and accepted it). The witness acknowledged that he had no personal knowledge regarding the present FIR and confirmed that the investigation conducted by him in the present FIR was part of hisregular Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors.Jain 2024.11.16 Page no. 22 of 27 17:56:49 +0530 official duties. He did not make any record in the PS regarding the said application. The witness denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. Additionally, he mentioned that Diary No. 35A SO-Addl. DCP East was made in the office of the concerned Additional DCP.
13. All the prosecution witnesses were examined and accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed on 04.08.2023.
STATEMENT AND DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
14. Whatever incriminating evidence was available on record and brought forth by the prosecution, were put to the accused persons and statement of accused persons u/s 313 CrPC were recorded on 13.09.2023 whereby accused persons chose not to lead evidence in their defence.
ARGUMENTS
15. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsels for the accused persons at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material available on record.
POINT OF DETERMINATION
16. After going through the record and considering the material available on record, the only point of determination that is left is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
17. The general burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be Digitally signed by weighed keeping in view the said legal standards. Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Jain Date: 2024.11.16 17:56:56 +0530 FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Page no. 23 of 27
18. In the instant case, all the prosecution witnesses are police officials. While there is no bar to rely upon the testimony of police officials but as a rule of prudence and matter of caution, their testimony should be trustworthy, reliable, cogent and must remain unimpeached.
19. On con-joint reading of the testimony of all the witnesses, there are various material discrepancies in the prosecution's case which in turn fails to substantiate its case that the alleged desi kattas/pistols, live and used cartridges and buttoned knife were recovered from the possession of the accused persons rather this Court has reason to believe that the alleged recovery were planted respectively upon each accused due to circumstances as discussed hereinafter.
20. Firstly, the prosecution has not placed on record the departure entry of all or any of the witnesses so as to establish the fact that the witnesses were on patrolling duty or that they were present at the spot at the time of the alleged recovery of knife. In this regard Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 is of relevance which provides the following:
"22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II - The 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 office concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. Note:- The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines & Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained".
15.1. Thus, it is incumbent upon a police official that whenever he leaves the police station, he is required to make a departure entry in the Daily Diary Register as per Punjab Police Rules, 1934. In the instant case, there is no documentary evidence which can prove the presence of the witnesses at the date, time and place of alleged incident. The prosecution was under obligation to prove the presence of witnesses at the date, time and place of incident but nothing has Digitally signed State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Udbhav Kumar Jain by Udbhav FIR No. 59/2010 Page no. 24 of 27 Kumar Date:
2024.11.16 Jain 17:57:03 +0530 been placed on record by the prosecution to show the presence of the all the witnesses, who are police officials, at the site on the date and time of the incident. Even there are various contradictions in the testimony of these witnesses.
21. Secondly, the witnesses examined in the present case are police witnesses and admittedly, no public/independent witness was neither made as a witness in the case nor any such witness has been examined by the prosecution which not only casts a serious doubt upon the story of the prosecution but also attributes oblique motive to their actions. The alleged spot of recovery was a public place but strangely, no public person was asked to join the proceedings of recovery and prosecution has failed to show that any such efforts were taken. This creates serious doubt regarding the fairness of investigation. In Anoop Joshi Vs. State. 1992 (2) C. C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:
"18. 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 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".
16.1. In the case titled as Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi, 1992(1) R.C.R. (Cr.) 412, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:
"the recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby and yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witness from the public specially when they are available, may, as in the present case creates doubt. They have again, churned out a stereo typed version."Digitally signed
Udbhav by Udbhav
Kumar Kumar Jain
Date: 2024.11.16
Jain 17:57:11 +0530
FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Page no. 25 of 27
16.2. In the present case, there was no public witness who was examined by the prosecution. It is true that in all the cases, it is not necessary that public witness is joined in investigation and is examined as a PW. There can be instances where the public witnesses are reluctant or hesitant to join the investigation or are not available but what is important is that a genuine attempt to join the public or their unavailability must be shown by the prosecution which, in the present case, is missing and has further dented the case of the prosecution.
22. Thirdly, it is not clear whether the sketch memos of the katta, live cartridges, and buttondar knives, Ex. PW2/A to Ex. PW2/D as well as the seizure memos of all the recovered items, Ex. PW2/E to Ex.PW2/I, were prepared before the registration of FIR as can be seen from the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3. This is however contrary to the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6. Further, PW-7 who is the IO of the case, himself deposed that sketches and seizure memos were prepared before the registration of the FIR and in his cross-examination that these were prepared around 4 am but strangely these documents bear the FIR number of the present case. This is not possible unless either FIR number has been inserted later on upon these documents after registration of FIR or else these documents have been prepared after registration of FIR. In both conditions, this fact throws doubt on the prosecution version and materially affects its credibility. Further, the FIR has been registered after 3 hours from the time of alleged offence then how is it possible that the FIR number has been mentioned on these documents. Moreover, there is no seal handing over memo available on record. In Mohd. Hasim Vs. State, 1999 VI AD (DELHI) 569, it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:
"Documents prepared before registering the FIR bears FIR Number, meaning thereby either FIR was recorded posterior in time or that documents were prepared after the recording the FIR, and was held that in both case, prosecution case would collapse."
Udbhav Digitally signed by
Udbhav Kumar Jain
Kumar Date: 2024.11.16
Jain 17:57:17 +0530
FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Page no. 26 of 27
23. Lastly, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L. Goswami (Dr) v. State of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC 22 that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution. The same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in Nanjundappa & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine SC 628. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of offence as there is doubt on the whole story of the prosecution since the same is not supported with any independent/public witness and the testimony of all the witnesses are neither reliable nor trustworthy to the extent of proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.
CONCLUSION
24. In view of the above discussion, the accused persons namely, Sarvesh Kumar, Pankaj Kumar, Rai Singh and Raju are hereby found not guilty. Accordingly, accused Sarvesh Kumar, Pankaj Kumar, Rai Singh and Raju are hereby acquitted of the offences under section 25 Arms Act.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court today i.e., 16.11.2024.
Digitally signed
Udbhav by Udbhav
Kumar Kumar Jain
Date: 2024.11.16
Jain 17:57:23 +0530
(UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN)
JMFC-04:SHD:KKD
This judgment contains 27 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
FIR No. 59/2010 State vs. Sarvesh & Ors. Page no. 27 of 27