Delhi District Court
State vs Gaffar Khan Etc on 27 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF HARSHAL NEGI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, DWARKA COURT, NEW
DELHI.
FIR No. 452/2010
PS: Dabri
U/s: 452/384/395 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act
Case no. 428224/2016
State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors.
1. Gaffar Khan, S/o Sh. Shakur Khan, R/o K-298, Gali No. 06, Shadi Pur Depot,
Katputli Colony, New Delhi.
2. Vishnu, S/o Sh. Raju, R/o RZ-B-7, Vijay Enclave, Madarasi Colony, Delhi.
3. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Hazari Lal Kharab, R/o RZ L-232, Vijay
Enclave, New Delhi.
4. Dharmender , S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass, R/o WZ-22, Basai Park, Pankha Road,
Sagarpur, Delhi ..... Accused Persons
S. No. of the case : 428224/2016
The date of offence : 24.12.2010
The name of the complainant : Smt. Madhu Gupta
The offence complained : Section 452/384/395 IPC & 25/54/59
Arms Act
The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Argument heard on : 27.01.2026
The date of order : 27.01.2026
The final order : Acquittal
Ld. Subt. APP for the State : Sh. Rohit Grewal
Digitally
signed by
HARSHAL
FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 1 Of 21 HARSHAL NEGI
NEGI Date:
2026.01.27
16:48:21
+0530
Index to the Judgment
S. No. Topic Page Number
1. Brief Facts 2
2. Charges 3
3. Evidence 3-17
4. Statements of Accused 17
5. Arguments 17
6. Discussion & finding 18-20
7. Conclusion 20-21
Brief Facts
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.12.2010 at about 8 pm the
complainant was sitting at her shop along with her younger son Vikki
when accused Gaffar Khan along with co-accused Dharmender, Raju,
Vishnu and Rajesh came and accused Gaffar Khan asked about her
elder son Jitender and threatened her stating that her son shall give
Hafta to him. That on 24.12.2010 at about 3.15 pm, the complainant
along with her son Jitender were sitting at the shop when accused
persons Gaffar, Raju, Vishnu, Rajesh and Lalit came to their shop and
started to throw articles. Accused Gaffar forcefully entered their shop
and gave beatings to the son of the complainant. That the accused
Gaffar took Rs 2000/- from her after showing cutter. That when the
complainant started shouting the crowd gathered due to which the
accused persons tried to escape in their two cars i.e. Maruti Swift and
Maruti Esteem. That when their escape was closed by the public they
left their cars at the spot and ran away. When the police officials arrive
pursuant to call of 100 and searched the cars, a desi katta and two
cartridges were recovered from the dash board of the Maruti Suzuki.
Digitally
signed by
FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 2 Of 21 HARSHAL
HARSHAL NEGI
NEGI Date:
2026.01.27
16:48:13
+0530
2. Thereafter, FIR No 452/2010 came to be registered at PS Dabri.
Investigation was set into motion and was carried out by IO ASI
Gurmukh Singh, who also filed the Chargesheet.
3. Chargesheet was filed under Section 452/384/395 IPC and Section
25/54 Arms Act against accused Gaffar Khan, Vishnu, Raju, Rajesh
Kumar and Dharmender. Cognizance was taken. Since the matter was
exclusively triable by Court of Session, the same was committed to
the Hon'ble Sessions Court, after compliance of Section 207 CRPC,
vide order dated 08.02.2013.
4. The Hon'ble Sessions Court vide its order dated 09.12.2013 opined
that no offence under Section 395 IPC is made out. Thus, the matter
was remanded back to this Court since other matters were Magistrate
triable.
Charges
5. Following charges were framed against the accused persons:
A. Section 25 Arms Act against Gaffar Khan.
B. Section 452/384/34 IPC against Gaffar Khan, Raju, Vishnu, Rajesh
Kumar and Dharmender
6. All the accused pleaded not guilty to their respective charges.
7. During the course of trial accused Raju expired and proceedings
against him stood abated vide order dated 25.07.2017.
EVIDENCES
8. As per the list of witnesses, a total of 17 persons were made witnesses.
The prosecution examined a total of 5 witnesses. The description is as
under:
S Name of Witness Examined As Status
No
.
1. Madhu Gupta PW1 Victim 2. Vicky PW 2 Victim 3. Jitender PW3 Victim Digitally signed by FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 3 Of 21 HARSHAL HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date: 2026.01.27 16:48:03 +0530 4. Ct Naresh Kumar Not Examined Dropped by the Prosecution 5. Ct Manoj Kumar Not Examined Dropped by the Prosecution 6. Ct Manu Not examined 7. HC Ram Prakash PW 4 8. MHC(M) For Register No 19 9. DO/ASI Bhoop Not Examined Dropped Singh pursuant to statements of accused persons under Section 294 CRPC. 10. W/Ct Sarita Not Examined Dropped pursuant to statements of accused persons under Section 294 CRPC. 11. MHC(M) PS Dabri For case property 12. Dr Tania Anand Not Examined Dropped pursuant to statements of accused persons under Section 294 CRPC. 13. Dr Faisal Shadab Not Examined Dropped pursuant to statements of accused persons under Section 294 CRPC. 14. Dr Deepali Not Examined Dropped pursuant to statements of accused persons under Digitally signed by FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 4 Of 21 HARSHAL HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date: 2026.01.27 16:47:57 +0530 Section 294 CRPC. 15. R. Suresh Not Examined Dropped pursuant to statements of accused persons under Section 294 CRPC. 16. Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Not Examined Dropped IPS pursuant to statements of accused persons under Section 294 CRPC. 17. ASI Gurmukh PW 5 Investigating Singh Officer
9. The accused Gaffar Khan, Vishnu, Rajesh and Dharmender admitted the genuineness of the following documents in their statement under Section 294 CRPC:
i. FIR No 452/10 PS Dabri Ex A1 (colly) without admitting the contents of the same.
ii. DD No 56B and 57B dated 24.12.2010 Ex A2 (Colly). iii. MLC No 22635 dated 24.12.2020 Ex A3.
iv. X Ray report Ex A4.
v. Ballistic report Ex A5.
vi. Sanction under Section 39 Arms Act Ex A6.
10. During the course of the trial the following documents were exhibited and placed reliance upon by the prosecution:
S. No. Document Exhibit Proven/Prepared By
1. Statement Ex of PW1 PW1/A
2. Rukka Ex PW5 PW5/A
3. Seizure Ex PW5 Digitally signed by HARSHAL FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 5 Of 21 HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:47:52 +0530 Memo PW1/E & Ex PW1/F
4. Seizure of Ex PW5 Desi Katta PW1/C
5. Site Plan Ex PW5 PW1/B
6. Sketch Ex PW5 Memo of PW1/D Desi Katta
7. Arrest Ex PW5.
Memo of PW1/H,
Accused PW1/I,
Persons PW1/J/P
W1/K
8. Personal Ex PW5
Search PW5/B,
Memo of PW5/C,
Accused PW5/D,
Persons PW5/E,
PW1/M
9. Disclosure Ex PW5
Statement PW5/F,
of Accused PW1/N
Persons
10. Seizure Ex PW5
memo of PW1/J
Rs 500
note
11. Photograp Ex PW5
hs of PW4/A(C
Incident olly)
and
Damaged
Vehicles
11. Madhu Gupta was examined as PW1. In her examination in chief she stated thus:
"I as residing at first floor of the abovesaid address along with my family. I used to run a General Store after sitting, along with my son namely Jitender. I do not know anything more about the present case."
Digitally signed by FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 6 Of 21 HARSHAL HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:47:45 +0530
12. Ld APP sought permission to cross examine PW1 which was allowed. In her cross examination carried out by Ld APP, PW 1 stated thus: "At this stage, statement Ex.PW1/A read over to the witness in her vernacular language. It is wrong to suggest that on 23.12.2010 at about 8 P.M., I was sitting at my shop alongwith my younger son namely Vicky, at the same time, Gaffar Khan (belong to the Kutputli Colony), Dharmender (who had meat shop in Gandhi Market), Raju (Matiala wala), Vishnu and Rajesh (who were resided in Vijay Enclave) came and accused Gaffar had asked about my elder son Jitender from me and said that "appne ladke ko bol dena ki maira hafta dena chalu kar de varna uske liye theek nahi hoga". It is wrong to suggest that on 24.12.2010 at about 03.15 P.M., I alongwith my son Jitender were sitting at the shop, accused Gaffar, Raju, Vishnu, Rajesh and Lalit (to whom I already knew) came at my shop and started to throw the articles, which were lying adjoining to the counter of my shop and gave threatened that "hume paisa do nahi to aaj tumhare ladke ko nahi chhodenge". It is wrong to suggest that accused Gaffar had entered into my shop forcefully and gave beatings to my son and further said that "paisa do, nahi to aaj hum thujhe chhodenge nahi". It is wrong to suggest that accused Gaffar had taken Rs. 2,000/- from me after showing me cutter and further said that "mujhe har hafte Rs. 2,000/- doge varna anjaam achha nahi hoga.". It is wrong to suggest that I alongwith my son had started to shout in loud volume and crowd were gathered there and they had tried to escape from there after sitting in two cars, one was DL 2C AC 9922 (Maruti Shwift) and second was DL 8CC 3255 (Maruti Esteem). It is wrong to suggest that boys had covered them from all four side and public Digitally signed by HARSHAL FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 7 Of 21 HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:47:38 +0530 persons had started to throw the stones over the cards. It is wrong to suggest that accused Gaffard had sit in front seat of swift car. It is wrong to suggest that accused Gaffar and his associates had ran away after took off from the respective cars after closing the road and they had left the aforementioned car at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that I had a call at 100 number. It is wrong to suggest that police official recovered desi katta and two cartridges from Dash board of Swift Car bearing No. DL 2C AC 9922. It is wrong to suggest that police officials took the desi kattat alongwith cartridges on white paper and prepared the sketch of the same or they further prepared pullanda of the same. Confronted from statement Ex.PW1/A from point A to Ax. where is so recorded. It is correct that there are my signatures on EX.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/N at point A respectively. Vol. police officials obtained my signatures on blank papers. At this stage, attention of witness is drawn towards the accused persons, who are present in court today. On seeing them, witness submitted that they had not committed any offending act against me and my family. At this stage, the photographs Ex.P1 (colly) of case property are shown to the witness. After seeing the same, witness submits that she has not the contents of the photographs before today."
13. Opportunity was given to the accused persons to cross examine PW 1; however, no cross examination was carried out.
14. Mr Vicky was examined as PW 2. In his examination in chief he stated thus: "I am residing at first floor of the abovesaid address alongwith my family. My mother used to run a General Store on the ground floor alongwith my brother namely Jitender.
Digitally signed by HARSHAL FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 8 Of 21 HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:47:30 +0530 Sometimes, I used to sit with my mother at General store. I do not know anything more about the present case."
15. Ld APP sought permission to cross examine PW2 which was allowed. In his cross examination carried out by Ld APP, PW 2 stated thus: "It is wrong to suggest that on 23.12.2010 at about 8 P.M., I was sitting along with my mother at our General Store, at the same time, Gaffar Khan (belong to the Kutputli Colony), Dharmender (who had meat shop in Gandhi Market), Raju (Matiala wala), Vishnu and Rajesh (who were resided in Vijay Enclave) came and accused Gaffar had asked about my elder brother Jitender from my mother and said that "appne ladke ko bol dena ki maira hafta dena chalu kar de varna uske liye theek nahi hoga". It is wrong to suggest that on 24.12.2010 at about 03.15 P.M., my mother alongwith my brother Jitender were sitting at the shop, accused Gaffar, Raju, Vishnu, Rajesh and Lalit (to whom I already knew) came at my shop and started to throw the articles, which were lying adjoining to the counter of our shop and gave threatened that "hume paisa do nahi to aaj tumhare ladke ko nahi chhodenge". It is wrong to suggest that accused Gaffar had entered into our shop forcefully and gave beatings to my elder brother and further said that "paisa do, nahi to aaj hum thujhe chhodenge nahi". It is wrong to suggest that accused Gaffar had taken Rs. 2,000/- from my mother after showing her cutter and further said that "mujhe har hafte Rs. 2,000/- doge varna anjaam achha nahi hoga.". It is wrong to suggest that I heard voice of my mother who was shouting in loud volume and after that, crowd were gathered there and they had tried to escape from there after sitting in two cars, one was DL 2C AC 9922 (Maruti Shwift) and second was DL 8CC 3255 (Maruti Esteem).
Digitally signed by HARSHAL FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 9 Of 21 HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:47:23 +0530 It is wrong to suggest that boys had covered them from all four side and public persons had started to throw the stones over the cards. It is wrong to suggest that accused Gaffar was sitting in front seat of swift car. It is wrong to suggest that accused Gaffar and his associates had ran away after took off from the respective cars after closing the road and they had left the aforementioned car at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that my mother had a call at 100 number. At this stage, witness is shown statement Mark D1 and same was read over to him and asked whether you made this statement to IO. Witness states that I have never made the statement nor it was ever recorded in my presence. I do not know anything about this statement. It is wrong to suggest that I made my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C to IO and same was recorded by IO in my presence. At this stage, attention of witness is drawn towards the accused persons, who are present in court today. On seeing them, witness submitted that they had not committed any offending act against my mother and my family. At this stage, the photographs already Ex.P1 (colly) of case property are shown to the witness. After seeing the same, witness submits that he has not seen the contents of the photographs before today i.e. vehicles. It is wrong to suggest that I have been deposing falsely as my mother and I have settled the matter with accused persons outside the court and have received monetary benefit from them, therefore, in order to save him from conviction, I am deliberately not identifying them nor disclosing true facts before the court."
16. Opportunity was given to the accused persons to cross examine PW 2, however, no cross examination was carried out.
17. Mr Jitender was examined as PW3. In his examination in chief he stated thus: "I am residing at first floor of the abovesaid Digitally signed by HARSHAL FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 10 Of 21 HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:47:16 +0530 address alongwith my family. My mother used to run a General Store on the ground floor alongwith me. Sometimes, my younger brother also used to sit with my mother at General store. I do not know anything more about the present case."
18. Ld APP sought permission to cross examine PW3 which was allowed. In her cross examination carried out by Ld APP, PW 3 stated thus: "It is wrong to suggest that on 23.12.2010 at about 8 P.M., my younger brother Vicky was sitting along with my mother at our General Store, at the same time, Gaffar Khan (belong to the Kutputli Colony), Dharmender (who had meat shop in Gandhi Market), Raju (Matiala wala), Vishnu and Rajesh (who were resided in Vijay Enclave) came and accused Gaffar had asked about me from my mother and said that "appne ladke ko bol dena ki maira hafta dena chalu kar de varna uske liye theek nahi hoga". It is wrong to suggest that on 24.12.2010 at about 03.15 P.M., I alongwith my mother were sitting at the shop when accused Gaffar, Raju, Vishnu, Rajesh and Lalit (to whom I already knew) came at my shop and started to throw the articles, which were lying adjoining to the counter of our shop and gave threatened that "hume paisa do nahi to aaj tumhare ladke ko nahi chhodenge". It is wrong to suggest that accused Gaffar had entered into our shop forcefully and gave beatings to me and further said that "paisa do, nahi to aaj hum thujhe chhodenge nahi". It is wrong to suggest that accused Gaffar had taken Rs.
2,000/- from my mother after showing her cutter and further said that "mujhe har hafte Rs. 2,000/- doge varna anjaam achha nahi hoga.". It is wrong to suggest that I heard voice of my mother who was shouting in loud volume and after that, crowd were gathered there and they had tried to escape from there after Digitally signed by FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 11 Of 21 HARSHAL HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:47:09 +0530 sitting in two cars, one was DL 2C AC 9922 (Maruti Shwift) and second was DL 8CC 3255 (Maruti Esteem). It is wrong to suggest that boys had covered them from all four side and public persons had started to throw the stones over the cards. It is wrong to suggest that accused Gaffar was sitting in front seat of swift car. It is wrong to suggest that accused Gaffar and his associates had ran away after took off from the respective cars after closing the road and they had left the aforementioned car at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that my mother had a call at 100 number. It is wrong to suggest that police official recovered desi katta and two cartridges from Dash board of Swift Car bearing No. DL 2C AC 9922 in the presence of me and my mother. It is wrong to suggest that police officials took the desi katta alongwith cartridges on white paper and prepared the sketch of the same in the presence of me and my mother or they further prepared pullanda of the same. At this stage, witness is shown statement Mark D2 and same was read over to him and asked whether you made this statement to IO. Witness states that I have never made the statement nor it was ever recorded in my presence. I do not know anything about this statement. It is wrong to suggest that I made my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C to IO and same was recorded by IO in my presence. At this stage, attention of witness is drawn towards the accused persons, who are present in court today. On seeing them, witness submitted that they had not committed any offending act against my mother and my family. At this stage, the photographs already Ex.P1 (colly) of case property are shown to the witness. After seeing the same, witness submits that he has not seen the contents of the photographs before today i.e. vehicles. It is wrong to suggest that I have been deposing falsely Digitally signed by HARSHAL FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 12 Of 21 HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:47:03 +0530 as my mother and I have settled the matter with accused persons outside the court and have received monetary benefit from them, therefore, in order to save him from conviction, I am deliberately not identifying them nor disclosing true facts before the court."
19. Opportunity was given to the accused persons to cross examine PW 3, however, no cross examination was carried out.
20. ASI Ram Prakash was examined as PW4. In his examination in chief he stated thus: "On 24.12.2010, I was posted at Mobile crime team, south west District, Sector 9, Dwarka. On that day, one call was received from WT Set, Control Room. Thereafter, I along with team went to the spot i.e. H. No. RZ E-56, Vijay Enclave, Dwarka Puri, New Delhi-110045 I.e the shop of the complainant. On the instructions of IO, I clicked the photograph of the shop and thereafter, I went to the main road near DTC bus stand where two damaged cars were parked on road and on the directions of the IO, I clicked the photograph of the same also. In the dash board of one car make Maruti bearing no.
DL2CAC9922, one desi katta and two cartridges were found inside the dash board of the same. I clicked the photograph of the same also. (At this stage, photograph of the case property is shown to the witness. Witness correctly identified the same as clicked by him. Same is now Ex. PW-4/A (colly) (total 25 photos).) IO recorded my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Today I have brought negatives for the photograph clicked by me from the record room. Same is now taken on record as Ex. Y1 (colly) (total 13 negatives)."
21. In his cross examination PW4 stated thus: "I remained at the spot for about 45 minutes. IO did not prepare any seizure memo regarding taking of photographs on that day. I also did not hand Digitally signed by HARSHAL HARSHAL NEGI FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 13 Of 21 NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:46:57 +0530 over any negatives to the IO on the alleged day of incident (Vol., as same is prepared after it is sent to the delhi police lab at Kamla Market). It is correct that there are no marking or mentioning of any case number, FIR no. on the envelop containing the negatives brought by me today, which is also not in sealed condition. It is wrong to suggest that I did not visit the alleged spot or took any photographs on the alleged day of incident. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
22. IO/SI Gurmukh Singh was examined as PW5. In his examination in chief he stated thus: "In the year 2010, I was posted at PS Dabri as ASI. On 24.12.2010, I received DD number 56 B and 57 B and after receipt of the same, I alongwith Ct. Naresh Kumar reached at the spot i.e. RZ- E56, Vijay Enclave, Dwarkapuri, where I met the complainant Ms. Madhu Gupta at the spot and I recorded her statement already Ex. PW1/A. I attested the same by my name at point B. Thereafter, I prepared the rukka now Ex. PW5/A bearing my name at point A. I also recorded the statement of son of the complainant. During investigation, I also seized the car bearing no. 9922 and another car bearing no. 3255 vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/ E and Ex. PW1/F respectively by bearing my name at point B. While conducting the search of car, registration number ending with 9922 I found one desi katta and I seized the same vide memo already Ex. PW1/C bearing my name at point B. I prepared the site plan which is already Ex. PW1/B bearing my name at point B. I also prepared the sketch memo for the recovered desi katta already Ex. PW1/D bearing my name at point B. Thereafter, I came back to PS and hand over the custody of recovered case property to the MHCM. During investigation, I also called the crime team at the Digitally signed by HARSHAL FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 14 Of 21 HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:46:50 +0530 spot. I recorded the statement of crime team during investigation. During investigation, I search whereabout of accused. I also recorded the statement of complainant. Thereafter, I arrested Rajesh, Vishnu, Gaffar and Raju vide arrest memo already Ex. PW1/H, Ex. PW/I, Ex. PW1/J and Ex. PW1/K bearing my name at point B. I also conducted their personal search vide personal search memo now Ex. PW5/ B, Ex. PW5/C, Ex. PW5/D and Ex. PW5/E bearing my name at point A. I interrogated the accused regarding the recovery of Rs.2000/- amount which they robbed from the complainant. I recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons Ex. PW5/F which they refused to sign bearing my name at point A. Thereafter, during investigation, I produced the accused persons before the Hon'ble Court and court sent them to JC. Thereafter, during investigation on 31.12.2010 I arrested accused Dharmender vide memo already Ex. PW1/I bearing my name at point B. I also conducted the personal search of accused Dharmender vide memo already Ex. PW1/M bearing my name at point B. During interrogation, I also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Dharmender vide memo already Ex. PW1/N bearing my name at point B and during interrogation accused produced Rs. 500/- note and said this is the same amount which was robbed from the complainant and the same was seized vide memo already PW1/J bearing my name at point B. On the next day, I produced the accused before the Hon'ble court and court sent them to JC. I clicked the photographs of damaged vehicle which I seized during investigation. During investigation, I also sent the desi katta to the CFSL. I also recorded the statement of police official who took katta to the CFSL. During investigation, I collected the CFLS result. Thereafter, I filed the Digitally signed by HARSHAL FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 15 Of 21 HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:46:45 +0530 chargesheet before the Hon'ble Court. (At this stage, photographs of the incident and damaged vehicles shown to the witness. Witness correctly identifies the same and same is already Ex. PW4/A colly.) The desi katta was recovered from the car of accused Gaffar. (At this stage, MHCM has produced one yellow pullanda sealed with the seal of FSL. Same is opened with the permission of the court and found containing one desi katta. The same is shown to the witness and witness correctly identifies the same as recovered from the accused Gaffar. The katta is again put in same envelope and sealed with the court seal. The same is now Ex. P-1.) (MHCM has produced one another enveloped sealed with the seal of VP. Same is opened with the permission of the court and same is found containing two old notes of Rs. 500/-. The same is shown to the witness. Witness correctly identifies the same. The said notes are put in same envelope and sealed with the court seal. The same is now Ex. P-2.) All accused are present in the court today and correctly identified.
23. In his cross-examination PW 5 stated thus: "I reached at the spot at about 3:45 PM. I remained at the spot for one and half hour and I called the crime team. Crime team has prepared the report and after few days they submitted the said report to me. However, the said report is not placed on record by me. I do not remember whether I recorded the statement of any crime team official during investigation. The said exhibited photographs were clicked by crime team member and by one private member, however, the statements of said persons were not recorded by me. I also do not remember or recollect whether I had recorded the statement of other public person who were gathered at the spot. I also did not recover the CCTV footage of the spot. It is wrong to Digitally signed by HARSHAL FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 16 Of 21 HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:46:36 +0530 suggest despite presence of CCTV footage at the shop of the complainant, I deliberately not filed the same as no such offence has occurred. It is wrong to suggest all the documents were prepared while sitting at the PS. I also cannot tell at what time Ct. Naresh reached at the spot after registration of FIR. It is wrong to suggest that all the memos were prepared while sitting at the PS and nothing was recovered from or on the instance of any of the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest I further implicated the accused persons at the behest of complainant. It is correct that I did not conduct TIP of case property/ any of the alleged recovered amount. It is also correct that I did not mention in any of the statement of the complainant regarding the denomination or photographs of alleged recovered amount. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
Statement of Accused Persons
24. Prosecution evidence was then closed. Statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 CRPC. All the accused persons stated that they is innocent and police had falsely implicated him in the present case. They further stated that they have no role in the present matter. The accused persons chose not to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, defence evidence was closed.
Arguments
25. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has proved its case as the evidence of hostile witness can be read on material points and it can be used to prove the offence charged against the accused.
26. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Digitally signed by FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 17 Of 21 HARSHAL HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:46:29 +0530 Ld. Counsel has argued that the main witnesses, have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that nothing incriminating has been proved by the prosecution against the accused persons. The Ld. Counsel, therefore, prayed that the accused persons be acquitted for the offence charged. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel, perused the record, gone through the relevant provisions of law and given my thoughts to the matter. Discussion/Findings
27. Before embarking on the analysis and appreciation of the statements and evidences on record it is apposite to state that to bring home the guilt of the accused in any criminal matter beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt the burden rests always upon the prosecution. The burden of proof on the prosecution is heavy, constant and does not shift. The case of the prosecution needs to stand on its own footing failing which benefit of doubt ought to be given in favour of the accused. Needless to say, in this case also, with or without defense evidence, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the touchstone of the above settled legal proposition the facts of the present case are to be analysed.
On Section 452/384/34 IPC
28. From the case of the prosecution, the witnesses PW1, PW 2 and PW 3 were the star witnesses. They were not only the eye witnesses to the incident but also the victims of the same. Therefore, their testimonies were of quintessential importance. However, perusal of the statements of PW-1, PW 2 and PW3 reveals that they, in unison, did not support the prosecution version at all. Though it is a settled law that evidence of a hostile Digitally signed by HARSHAL FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 18 Of 21 HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:46:22 +0530 witness cannot be discarded completely as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, however, in the present case, as stated earlier, the complainant and eye witnesses did not support the prosecution version at all. Despite their cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, nothing beneficial to the prosecution has emerged out of the same. Thus, in the present case, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to help the prosecution at all.
29. Thus, in the opinion of this court, there is no cogent evidence on record to connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence u/s 452/384/34/IPC and to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On Section 25 Arms Act
30. Accused Gaffar Khan has been charged under Section 25 Arms Act. Accused Gaffar Khan in his statement under Section 294 CRPC admitted the Ballastic report Ex A5 and Sanction under Section 39 Arms Act Ex A6. Thus, it does stand proven that the desi katta and two live cartridges which has been recovered from the place of incident tantamount to an "Arms" and "Ammunitions" under Arms Act. Thus, the onus now rested upon the prosecution to establish that the same was found in the possession of the accused Gaffar Khan.
31. As per the facts of the prosecution, the alleged desi katta and two live cartridges have been recovered from Maruti car bearing no DL2CAC9922. It has been stated by PW5/IO that the said desi katta was recovered from the car of the accused Gaffar. It has been proved from the testimony of PW 5 that when he reached the spot after receiving the DD No 56B and 57B. Admittedly, the accused Gaffar Khan was not present at the spot of the incident.
Digitally signed by FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 19 Of 21 NEGI HARSHAL HARSHAL NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:46:16 +0530 From the records of the case, accused Gaffar Khan was arrested much later. The factum that the alleged car bearing no DL2CAC9922 belonged to the accused Gaffar Khan was never established by the prosecution. Nowhere during the course of the trial any document or material was brought by the prosecution to even remotely suggest that the alleged car bearing no DL2CAC9922 from where the desi katta and live cartridges were recovered belonged to the accused Gaffar Khan.
32. Further, in order to establish the recovery, prosecution also exhibited Ex PW1/D through PW5/IO being the seizure memo of desi Katta and live cartridges. Perusal of the seizure memo reflects that the same was prepared in the presence of Madhu Gupta/PW1 and Constable Naresh Kumar. Ct Naresh Kumar was dropped by the prosecution on the premise that he would depose the same facts as deposed by PW5. Further, PW1 Madhu Gupta never supported the case of the prosecution. In fact, she categorically, in her cross examination, denied that police officials recovered desi katta and two cartridges from dash board of Car bearing No DL 2CAC9922. Although she admitted that the signatures in Ex PW1/D belonged to her, however, she further clarified that police officials obtained her signatures on blank papers.
Conclusion
33. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. The accused persons namely Gaffar Khan, Vishnu, Rajesh Kumar and Dharmender are hereby acquitted of the offence charged, i.e., u/s 452/384/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by HARSHAL HARSHAL NEGI FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 20 Of 21 NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 16:46:08 +0530
34. Also, in view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Gaffar Khan that desi katta and live cartridges were recovered from his possession i.e. from the dash board of car bearing no DL2CAC9922. The accused persons namely Gaffar Khan, is hereby acquitted of the offence charged, i.e., u/s 25 Arms Act.
35. This judgment contains 21 pages and the same has been pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and each page bears my signatures.
36. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
Digitally signed by HARSHAL (Harshal Negi)
HARSHAL NEGI
JMFC-02/Dwarka Courts
NEGI Date:
2026.01.27 New Delhi/27.01.2026
16:45:55 +0530
FIR No. 452/2010 State Vs. Gaffar Khan and Ors. 21 Of 21