Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Sharik on 23 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -08
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
Presiding Officer : Ms. Meena Chauhan, DJS
FIR No. 22/21
PS: Kamla Market
U/s 25 Arms Act
State v. Md. Sharik
CIS No. 3630/2021
Date of Institution of case : 20.03.2021
Date when Judgment reserved : Not reserved
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 23.09.2023
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 25/21 PS: Kamla a Serial No. of the case :
Market Date of the commission of b : 02.02.2021 the offence c Name of the Complainant : Ct. Mohan Mohd. Sharik Name of Accused and S/o Mohd. Noor, R/o H. No. D-
d :
parentage and residence 73, DDA Flat, Matia Mahal,
Jama Masjid, Delhi
e Offence complained of : U/s 25(1B)/54/59 Arms Act
Plea of the Accused and
f : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquittal
h Date of Order : 23.09.2023
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.02.2021 at State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 1/21 about 8:45 PM, at Pull Paharganj, Picket Near Toilet, Delhi, accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife vide seizure memo Mark X in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration and committed an offence punishable U/s. 25 Arms Act, 1959.
The buttondar knife was seized and taken into possession by the police.
2. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused on 20.03.2021. Copy of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused under section 207 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C) and thereafter, a charge under section 25 Arms Act was framed against him on 21.04.2023 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined three (03) witnesses to substantiate allegations against the accused.
4. PW-1 HC Dharmender has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 02.02.2021, he along with HC Devender was on picket duty at Pull Paharganj, near toilet. On that day at about 8:45 pm, one person who was coming towards them from the Ajmeri Gate side, after seeing them on duty he turned back and started walking hastily, due to which they got suspicious of him. They apprehended him after running 15 to 20 steps. They inquired about him, but he could not give any satisfactory answer. HC Devender conducted a cursory search of the accused and found one buttondar knife from the right pocket of the pants of the State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 2/21 accused. HC Devender informed the Duty Officer about the incident. In compliance of which HC Naresh came to the spot after sometime. HC Devender informed about the incident to the IO/HC Naresh and handed over the custody of the accused and the buttondar knife to IO/HC Naresh. On inquiry, the name of the accused was revealed as Mohd Sharik. IO asked 4 to 5 public persons to join the investigation but they refused to join and left the place on pretext of some urgent work. No notice was served to them due to paucity of time. IO recorded the statement of HC Devender. IO prepared the sketch memo of the buttondar knife by putting the same on white paper Ex.PW-1/A. The total length of the knife was 22.5 cm and the length of butt was 12.2 cm and the width of the blade was 2.3 cm having a button on the handle of the knife and the length of the blade was 10.3 cm. IO put the knife in the white cloth and prepared pullanda and sealed it with the seal AG. The seal after use was handed over to HC Devender. IO prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B. IO prepared the tehrir/rukka and handed over the same to him for the registration of the FIR. After registration of the FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir/rukka to the IO. IO inserted the particulars of the case on sketch memo and seizure memo. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Devender. IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C and conducted the personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/D. IO recorded the disclosure State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 3/21 statement of the accused Ex.PW-1/E. IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C and he was discharged. He has correctly identified the accused. MHC(M) produced the case property, in a white pullanda bearing the particulars of the present case on it and duly sealed with the seal of AG. The seal was intact and with the permission of the court the seal was broken and pullanda was opened. On seeing the case property, the witness had correctly identified the same as the one which was seized from the possession of the accused on the date of incident which was exhibited as Ex.P-1.
During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-1 admitted that the incident spot is a busy area and the traffic was passing through. On that day at about 8.50 pm, he was alongwith HC Devender at the time of recovery of case property from the accused. The scaling of the knife was done by HC Naresh through the standard steel scale. He admitted that no chance prints of the accused were collected by the IO from the buttondar knife. He went with the Tehrir at about 10.25 pm for registration of FIR and came back at the spot at about 10:45 pm. He remained at the PS for about 10 to 15 minutes. The distance of the spot from the PS was about 200 to 300 meters. IO arrested the accused at about 11.30 pm. He left the spot at about 11:45 pm. He admitted that the CCTV cameras were not installed on the spot. He denied the suggestion that the IO did not make any efforts State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 4/21 to get the CCTV footage. The picket duty was at the starting point of the Pull Paharganj and the toilet was situated near the picket. The accused was wearing the shirt and pants at the time of his arrest. He did not remember the color of clothes worn by the accused. He denied the suggestion that no case property was recovered from the accused or that the case property was falsely implanted upon the accused. He denied the suggestion that the accused was arrested from his house. He denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting at the PS. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
5. PW-2 ASI Devender has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 02.02.2021, he alongwith Ct. Dharmender was on picket duty at Pull Paharganj, near the toilet. On that day at about 8:45 pm, one person was coming towards them from the Ajmeri Gate side, after seeing them on duty he turned back and started walking hastily, due to which they got suspicious of him. They apprehended him after running 15 to 20 steps. They inquired about him, but he could not give any satisfactory answer. He conducted a cursory search of the accused and found one buttondar knife from the right pocket of the pants of the accused. He informed the Duty Officer about the incident. In compliance with which IO/HC Naresh came to the spot after sometime. He informed about the incident to the IO/HC Naresh and handed over the custody State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 5/21 of the accused and the buttondar knife to IO/HC Naresh. On inquiry, the name of the accused was revealed as Mohd Sharik. IO asked 4 to 5 public persons to join the investigation but they refused to join and left the place on pretext of some urgent work. No notice was served to them due to paucity of time. IO recorded his statement Ex. PW- 2/A. IO prepared the sketch memo of the buttondar knife by putting the same on white paper which Ex.PW-1/A. The total length of knife was 22.5 cm and the length of butt was 12.2 cm and the width of the blade was 2.3 cm having a button on the handle of knife and the length of the blade was 10.3 cm. IO put the knife in the white cloth and prepared pullanda and sealed it with the seal AG. The seal after use was handed over to him. IO prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B. IO prepared the tehrir/rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Dharmender for the registration of the FIR. After registration of the FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir/rukka to the IO. IO inserted the particulars of the case on sketch memo and seizure memo. IO prepared the site plan at his instance Ex. PW-2/B. IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C and conducted the personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/D. IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW- 1/E. IO recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C and he was discharged. He has correctly identified the accused. MHC(M) produced the case property, in a white pullanda State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 6/21 bearing the particulars of the present case on it and duly sealed with the seal of AG. The seal was intact and with the permission of the court the seal was broken and pullanda was opened. On seeing the case property i.e., the buttondar knife, the witness has correctly identified the same as the one which was seized from the possession of the accused on the date of incident exhibited as Ex.P-1.
During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-2 admitted that the incident spot is a busy area and the traffic was passing through. He admitted that the public persons were also passing on foot near the spot. They saw the accused from a distance of approx 15 to 20 steps. IO arrived at the spot at about 9:00 pm. IO recorded his statement at about 10:00 pm. He cannot tell the exact distance of the toilet from where they arrested the accused. The spot was lit as there were street lights installed near the spot. It took about 1½ hours to conduct all the proceedings. He left the spot at about 11:00 pm approx. They all left the spot together.The scaling of the knife was done by HC Naresh through the standard steel scale. He admitted that no chance prints of the accused were collected by the IO from the buttondar knife. The distance of the spot from the PS is about 200 to 300 meters. IO arrested the accused at about 11.30 pm. He admitted that the CCTV cameras were not installed on the spot. He denied the suggestion that the IO did not make any efforts to get the CCTV footage. The picket duty was State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 7/21 at the starting point of the Pull Paharganj and the toilet was situated near the picket. The accused was wearing the shirt and pants at the time of his arrest and not jeans. He does not remember the color of clothes worn by the accused. He denied the suggestion that no case property was recovered from the accused or that the case property was falsely implanted upon the accused. He denied the suggestion that the accused was arrested from his house. He denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting at the PS. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW-3 ASI Naresh Chand has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 02.02.2021, he received DD no. 62 mentioning that HC Devender and Ct. Dharmender apprehended one person namely Sharik. On receiving the said DD, he went to the spot ie., Pul Paharganj Picket. HC Devender had handed the custody of the accused and the buttondar knife to him. He recorded the statement of HC Devender Ex.PW2/A. He prepared a sketch memo of buttondar knife Ex.PW1/A. He asked 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but all of them refused by giving their reasonable excuses without disclosing their names and addresses. Due to paucity of time, no notice could be served upon them. He put the knife in white cloth and prepared pullanda and sealed it with the seal of AG. The seal after use was handed over to HC Devender. He prepared a seizure memo of case property Ex.PW1/B. He State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 8/21 prepared tehrir Ex.PW3/A and handed over the same to Ct. Dharmender for registration of FIR. Accordingly, he went to the PS and got the FIR registered and came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir / rukka to him. He prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Devender Ex.PW2/B. He arrested the accused and carried out his personal search vide memos Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW1/E. Accused was taken to the hospital for medical examination and was later on put behind the bars in the lock up of the PS and he deposited the case property in the malkhana. He recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C and they were discharged. On completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet before the concerned court. He has correctly identified the accused. MHCM produced the case property in a white pullanda bearing the particulars of the present case and duly sealed with the seal of MC. The seal was intact and broken with the permission of the court and pullanda was opened. On seeing the case property ie.., buttondar knife, the witness has correctly identified the same which was seized from the possession of the accused on the date of incident exhibited as Ex.P1.
During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-2 stated that he left the PS at about 9.00 pm and reached the spot at about 9.05 pm. Ct. Dharmender left the spot with tehrir at about 10.25 pm for State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 9/21 registration of FIR and came back at the spot at about 11.15 pm. The spot was not crowded as it was night time. Traffic was passing through. No public person was passing through at that time on foot. The accused was present just before the picket. He has not obtained any chance print of the accused. He requested passers by to join the investigation. He finally left the spot along with co-staff at about 11.35 pm. The distance of the spot from the PS was approximately 500-600 meters. He denied the suggestion that the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case and was arrested from his house. He denied the suggestion that the case property was planted upon the accused. There was no CCTV camera at the spot. He recorded the statement of witnesses at PS. He denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were carried out at the PS. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
7. Vide statements of the accused recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C, the accused admitted an FIR Ex.A-1, endorsement Ex.A-2, Certificate u/s 65(B) Indian Evidence Act Ex.A-3 and DAD notification Ex.A-4 without admitting the contents of the same.
8. The prosecution evidence was closed on 14.09.2023.
Statement of the accused u/s 313 read with section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded in which he stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He further stated that no knife was recovered from his possession and recovery has been planted. He stated that State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 10/21 he has not committed any offence. He also submitted that he did not want to lead defence evidence. Final arguments in the matter were heard.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
9. At the time of final arguments, Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and all the ingredients of the relevant section are complete. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that all the prosecution witnesses are police witnesses and their testimonies are not corroborated with any public witness. He submitted that the accused has been planted in the present matter. He prayed that the accused be acquitted.
10. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and perused the documents on record carefully. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record. Before moving on for appreciation of evidence for deciding the present case, the applicable penal provision is reproduced in verbatim as follows:-
"25. Punishment for certain offences:-
(1B) Whoever-...
(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 11/21 contravention of that section; or...shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 25 [one year] but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."
11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused. Further, it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such reasonable doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
12. Coming to the matter in hand, to sustain conviction u/s. 25 of Arms Act, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:
● The accused was found in the possession of the button actuated knife.
● The accused was carrying the same without any licence/permit or in contravention of notification of Delhi Administration.
13. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution is required to prove the possession of a buttondar knife with the accused at the very spot, from where the accused was apprehended. As per the case of the State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 12/21 prosecution, the accused was apprehended at around 08:45 pm at Pull Paharganj, near toilet, Delhi, which is a public place. Further, the recovery witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 unanimously admitted in their cross-examination that the incident spot was a busy area and the traffic was passing through. The recovery is alleged to have been affected from a public place at around 08:45 P.M. Therefore, in all probability public persons must have been present around the place of recovery. Also, all the prosecution witnesses deposed that 4-5 persons were requested to join the investigation. It turns out that there was no lack of time and opportunity with the IO to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with the provisions of code of criminal procedure. Merely mentioning that public persons were requested to join the investigation is of no avail. The names of those persons are not mentioned. It is not mentioned as to what action was taken against those persons who refused to join the investigation.
14. Here, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Of Punjab V. Balbir Singh AIR 1994 SC 1872, held that :
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 13/21 accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on the question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions. [Emphasis supplied]"
15. At this stage, it is crucial here to refer to section 100 of Cr.P.C. which is reproduced here:
100. Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.
(4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.
(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.
(8) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ).
State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 14/21
16. Section 100 (4) of the CrPC casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Further, it is clearly stated that if any such person refuses or neglects to be part of the search without citing any reasonable cause, it is the duty of an official to give him a notice in this regard.
17. In the present case, on perusal of the documentary records relied on by the prosecution, it is clear that neither the tehrir/rukka which is PW2/A, nor FIR which is Ex.A1 mentioned any public witness or independent witness. The fact of not noting down the name or address of any witness in the diary, or giving notice to public persons who refused to be part of the investigation, casts doubt on the story of the prosecution that whether any serious efforts were made to join any public witness in the proceedings. All the three prosecution witnesses examined in the present matter are police witnesses. The testimony of official witnesses doesn't find any corroboration from any independent source. In the opinion of this court, non-joining of independent/public witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case and creates serious doubts regarding the genuineness of investigation proceedings done at the spot.
18. In Roop Chand v. State of Haryana 1990(1) CLR 69, it was observed that such explanations that the public persons refused to join the proceedings are unreliable.
State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 15/21 Further, in Passi @ Prakash V. State of Haryana 2001(1) RCR 435, that whenever any recovery in connection with the place of the commission of the offence is made, public persons must be made witnesses. Also, in Pawan Kumar v/s Delhi Administration 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, it was observed that in case failure to join independent witness benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
19. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
20. The other major infirmity found in the present case is that as per the prosecution version, the buttondar knife has been recovered from the possession of the accused. To substantiate this allegation, the prosecution produced tehrir which mentioned sketch memo(Ex.PW1/A) and Seizure memo (Ex.PW1/B) of the buttondar knife being made at the time of recovery. Further, as per the depositions of all prosecution witnesses, the case property was first seized, a sketch of one button operated knife was prepared and then rukka was sent for registration of FIR. However, the seizure memo and sketch bear the FIR State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 16/21 number. At the time of the seizure, the FIR number was not available and therefore, the FIR number could not have been figured on the seizure memo or the sketch. The existence of the FIR number on the seizure memo suggests that the seizure memo was prepared after the registration of the FIR. This further erodes the credibility of the seizure memo and sketch memo as the possibility of tampering can't be ruled out.
21. In paragraph 4 of Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 569, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed:
"... Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. PW7/A) received by the Sub-Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW-7), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A) and the report submitted under Section 57 of the Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex.PW4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to under what circumstance number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution."
22. Another dent in the prosecution case is related to the seal. It is crucial to note here that there are three major discrepancies in this regard:
State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 17/21 ● No seal-handling memo was prepared.
● Seal not handed over to independent witness after use.
● Deposition of seal in Malkhana or any other place has not been proved.
23. This Court is conscious of precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State 1993 (1) RCR (CRIMINAL) 622, that:
"The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. ..... Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
24. Coming to the factual matrix of the present case, all witnesses have deposed in their examination-in-chief that PW-3/IO has seized and sealed the case property at the spot in clothed white pullanda with the seal of AG. PW-3 and PW-1 deposed after that seal was handed over to PW- 2/ASI Devender, however no handing over memo was surfaced in the record or exhibited in the prosecution evidence. The seal was handed over to the material prosecution witness, who is already interested in the case of the prosecution as he himself is the complainant and not handed over to an independent witness nor deposited in malkhana. No explanation has come on record as to why the handing over memo was not made or the seal was not State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 18/21 handed over to an independent witness or deposited in malkhana. In such a factual backdrop, the seal remained with the police officials of the same police station and therefore, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of the said witness and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property.
25. In this regard, judgment in a case titled as Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452, may be adverted to, wherein it was observed in paragraph 7 that:
"...The very purpose of giving a seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out."
26. Further, in the present case it has to be noted that there is no evidence of the fact that the police officials had offered their own search to the accused prior to his search and there is admittedly no notice ever served to any public witness by the police officials. In the case of Orissa High Court reported as Rabindernath Prusty v/s State of Orissa, it was held that "One of the formalities that have to be observed in searching a person is that the searching Officer and other assisting him should give their search to State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 19/21 the accused before searching the person of the accused." In the present case, no independent witness deposed about the search being done by the accused before his personal search whereby the buttondar knife was recovered from him. All these circumstances raise serious doubt regarding the fairness and credibility of investigation proceedings conducted by the police at the alleged date, time and place.
CONCLUSION:
27. The facts that no independent witness was cited or examined and the appearance of FIR number and case particulars on the seizure memo, no seal handing memo, has not been explained, all aforesaid inconsistencies when kept in juxtaposition to each other, cast a cloud of suspicion over the prosecution version. In view of the aforesaid, the possibility of false implication of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out.
28. On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence, I find that there is no corroborative, consistent and sufficient evidence to make up the edifice of the prosecution case which has been produced by the prosecution. Given the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Accused is given the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused Mohd. Sharik S/o Mohd. Noor, R/o H. No. D-73, DDA Flat, Matia State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 20/21 Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi is hereby acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 25 of The Arms Act, 1959. Case property be confiscated to the State and be destroyed after expiry of the period of appeal.
29. File be consigned to Record Room subject to compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open court MEENA by MEENA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: today i.e. 23rd of September, 2023 2023.09.23 17:26:12 +0530 (MEENA CHAUHAN) Metropolitan Magistrate-08 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
[This judgment contains 21 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Mohd. Sharik FIR No. 25/2021 PS Kamla Market 21/21