Delhi District Court
State vs Arish Harish on 2 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. AAYUSHI SAXENA,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case No. -: 1214/2022
CNR No. -: DLSH020113072021
FIR No. -: 554/2021
Police Station -: Jafrabad
Section(s) -: 25 Arms Act
In the matter of: Digitally
signed by
AAYUSHI
AAYUSHI SAXENA
STATE SAXENA Date:
2025.08.02
(Represented by Sh. Bhuvnesh Sharma, 15:50:38
+0530
Ld. APP for the State)
VERSUS
Arish @ Harish
S/o Afsar Khan,
R/o House No. C-216, Gali No.8, Chauhan Banger,
Jafrabad, Delhi.
...... Accused
ASI Satish Rana,
1. Name of Complainant :
PSI No.28960827
Arish @ Harish
S/o Afsar Khan,
R/o House No.
2. Name of Accused :
C-216, Gali No.8,
Chauhan Banger,
Jafrabad, Delhi.
Section 25 Arms
3. Offence complained of or proved :
Act
4. Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 13.10.2021 State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 1 of 16
6. Date of filing of case : 08.12.2021
7. Date of pronouncement : 02.08.2025
8. Final Order : Acquittal BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 13.10.2021 at 7:30 PM at Tent Wala School, 66 Ft. Road, Jafrabad, the accused was found in possession of one Desi Katta alongwith two live cartridges without any valid license, in contravention of provisions of Arms Act. The said Desi Katta alongwith two live cartridges were seized and taken into possession by the police. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out. On culmination of the same, the Police Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., against the accused was filed under Section 25 Arms Act in the court.
2. Vide order dated 18.05.2023 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, cognizance in the present matter was taken and summons were directed to be issued upon the accused. On 21.08.2023, accused was produced from JC and copy of charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet alongwith documents annexed therewith, were supplied to him as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.
State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 2 of 16
3. On finding a prima facie case against the accused charge under Section 25 Arms Act was framed against him by this Court on 06.12.2023, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. On 06.12.2023 itself, vide his separate statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C., the accused had admitted following documents;
4.1.Copy of FIR No. 554/2021 which was exhibited as Ex. P1.
4.2.Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which was exhibited as Ex. P2.
4.3.DD No. 4 dated 17.10.2021, which was exhibited as Ex.P3.
4.4.FSL Report, which was exhibited as Ex.P4.
4.5.Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act, which was exhibited as Ex.P5.
In view of admission of above-documents, witness mentioned at serial no.3 and 6, of the list of witnesses filed by the prosecution, were dropped.
PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 3 of 16 examined five witnesses.
5.1 PW-1 HC Irfan Ahmad inter-alia deposed that on 07.10.2021, he was posted at AS & R cell as HC and he along with ASI Satish Rana, Ct. Shravan, Ct. Jagdish and Ct. Rajesh were on patrolling duty vide DD No. 04A and they reached at around 06:50 PM at Janta Colony, Peeli Mitti. He further deposed that one secret informer met ASI Satish Rana and he told that one Arish, who was a BC, would be coming near Tent Wala School, Jafrabad, in order to meet someone, and if raided, he could be caught. He further deposed that ASI Satish Rana, without wasting time, shared the information with I/C special staff north east Delhi Insp. Rohtash Kumar through phone and he directed to take necessary action. He further deposed that ASI Satish Rana shared the order of Insp. Rohtash and the information with all of them along with the secret informer and also requested few public persons to join the raid but none of them joined citing their personal reason and left from the spot. He further deposed that due to paucity of time no notice could be served to anyone. He further deposed that ASI Satish Rana prepared a raiding party and at around 07:10 PM, they reached Tent wala School, where 4-5 public persons were again requested by ASI Satish Rana to join the raid but none of them joined citing their personal reasons. He further deposed that he along with ASI State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 4 of 16 Satish Rana, Ct. Shravan and the secret informer took position near the wall at 66 Feet road, adjacent to the wall of Tent vala School and the remaining staff took position on the opposite side of the road. He further deposed that the staff was keeping an eye on the vehicles that were coming and at around 07:30 PM, one boy came on a scooty make Jupiter from the side of Jafrabad, near Tent vala school Gate and he was waiting for someone. He further deposed that the secret informer pointed out towards the said boy and he along with Ct. Shravan and ASI Satish approached the boy and caught hold of the said boy. He further deposed that seeing them, the other staff also came and on cursory search of the boy, one Deshi Katta was recovered from his left Dhub of his pant and one live cartridge from the right pocket of his pant. He further deposed that the katta was opened and checked, which was found to contain one live cartridge, which was taken out. He further deposed that on inquiry the boy told his name as Arish @ Harish s/o Afsar Khan. Further, he deposed that the Katta was in total 26.5 CM with Barrel 15.5 CM and Butt 08 CM and body around 11 CM with the live cartridges 7.5 CM. He further deposed that the katta had a screw on the butt covered with wooden piece and brass body of the pistol on which one catch was available with the help of which it could be opened and with the help of State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 5 of 16 trigger the same could be fired. He further deposed that ASI Satish took the Katta and the two live cartridges and placed them on a white sheet of paper to prepare a sketch Ex.PW1/A measuring the Katta and the cartridges and thereafter, the katta and the cartridges were kept in a plastic transparent box and pullanda was prepared and seized vide memo Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that the pullanda was sealed with seal of 'SR' and after the use, the seal was handed over to him by ASI Satish Rana. He further deposed that ASI Satish Rana prepared a seal handing over memo Ex.PW1/C and also obtained his signature on the same and thereafter ASI Satish Rana also filled FSL form. He further deposed that the scooty bearing no. DL-5S-AV-6964 was also seized vide memo Ex. PW1/D by ASI Satish Rana and on inquiry, Arish told that the abovesaid scooty was stolen by him from Babarpur and thereafter, ASI Satish Rana checked the scooty's engine number and chasis number on Zipnet, which was found to be stolen in e-FIR no. 25865, Dt. 17.09.2021 PS welcome. He further deposed that ASI Satish Rana recorded Tehrir and the same was handed over to Ct. Shravan and ASI Satish Rana also handed over the case property, the accused, Sketch and Seizure memos to ASI Harender, who came to the spot as 2nd IO. He further deposed that Ct. Shravan returned with copy of FIR and original Tehrir, which were State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 6 of 16 handed over to ASI Harender. He further deposed that ASI Harender prepared a site plan on the deposition of ASI Satish Rana and thereafter, ASI Harender entered the FIR number on the seizure memos and sketch of the Deshi Katta and on the pullanda. He further deposed that thereafter, ASI Harender arrested the accused Arish @ Harish vide memo Ex. PW1/E and personally searched him vide memo Ex. PW1/F, in which cash of Rs.70/- was recovered from his possession. He further deposed that ASI Harender recorded a disclosure of accused Ex. PW1/G and thereafter, they took the accused to PS and after medical, the accused was sent to lock-up and the case property was deposited in Malkhana and thereafter, his statement along with statement of Ct. Shravan were recorded on computer by IO ASI Harender.
PW-1 correctly identified the case property Ex.A1 which was produced by MHC(M) on the date of his examination.
PW-1 correctly identified the accused Aarish @ Harish also, who was present in court on that date.
PW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. LAC for the accused.
5.2 PW-2 HC Sarwan deposed on similar lines as PW-1.
PW-2 correctly identified the accused, who was State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 7 of 16 present in the court, during his testimony.
PW-2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
5.3 PW-3 SI Harender also deposed on similar lines as PW-1 and PW-2. He additionally deposed that on 18.10.2021 he recorded statement of HC Irfan and Ct. Shravan. He further deposed that on 26.10.2021, he instructed HC Lal Bahadur to deposit the case exhibits in FSL Rohini. He further deposed that HC Lal Bahadur submitted the same and came back to the Police Station, whereafter he recorded statement of HC Lal Bahadur. He further deposed that he prepared the challan and filed before the Court without FSL result. He also deposed that after getting the FSL result, he filed supplementary chargesheet, after getting sanction from DCP concerned.
PW-3 correctly identified the accused during his testimony before the Court.
PW-3 was duly cross-examined by Ld. LAC for the accused.
5.4 PW-4 ASI Lal Bahadur inter-alia deposed that on 26.10.2021, he was posted at PS Jafrabad as MHCM (CP) and one sealed pullanda (Plastic box) vide road certificate no. 159/21/2021, dt. 26.10.2021 was taken by him for depositing at FSL Rohini. He further deposed that he went to FSL Rohini and deposited the State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 8 of 16 sealed pullanda at FSL Rohini and he obtained the acknowledgment and copy of RC was attached with the case file. He further deposed that the pullanda was intact till it was in his possession and the seal was not tempered. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by ASI Harender, photocopy of register no. 19 was Mark A and copy of RC was Mark B and acknowledgment was Mark C. 5.5 PW-5 ASI Satish Rana deposed on similar lines as PW-1 HC Irfan and PW-2 HC Sarvan.
PW-5 correctly identified the accused during his testimony before the Court.
PW-5 was duly cross examined by Ld. LAC for accused.
6. Thereafter, PE was closed on 30.05.2025. On 26.06.2025, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused pleaded innocence. On that very date, he stated that he did not wish to lead DE and view of the same, DE stood closed. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
7. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Ld. APP for the State and by Mr. Bhairav Dass, Ld. LAC for the accused. Ld. APP for the State has contended that prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 9 of 16 reasonable doubts and, therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the offence in question.
Per contra, Ld. LAC for accused has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and the case property has been planted upon him. It has been further argued that no independent public witness was asked to join the investigation despite availability and the only witnesses examined by the prosecution are the police officials whose testimonies are not reliable without corroboration by public witnesses. Thus, it has been argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and the accused is entitled to acquittal.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and the Ld . LAC for the accused and perused the documents on record carefully.
9. In the aforementioned backdrop, the Court shall now proceed to deliberate upon the evidence appearing on record so as to evaluate if the prosecution has proved its case on the requisite yardsticks or not.
10. It has been argued by Ld. LAC for accused that no public witness was joined by the IO during investigation of the present case and at the time of alleged recovery of the case property, despite their availability.
State Vs. Arish @ Harish
FIR No. 554/2021
u/s 25 Arms Act
PS Jafrabad Page no. 10 of 16
10.1. When PW1 HC Irfan Ahmad was cross examined by Ld. LAC for the accused, he stated to be correct that the spot of incident was a public place having frequent passersby. He also stated that no names or addresses or the public persons were recorded.
10.2. PW2 HC Sarwan during his cross examination, also stated that no names or addresses or the public persons were recorded despite the spot being a public place having frequent passerby. 10.3. When PW-5 ASI Satish Rana was cross- examined by Ld. LAC for accused. He also stated that no names and addresses of the public persons were recorded and he also stated that the spot was a public place having frequent passers by.
10.4. So from the above, it is clear that the spot, from where the accused was apprehended, was a public place. Significantly, even as per the admitted case of the prosecution, no effort whatsoever was made by the police, either before effecting the alleged recovery or thereafter, to join any public persons to witness the same. This only shows that no effort whatsoever was made by the police officials. The failure on the part of the police personnel could only suggest that they were not interested in joining the public persons in the police proceedings. All the witnesses examined are police witnesses. Failure on State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 11 of 16 the part of the police officials to make sincere effort to join public witnesses for the proceedings when they may be available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.
10.5. Reference can be taken from the decision of Anoop Joshi Vs. 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 shop keepers 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."
10.6. No doubt, it is settled law that the testimony of police witnesses can be relied upon if it inspires confidence of the court but in this case, no plausible explanation has been put forth by the prosecution for failure to join public witnesses during the investigation and specifically at the time of alleged recovery of case property, despite their availability in compliance of Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. The same brings the seizure under a cloud of doubt. Reference is State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 12 of 16 made to the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana [1999 (1) CLR 69] wherein it was observed that;
"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 non-joining the witnesses from the public is an afterthought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful'' 10.7. In case of Pradeep Narayana V. State of Maharashtra [reported AIR 1995 Supreme State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 13 of 16 Court 1930], it was held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of the investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused.
11. It has been further argued by Ld. LAC for accused that case property has been tampered with as no seal handing over or taking over memo was prepared by the IO. Perusal of testimony of PW-5 shows that the case property was sealed by him with the seal 'SR' and the same was handed over to PW-1 HC Irfan. It is pertinent to note that admittedly, the seal after use was not handed over to any independent person. It was handed over by PW-5 ASI Satish Rana to PW-1 HC Irfan Ahmed. This Court is of the considered opinion that PW1, himself being a material recovery witness in the present case, would always be interested in the success of the case of the prosecution and thus chances of tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
11.1. Reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah vs State (Delhi Administration) 49 (1993) DLT 193 wherein it was held that:
"It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to the independent witness. Even the Public Witness does not utter a word regarding the handing over of the seal after use. Therefore, the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the Investigating Officer or with the other member of State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 14 of 16 the raiding party therefore the possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of the parcel cannot be ruled out."
11.2. Reference is also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ramji Singh v. State of Haryana, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 452, wherein it was held that:
"The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property."
12. In the present case, the possibility of tampering of case property cannot be ruled out as it was lying in the same Malkhana where the police official having possession of the seal was posted.
13. It has been further contended by Ld. LAC for accused that all documents of the present case were prepared in the police station and not at the spot of alleged incident and the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
14. Thus, there are major lacunaes in the case of the prosecution. The aforementioned lacunaes and contradictions surfacing from the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses makes it extremely doubtful that on the fateful day, the accused was found in possession of one desi katta and two live cartridges, at the alleged time and place. Furthermore, the recovery of case property from the possession of accused has also not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt since no independent public witnesses have been joined State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 15 of 16 during the investigation and at the time of alleged recovery of case property, thereby diluting the case of the prosecution.
15. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence produced on record, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence under Section 25 Arms Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Arish @ Harish S/o Afsar Khan, is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 25 Arms Act in FIR No.554/2021, PS Jafrabad.
16. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused at the time of commencement of trial stand canceled. Surety, if any, stands discharged. Documents, if any, shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any, stands canceled. Case property, if any, shall be disposed of as per rules, after expiration of period of appeal and as per law.
Digitally ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. 02.08.2025 signed by AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA SAXENA Date:
2025.08.02 15:50:45 +0530 (Aayushi Saxena) JMFC05/SHD/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi/02.08.2025 Digitally signed by This judgment consists of 16 pages and each page bears my AAYUSHI AAYUSHI SAXENA signatures. SAXENA Date:
2025.08.02 15:50:50 +0530 (Aayushi Saxena) JMFC05/SHD/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi/02.08.2025 State Vs. Arish @ Harish FIR No. 554/2021 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Jafrabad Page no. 16 of 16