Delhi District Court
State vs Hinanshu@Himmat on 1 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL SAINI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
DLSH020020162021
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.: 467/2020
Police Station: Jyoti Nagar
(CIS No. 1054/2021)
b Date of the commission of : 16.10.2020
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : Naseem Ahmad
d Name of Accused person : Himanshu @ Himmat S/o Lt.
and his parentage and Shri Om Parkash R/o: H. No.
residence 1786, Gali no. 9, near
Dharamshala, Ashok Nagar,
Jyoti Nagar,Delhi
e Offence complained of : u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act and
102 Cr.P.C
f Plea of the Accused and : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted u/s 25/54/59 Arms
Act
h Order reserved on : 01.12.2025
i Order pronounced on : 01.12.2025
Brief statement of facts of the case and trial proceedings:
1.The case of the prosecution against the accused Himanshu @ Himmat S/o Late Shri Om Prakash is that on 16.10.2020, at about 10.25 pm, at Safed Mandir Road, near Saboli Pathak, Digitally signed by State vs. Himanshu@ Himmat RAHUL FIR No. 467/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 1 of
2025.12.01 13
16:22:06
+0530
Shakti Garden, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife, as detailed in seizure memo Mark A in contravention of DAD notification and had committed the offence. The accused was booked with the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act and FIR was registered.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused on 02.03.2021 and cognizance was taken. On appearance of the accused, the copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused on 09.03.2021in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Thereafter, vide order 09.03.2021, charge was framed against the accused under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Subsequently, prosecution evidence was led and in order to prove its version, prosecution examined seven witnesses, out of 7 witnesses as cited by the Prosecution only five witnesses have been examined. PW1 ASI Naseem, PW2 HC Rohit Kumar, PW3 HC Ravit, PW4 HC Manoj and PW5 Retired ASI Revti Prasad
4. A detailed scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses has been done and is hereby discussed in detail.
PW: 1ASI Naseem:- He deposed that on 16.10.2020, he along with HC Manoj, Ct. Rohit and Ct. Ravit were on patrolling duty vide DD No.45A which is Ex. PW1/A. During patrolling duty, they reached at Safed Mandir Road, Shakti Garden near Safoli Phatak Road and started checking of the suspected persons there. He further deposed that at about 10.25 pm, one person came on motorcycle from the side of Safed Mandir Shakti Garden and after seeing them in police uniform, he turned back and tried to escape from there but he lost his Digitally signed by State vs. Himanshu@ Himmat RAHUL RAHUL Date:
SAINI SAINI 2025.12.01 FIR No. 467/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 16:22:17 +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 2 of 13 control on his bike and had fallen down on the road. Thereafter, they apprehended said person after taking some distance and asked him why he had turned back, but he did not give any satisfactory answer. Thereafter, they came to know his name as Himanshu. The said motorcycle was of make Apachi and without number plate. Thereafter he took cursory search of the said accused and recovered one buttondar knife from the left side pocket of his pant. After that he had searched the said motorcycle through Chassis no. 36459 and engine no. 34930 on zipnet and came to know that the same was the case property of eFIR No. 0049048/2020, PS Jaffrabad. He had given the information to the PS. After that, he had requested public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and went away without giving their names and addresses. Thereafter, he had put buttondar knife on a white blank paper and prepared its sketch memo which is Ex. PW1/B. On measurement, the total length of the knife was found to be 23.5 cm, length of the blade was 10.5 cm, length of the handle was 13 cm. Thereafter, he had put the said knife in a transparent box and the said box wrapped with the help of doctor tape and sealed it with the seal of NK and had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. Further the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Rohit. He had also seized the said motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D and had prepared rukka which is Ex. PW1/E and same was handed over to Ct. Ravit for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the present FIR and he along with IO/HC Revti Prasad came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka. Thereafter, they handed over the case property and Digitally signed by State vs. Himanshu@ Himmat RAHUL FIR No. 467/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar SAINI Date:
Pages 3 of 13 2025.12.01 16:22:22 +0530 accused with documents to the IO. IO recorded his supplementary statement and relieved him.
Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property i.e. knife Ex. P1.
During cross examination by Ld counsel for the accused witness deposed that he had left the PS at about 2.30 pm and reached at the spot at about 10.25 pm. He admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that no written notice was served upon any public persons who reused to join and that the seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after registration of the FIR. He admitted that he had not prepared seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. Further, he handed over rukka to Ct. Ravit at around 12.10 am and came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 12.45 am. No videography and photography was made at the time of recovery of the case property. Further, he did not offer his search to the accused before taking his search. Witness had denied the suggestion that the case property was planted upon accused or that accused is falsely implicated in the present matter and he was arrested from his house despite the spot or that he had denied the suggestion that he never visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS or that he never requested any public persons to join the investigation.
PW2 HC Rohit Kumar:- He had deposed the similar facts as deposed by PW1 as he was on patrolling duty along with PW1 ASI Naseem. He deposed that he had prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW2/A. Further accused was interrogated and RAHUL SAINI State vs. Himanshu@ Himmat Digitally signed FIR No. 467/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act by RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 4 of Date: 2025.12.01 16:22:28 +0530 13 arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C. During cross examination by Ld counsel for the accused witness deposed that he had left the PS at about 2.30 pm and reached at the spot at about 10.25 pm. He admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going. Further IO had handed over rukka to Ct. Ravit at around 12.10 am and came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 12.45 am. He had also deposed the similar facts as deposed by PW1 in his cross examination.
PW3 HC Ravit and PW4 HC Manoj: They both have deposed the similar facts as deposed by PW1 in his examination in chief as they all were on patrolling duty.
During cross examination by Ld counsel for the accused PW3 HC Ravit deposed that he had left the PS at about 2.36 pm and reached at the spot at about 10.25 pm. He further admitted that IO had handed over rukka to him at around 12.10 am and he came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 12.45 am.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused PW4 HC Manoj deposed that he had left the PS at about 2.36 pm and reached at the spot at about 10.25 pm. Further, IO handed over rukka to Ct. Ravit at around 12.10 am and he came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 12.45 am.
Both the witnesses have deposed the similar facts during their cross examination as deposed by PW1 in his cross examination.
PW:5: Retired ASI Revti Prasad:- He deposed that he had received original rukka and copy of the FIR from Ct. Ravit as per directions of the SHO and further investigation was Digitally signed by State vs. Himanshu@ Himmat RAHUL RAHUL SAINI FIR No. 467/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act SAINI Date:
2025.12.01 16:22:43 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 5 of 13 +0530 marked to him. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Ravit went to the spot i.e Safed Mandir Road, Shakti Garden near Saboli Phatak Road, where he met HC Manoj Kumar, Ct. Rohit and HC Naseem and they handed over the case property and accused with documents to him. Further, he had recorded supplementary statement of HC Naseem and relieved him. He had prepared the site plan at their instance which is already Ex. PW2/A,and interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo and personal search memo which are already Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C and also recorded disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW5/A. Thereafter, they along with accused and case property went to PS. Case property was deposited in the malkhana. After medical examination of the accused, he was sent to lock up. He had recorded statement of HC Manoj, Ct. Rohit and Ct. Ravit and on the next day, he had produced the accused before the court and sent him to J/C. After completion of investigation, he had prepared the chargesheet and same was submitted before the court.
Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property Ex. P1.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he had left the PS at about 12.30 am. He did not make any DD entry while leaving PS. He reached at the spot at around 12.45 am. He admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going. He admitted tht no written notice was sered upon any public persons who refused to join. He had denied he suggestion that he had never requested any public persons to join investigation or that he never Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL SAINI State vs. Himanshu@ Himmat SAINI 2025.12.01 Date:
16:22:49 +0530 FIR No. 467/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 6 of 13 conducted fair investigation. He had also deposed the similar facts as deposed by PW1 in his cross examination.
5. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 12.08.2025, witness mentioned at Sl. No. 5 HC Kanwar Pal was dropped from the list of witnesses as accused has admitted the genuineness of the FIR along with Certificate u/s 65-B of IEA qua the present case in his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C which is Ex. A1(Colly)
6. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 14.11.2025 separately wherein accused claimed to be innocent and denied allegations against him and stated that no knife was recovered from his possession and the same is planted upon him. Accused opted to not lead any Defence Evidence. Accordingly, bringing the trial to an end, final arguments were heard from Ld. Counsel for the Accused as well Ld. APP for the State.
Appreciation of Evidence
7. The arguments were addressed by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. LAC for the accused in detail.
Ld. APP for the State argued that the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on account of the unfeterred testimonies of the prime prosecution witnesses i.e. the complainant and IO. Ld. APP for the State further argued that this case merits conviction of the accused as the prosecution case stands firmly on its own footing and merely because of absence of public witnesses, the veracity of police witnesses does not stand negated. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.12.01 16:22:55 State vs. Himanshu@ Himmat +0530 FIR No. 467/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 7 of 13 Vehemently denying the arguments of Ld. APP for the State, Ld. LAC for the Accused argued that the Accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has been made only a victim of circumstances. It was further argued by Ld. LAC for the Accused that nothing was recovered from the possession of the Accused and this is the reason why no independent witness has been brought by prosecution in this matter. Hence, Ld. LAC for the Accused strongly argued for acquittal of the Accused in this matter.
Submissions have been duly heard. Record has been carefully perused.
8. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the Accused. Further, it is also a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the Accused. Also, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the Accused to acquittal.
9. Evaluating the facts and evidence discussed above, at the outset, it comes out that no independent witness was joined in the investigation. The Hon'ble supreme court in State of Punjab vs. 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 State vs. Himanshu@ Himmat Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI FIR No. 467/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act SAINI Date:
2025.12.01
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 8 of 13
16:23:00
+0530
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 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 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]"
10. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that as per the site plan the area from where the Accused was apprehended was busy public road and despite that no public witness has been joined and therefore, absence of public witnesses from the investigation becomes even more apparent. Further, no notice has been served to any of the public persons who did not join the investigation.
Considering the above facts, it comes 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.
The above stated observation of this court is fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemraj vs. State Of Haryana [AIR 2005 SC 2110] as follows:
"the fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case..."
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
State vs. Himanshu@ Himmat 2025.12.01 16:23:06 +0530 FIR No. 467/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 9 of 13 Furthermore, in case titled Roop Chand vs. State of F [1999 (1)C.L.R 69], the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & 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 after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful..."
11. Moving further, this Court is conscious of precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Safiullah vs. 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."
State vs. Himanshu@ Himmat Digitally signed by FIR No. 467/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 10 of 13
2025.12.01
16:23:12
+0530
The case property in the present matter was lying in the Malkhana of the same police station where the police officials having the possession of seal were posted. There was ample opportunity for tampering with the case property. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the Accused.
12. Besides all this, in the present case, the aforesaid lapse on the part of police officials assumes significance on account of another grave contradiction apparent in the document Ex. PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. The sketch memo of the knife Ex. PW1/B and seizure memo of the knife Ex. PW1/C bear the number of FIR. As per the rukka and testimony of witnesses, the sketch memo of the knife and seizure memo were prepared prior to registration of FIR. If that be so, then it is questionable as to how Ex. PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C bear the FIR number. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the case property or number of the said FIR was inserted in the document after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously questions the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about the recovery of the case property in the manner alleged by the prosecution. That being so, the benefit arising out of such a situation must necessarily go to the Accused.
In this regard, reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Mohd Hasim V/S State [1999 VI AD (DELHI) 569] wherein it was observed:
"...documents prepared before registering the FIR bears FIR numbers, meaning thereby either FIR was recorded posterior in time or that documents were prepared after the recording of FIR, and in both cases, prosecution case would collapse." RAHUL SAINI State vs. Himanshu@ Himmat Digitally signed by RAHUL SAINI FIR No. 467/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Date: 2025.12.01 16:23:17 +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 11 of 13
13. Further, in order to ensure fair investigation, the prosecution witnesses must have offered their personal search to some independent witness. However, as no such precaution was taken by prosecution witnesses the doubt as to the false plantation of the case property upon the Accused cannot be ruled out. In S. L. Goswami Vs. State Of M.P., [1972 CRI.L.J 511 (SC)] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"... in our view, the onus to proving all the ingredient of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the Accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in case where the defence of the Accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the Accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the Accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredient of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the Accused and the Accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which vests upon the prosecution..."
This also raises doubt about the recovery of the said case property from the present Accused and strengthens the possibility of planting of the case property upon the Accused.
Conclusion
14. The onus and duty to prove the case against the Accused was upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.12.01 16:23:25 State vs. Himanshu@ Himmat +0530 FIR No. 467/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 12 of 13 regard to the guilt of the Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the Accused.
15. In view of above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Accused Himanshu @ Himmat S/o Late Shri Om Prakash stands acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act framed in the present case. Case property be confiscated to the State. Same be destroyed.
16. Accused is directed to furnish the bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date:
SAINI SAINI 2025.12.01 Announced in the open court 16:23:31 +0530 on 01.12.2025 (Rahul Saini) Judicial Magistrate First Class-08(Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts,Delhi 01.12.2025 [This judgment contains 13 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] State vs. Himanshu@ Himmat FIR No. 467/2020 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 13 of 13