Delhi District Court
State vs Suraj Singh@Sameer on 17 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIJAYSHREE RATHORE, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Suraj @ Sameer
FIR No. : 493/2024
PS : Sarojini Nagar
U/s : 25/54/59 Arms Act
JUDGMENT
A Cr case No. 56177/2024 B. Date of Commission of offence 05.12.2024 C. Date of FIR 05.12.2024 D. Date of charge-sheet 20.12.2024 E. Name of the complainant Constable Ajeet
F. Name of the accused persons, their Suraj @ Sameer S/o Chakkra Bahadur parentage and residence Kunwar R/o D-2/246, Servant Quarter Vinay Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.
G. Offence complained of or proved 25/54/59 Arms Act H. Date of framing of charges 20.12.2024
I. Date of commencement of evidence 27.11.2025 J. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty K. Date on which judgment is reserved 16.12.2025 L. Final Order Acquitted M. Date of Judgment 17.12.2025 State Vs. Suraj Singh @ Sameer FIR No. :493/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Page no. 1 of 14 Brief facts of the present case
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.12.2024, while HC Ajit Singh was on patrolling duty, at about 6:30 PM, he reached at Arjun Dass Camp, Laxmibai Nagar and he saw one person coming from Navyug School Laxmibai Nagar and on seeing him, he started walking away. On getting suspicious, he apprehended him and on personal search, one button operated knife was recovered from his possession and his name was revealed as Suraj @ Sameer. Intimation was sent to the PS. During investigation, the knife was seized vide seizure memo. Seal handing memo was prepared. Site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant. The disclosure statement of accused was also recorded. The said knife was found in contravention issued by Delhi Administration dated 17.02.2019. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Accused was found to have committed offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act. During investigation statement of witnesses was recorded. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. Cognizance of the same was taken.
Framing of charge
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 20.12.2024 charge was framed against accused Suraj @ Sameer for the offence u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Suraj Singh @ Sameer FIR No. :493/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Page no. 2 of 14 Prosecution Evidence
3. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined two witnesses i.e. PW1/HC Ajeet Singh and PW2/HC Ravi Raj Yadav.
4. Since in a proceeding u/s 294 CrPC, accused admitted the factums of copy of FIR Ex.A1, certificate u/s 65B IEA Ex.A2, GD No81 dated 05.12.2024 Ex.A-3 and Notification Ex.A4 without admitting its content, therefore the examination of witnesses at serial no.3 and 4 were dispensed with.
5. PW1/HC Ajeet Singh had deposed in his testimony that on 05.12.2024, he was on patrolling duty and at about 6:30 PM, he reached at Arjun Dass Cacmp, Laxmibai Nagar where he saw one person coming from Navyug School and on seeing him, he started brisk walking. He deposed that on suspicion, he apprehended him and during personal search, he found one button operated knife from his possession and revealed his name as Suraj Singh @ Sameer. The information has been conveyed to SHO and thereafter, IO/HC Ravi Raj came at the spot and the custody of case property and accused has been handed over to IO. IO requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation, however, they refused and due to paucity of time, no notice could have been served. Thereafter, IO prepared pullanda of knife and kept in a transparent box and sealed with the seal of State Vs. Suraj Singh @ Sameer FIR No. :493/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Page no. 3 of 14 "RK". He deposed that seal was handed over to him. IO prepared the seizure memo of the case property and recorded his the statement. He deposed that IO prepared rukka and handed over me for registration of FIR, he got the FIR registered and returned along with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over to the IO. He deposed that he went to PS with case property and IO deposited the case property in the malkhana. The witness has correctly identified the case property and the accused in the Court. During cross examination, he deposed that there was availability of public witnesses at the time of recovery, however, no witness has been made for the same. He deposed that seizure memo of case property was prepared prior to registration of FIR. He deposed that he does not know the DD number vide which he was performing his patrolling duty on the day of recovery. Rest of the suggestions have been denied by the witness.
6. PW2/Ravi Raj Yadav had deposed in his testimony that on 05.12.2024, after receiving DD No.81A he reached at the spot where he met with Ct. Ajit who handed over one person namely Suraj Singh @ Sameer and case property. He deposed that he recorded statement of Ct. Ajit and prepared prepared sketch of the knife and seized the same. He requested to the public persons to join the investigation but they did not join and due to paucity of time, notices could not be served. He deposed that he kept the knife in a transparent box and wrapped with doctor tape with the sealed of seal State Vs. Suraj Singh @ Sameer FIR No. :493/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Page no. 4 of 14 of "RK" and seal was handed over to Ct. Ajit. He deposed that he prepared seizure memo of the knife and prepared rukka and got registered the present FIR through Ct. Ajit. He deposed that accused was interrogated and arrested and disclosure statement was recorded. He deposed that he searched CCTV Footage of the spot as well as source of weapon but all went in vein. He deposed that they came back at PS and case property was deposited in malkhana and after completion of investigation, he prepared the charge sheet and filed before the Court. The witness has correctly identified the accused and the case property in the Court. During his cross examination, he deposed that there was no public witness present at the spot and the place of incident was dark and have insufficient light. He deposed that he does not remember whether any CCTV camera was installed at or near the spot. He deposed that during personal search of the accused, no personal belongings of the accused was found and accused had disclosed that he had purchased the said knife from some unknown person. Rest of the suggestions have been denied by the witness.
Statement of accused
7. The examination of accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he stated that he is innocent. He has been implicated falsely.
State Vs. Suraj Singh @ Sameer FIR No. :493/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Page no. 5 of 14
8. Accused did not lead defence evidence. Thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused were heard and case file was perused.
10. I have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. However, before proceeding to the merits of the case, I wish to reiterate that in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accused is presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty. With respect to offences pertaining to recovery of contraband items from the possession of accused, onus is on the prosecution to prove:
i. Recovery of button actuated knife from the possession of accused.
ii. Accused was in conscious possession said button actuated knife.
11. The present case was registered on the basis of complaint by PW1 HC Ajit Singh and he had deposed that on 05.12.2024 at about 6:30 PM, he was on patrolling at Arjun Dass Camp, Laxmibai Nagar and he saw a person coming from Navyug School, Laxmibai School. On seeing him, he started brisk walking and on getting suspicious, he apprehended and during personal State Vs. Suraj Singh @ Sameer FIR No. :493/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Page no. 6 of 14 search, he found one button operated knife from his possession. Hence, PW1 is the star witness of the prosecution and his testimony requires careful scrutiny.
12. 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. I find it pertinent to refer to the importance of joining a public witness to the investigation. If a public witness is not available, then the prosecution must show that sincere effort was made to ensure the presence of public witness to join the raiding party. Here I would like to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Anoop Joshi Vs. State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), "It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not State Vs. Suraj Singh @ Sameer FIR No. :493/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Page no. 7 of 14 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."
13. Additionally, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar vs. Delhi Administration 1987 SCC OnLine Del 290 observed:
"....Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of a serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused...."
14. The said position also find support from the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahib Singh Vs State of Punjab wherein it was held that:
Before conducting a search the police officer concerned is required to call upon some independent and respectable people of the locality to witness the search. In a given case it may so happen State Vs. Suraj Singh @ Sameer FIR No. :493/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Page no. 8 of 14 that no such person is available or, even if available, is not willing to be a party to such search. It may also be that after joining the search, such persons later on turn hostile. In any of these eventualities the evidence of the police officers who conducted the search cannot be disbelieved solely on the ground that no independent and respectable witness was examined to prove the search but if it is found -- as in the present case -- that no attempt was made even by the police officer concerned to join with him some persons of the locality who were admittedly available to witness the recovery, it would affect the weight of evidence of the police officer, though not its admissibility.
15. There is no independent public witness of the recovery in the present case and further no explanation is offered by him for not joining any public witness in the recovery proceeding. PW1 HC Ajeet Singh had admitted in his cross-examination that there were availability of public witness at the time of recovery. He also admitted that no written notice was served to the public person. He also admitted that seizure memo of the case property was prepared before registration of FIR. PW2 HC Ravi Raj Yadav had stated in his cross examination that the public witness was present at the spot. The place of incident was dark and having insufficient light. Admittedly, the place of incident of public place. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join State Vs. Suraj Singh @ Sameer FIR No. :493/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Page no. 9 of 14 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. No notice in writing was given to them to join the investigation. No action was taken qua the persons who refused to disclose their names or addresses. It is also not in dispute that the place of incident is a public place. If the first few people did not join the investigation, other people could have been requested. It is clear from the entire record that not even a single effort was made to make a public person to join the investigation. A public witness would have been an important link in the chain of circumstances to support the prosecution version. The failure of on part of PW1 HC Ajeet Singh and PW2 HC Ravi Raj Yadav in joining the witnesses from the public creates a doubt on any recovery of button actuated knife from the possession of accused. In the absence of any public witness joining the recovery proceeding, the testimony of PW1 HC Ajeet Singh and PW2 HC Ravi Raj Yadav is not worthy of credence.
16. In the present case, uncorroborated testimony of PW1 HC Ajeet Singh and PW2 HC Ravi Raj Yadav is insufficient to prove the recovery of button actuated knife from the accused. No effort was made by him to join any public witness. Thus, their testimonies also cannot be relied upon in the absence of independent witnesses.
State Vs. Suraj Singh @ Sameer FIR No. :493/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Page no. 10 of 14
17. It is also pertinent to mention that none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed in their examination in chief that they offered their personal search to the accused before inspecting the accused. Principles of natural justice demand that accused should have been offered their personal search by the recovery witness and this fact should have been reduced into writing. This fact is another missing link in the prosecution's case.
18. It is also worth mentioning that no DD entry has been proved on record by PW1 HC Ajeet Singh in order to show that he was on patrolling duty on the day of alleged recovery of knife from the accused. It is an important missing link in the version of prosecution. As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, which is reproduced as under;
"Chapter 22 rule 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 officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal. Note: - The State Vs. Suraj Singh @ Sameer FIR No. :493/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Page no. 11 of 14 term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No.II is maintained.
19. In view of this rule, while deposing none of the prosecution witnesses has told that by what entry in the register no.II, he was on patrolling duty in the particular area. In Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that:
"if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the Courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
20. Thus, in the absence of DD entry their presence at the spot is not proved. If they have departed from PS for patrolling duty the entry to this effect must exist in the Roznamancha but that has not been proved, raising an adverse presumption against the prosecution U/s 114 (g) of the Evidence Act that if the said Roznamancha had been produced it would have not shown their departure at all.
State Vs. Suraj Singh @ Sameer FIR No. :493/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Page no. 12 of 14
21. In the present case, uncorroborated testimony of PW1 HC Ajeet Singh is insufficient to prove the recovery of button actuated knife from the accused. IO/PW2 HC Ravi Raj had arrived at the spot after receiving information regarding apprehension of accused. As the recovery was not made in the presence of IO HC Ravi Raj his testimonies does not prove any incriminating circumstances against the accused.
22 It is also worth mentioning that the seizure memo was prepared prior to registration of FIR and seizure memo Ex.PW1/D bears the FIR number. If the FIR was not recorded at the time of preparation of seizure memo, the very fact that FIR number was recorded on the document also cast doubt on the entire recovery proceedings.
23. Considering the aforesaid infirmities and inconsistencies in the prosecution version, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of button actuated knife from the accused. Hence, question whether the accused was in conscious possession of said knife in contravention of Delhi Administration Notification issued in this respect does not arise. Benefit of doubt must go in favour of accused. It is cardinal principle of criminal law that accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
State Vs. Suraj Singh @ Sameer FIR No. :493/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Page no. 13 of 14 Conclusion & Decision
24. In view of material inconsistencies in the prosecution version as discussed above, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Suraj Singh @ Sameer S/o Sh. Chakkra Bahadur Kanwar is acquitted for the offence under section 25/54/59 Arms Act.
Announced in the open court (VIJAYSHREE RATHORE)
In Delhi on 17.12.2025 JMFC-05/PHC, New Delhi
Digitally signed
by VIJAYSHREE
VIJAYSHREE RATHORE
RATHORE Date:
2025.12.17
18:43:08 +0530
State Vs. Suraj Singh @ Sameer FIR No. :493/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Page no. 14 of 14