Delhi District Court
State vs . Rihan @ Faisal on 9 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. MEENA CHAUHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -08 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 0382/2022
PS: Kotwali
U/s 25 Arms Act
State v. Rihan @ Faisal
CIS No. 8322/2022
Date of Institution of case : 28.05.2022
Date when Judgment reserved : 07.01.2023
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 09.01.2023
JUDGMENT
A Serial No. of the case : FIR No. 0382/2022 PS: Kotwali Date of the commission of the b : 01.04.2022 offence ASI Suresh Kumar, Belt No.1169/N c Name of the Complainant :
Rihan @ Faisal Name of Accused person and d : S/o Firoz, R/o H. No. RZ M-15 Gali No. his parentage and residence Madrasi Colony Vijay Enclave, Delhi.
e Offence complained of : U/s 25(1B)/54/59 Arms Act Plea of the Accused and his f : Pleaded not guilty. examination (if any) g Final Order : Acquittal h Date of Order : 09.01.2023 BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION: State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 1/21
1. In brief, the accused has been sent to face trial upon the allegations that on 01.04.2022 at about 07.45 pm, at Anguri Bagh Bus stand, lower Subhash Marg, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali, accused Rihan @ Faisal was found in possession of one buttondar knife in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 25 Arms Act, 1959.
The buttondar knife was seized and taken into possession by the police.
2. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused. Copy of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused under section 207 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C) and thereafter charge under section 25 Arms Act was framed against him on 01.07.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined three (03) witnesses to substantiate allegations against the accused.
4. PW-1 HC Anil Kumar has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 01.04.2022, he was posted as State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 2/21 Constable at PS Kotwali Delhi. On that day, he along with ASI Suersh was on patrolling duty vide DD NO. 79 A, at Jain Mandir Chandni Chowk at around 07:30 pm. ASI Suresh received information from a secret informer that one person was standing near to Angoori Bagh Bus Stand and who was having illegal buttondar knife and he may be apprehended if raid will be conducted. Thereafter, ASI Suresh requested the 4-5 public persons to join the investigation they all refused. IO did not serve any notice to them. Thereafter, without wasting any time ASI Suresh prepared the raiding party including him and a secret informer and at 07:45 they reached the alleged spot. The secret informer pointed out towards the accused and thereafter ASI Suresh apprehended the accused with his help. He deposed that during the inquiry, he revealed his name as Rihan @Faizal. PW-1 correctly identified the accused. Thereafter, his cursory search was conducted and during the search one buttondar knife was found in his right pocket of wearing pants. IO opened the knife and prepared the sketch of the same which is Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. IO measured the knife and found the total length of knife was 23 Cms, length of handle was 12 Cms and length of blade was 11 Cms. The width of the blade was 2.5 Cms. The knife also has a peetal button. IO kept the knife in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of SK. The seal after use was handed over to him. IO seized the State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 3/21 knife vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, IO prepared a rukka the same is Ex.PW- 1/C and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he reached the PP Redfort and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to the ASI Gulzar. Thereafter, he along with ASI Gulzar reached the spot. Thereafter, ASI Suresh handed over the accused along with recovered knife/seizure to ASI Gulzar. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of ASI Suresh Kumar, the same is Ex.PW-1/D. Thereafter, IO recorded the supplementary statement of ASI Suresh Kumar. IO arrested accused vide memo PW1/E and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/F, both bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/G, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he went to PS where case property was deposited in malkhana. The accused was lodged in lock-up after his medical examination. IO recorded his statement. (MHC(M) produced case property in white color pullanda having the seal of SK having written particulars of the present case. The seals were intact and legible. Same was opened with the permission of the Court. After opening the same, case property i.e., knife was taken out and the same was shown to the witness, witness correctly identified the case property).
During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 4/21 for the accused, PW-1 stated that they reached the spot at around 07:45 pm. He deposed that IO received the information from the secret informer at 07:30 pm and public persons were present at the spot, IO asked public persons to join the investigation, who refused to join the same, therefore, notice could not be served on them. None of the public has disclosed his name. He stated that no seal handing over memo was prepared and seal was handed over to him. He stated that they remained at the spot for about 2 hours. He deposed that he cannot say whether any CCTV cameras were installed at the spot. He denied the suggestion that no recovery of the buttondar knife was effected from the accused or that the same is planted upon the accused in order to implicate him in a false case or that all the documents were prepared while sitting at the PS. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
5. PW-2 ASI Suresh Kumar has deposed in his examination-in-chief that 01.04.2022, he was posted as ASI at PS Kotwali Delhi. On that day, he alongwith Ct. Anil Kumar was on patrolling duty vide DD NO. 79 A, at Jain Mandir Chandni Chowk. On that day, at around 07:30 pm he received information from a secret informer that one person was standing near to Angoori Bagh Bus Stand and who was having illegal buttondar knife and he may be apprehended if raid is conducted. Thereafter, he requested 4-5 public persons State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 5/21 to join the investigation but they all refused by giving their personal excuses. He did not serve any notice to them due to paucity of time. Thereafter, without wasting any time he prepared the raiding party including Ct. Anil Kumar and a secret informer and at 07:45 they reached the alleged spot. The secret informer pointed out towards the accused and thereafter he apprehended the accused with the help of Ct. Anil Kumar. During the inquiry, the accused revealed his name as Rihan@Faizal. PW-2 correctly identified the accused. Thereafter, he conducted a cursory search of the accused and during the search, one buttondar knife was found in his right pocket of wearing pants. He opened the knife and prepared the sketch of the same, which is Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point B. He measured the knife and found the total length of knife was 23 Cms, length of handle was 12 Cms and length of blade was 11 Cms. The width of the blade was 2.5 Cms. The knife also has a peetal button. He kept the knife in a white cloth and prepared pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of SK. The seal after use was handed over to Ct. Anil Kumar. He seized the knife vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he prepared a rukka of the same which is Ex.PW-1/C bearing his signature at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Anil Kumar for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Anil Kumar reached the PP Red Fort State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 6/21 and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to the ASI Gulzar. Thereafter, Ct. Anil Kumar alongwith ASI Gulzar reached at the spot. Thereafter, he handed over the custody of the accused along with recovered knife, seizure memo and sketch memo to ASI Gulzar. Thereafter, IO/ASI Gulzar prepared the site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW-1/D. Thereafter, IO recorded his supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and he was discharged. MHC(M) produced case property in white color pullanda having seal of MC bearing the particulars of the present case. The seals were intact and legible. Same was opened with the permission of the Court. After opening the same, case property i.e., knife was taken out and the same was shown to the witness, witness has correctly identified the case property). The case property is Ex. P-1.
During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC for the accused, PW-2 stated that they reached the spot at around 07:45 pm. He deposed that IO received the information from the secret informer at 07:30 pm and public persons were present at the spot, IO asked public persons to join the investigation, who refused to join the same, therefore, notice could not be served on them. None of the public has disclosed his name. He stated that no seal handing over memo was prepared and seal was handed over to him. He stated that they remained at the spot for about 1 and a half hours. He deposed that he did not remember the exact time when he sent State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 7/21 the rukka and when Ct. Anil came back. He stated that IO ASI Gulzar came to the spot at around 09:20 pm. He stated that he had not offered his search to the accused before his search. IO/ASI Gulzar prepared the site plan at his instance. He admitted that the site plan does not bear his signature. He denied the suggestion the site plan was not prepared at his instance. He deposed that he cannot say whether any CCTV cameras were installed at the spot. He denied the suggestion that no recovery of the buttondar knife was effected from the accused or that the same is planted upon the accused in order to implicate him in a false case or that all the documents were prepared while sitting at the PS. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW-3 SI Gulzar Hussain has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was the 2nd IO in the present matter and prior to him, investigation of the case was conducted by ASI Suresh Kumar. He deposed that on 01.04.2022, he was posted as ASI at PS Kotwali. On that day, Duty Officer handed over a copy of FIR and original tehrir /rukka to him and he alongwith Ct. Anil went to the spot i.e., Angoori Bagh Bus Stand, Red Fort, Delhi. There, he met ASI Suresh along with the accused namely Rihan @ Faisal. He made the enquiry from ASI Suresh and narrated the whole incident and also handed over the custody of the accused along with a buttondar knife to him. Thereafter, he prepared a State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 8/21 site plan at the instance of ASI Suresh which is Ex. PW1/D bears his signature at point B. He recorded the statement of ASI Suresh u/s 161 Cr.P.C and he was discharged. Thereafter, he made the inquiry from the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point B and carried out his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/F bearing his signature at point B. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex PW1/G bearing his signature at point B. ASI Suresh Kumar also handed over to him seizure memo of case property, sketch memo of case property i.e., Buttondar knife and also handed over a sealed pullanda containing the case property in the presence of Ct Anil. Thereafter, a medical examination of the accused was conducted and they came back to the PS. Thereafter, case property was deposited by him in the police malkhana and the accused was put behind the bars in the lock up of the PS. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Ct. Anil u/s 161 Cr.P.C and he was discharged. On the next day, the accused was produced before the concerned court and he was sent to JC. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was prepared by him and same filed before the Hon'ble Court with all relevant documents and material collected during investigation. PW-3 correctly identified the accused present in the court.
During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. LAC State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 9/21 for the accused, PW-3 admitted that the recovery had not taken place in his presence. He further admitted that the place of occurrence was a busy spot. He requested public persons to join the investigation, who refused to join the same and went away. Accused was arrested at the spot. He denied the suggestion that the case against the accused is false and that he has falsely implicated the accused by planting a knife upon the accused at the instance of higher police officials. He further denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting at the PS. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
7. Vide statement of accused recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C on 06.01.2023, the accused admitted the FIR no. 382/2022, PS Kotwali which is Ex. A-1 and the certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. A-2, endorsement on rukka which is Ex. A-3 and G.D. No. 79A dated 01.04.2022 which is Ex. A-4, without admitting the contents of these documents and without prejudice to his defence. The prosecution evidence was closed on 06.12.2023. Statement of the accused u/s 313 read with section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded in which he stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He further stated that no knife was recovered from his possession and recovery has been planted. He stated that he has not committed any offence. He also submitted that he did not want to lead defence evidence. Final arguments in the State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 10/21 matter were heard.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
8. At the time of final arguments, Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and all the ingredients of the relevant section are complete. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by the Ld. LAC for the accused that all the prosecution witnesses are police witnesses and their testimonies are not corroborated with any public witness. He submitted that the accused has been planted in the present matter. He prayed that the accused be acquitted.
9. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP and the Ld. LAC for the accused and perused the documents on record carefully. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record. Before moving on for appreciation of evidence for deciding the present case, the applicable penal provision is reproduced in verbatim as follows:-
"25. Punishment for certain offences:-
(1B) Whoever-...(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; or...shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 11/21 which shall not be less than 25 [one year] but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."
10. 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 a 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 a settled proposition of criminal law that the 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 the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
11. Coming to the matter in hand, to sustain conviction u/s. 25 of Arms Act, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:
(1) The accused was found in the possession of the button actuated knife.
(2) The accused was carrying the same without any licence/permit or in contravention of notification of Delhi Administration.
State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 12/21
12. 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 V. BALBIR SINGH AIR 1994 SC 1872, held that:
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the 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]"
13. At this stage, it is also crucial to observe that PW-1 deposed to the effect that the IO requested 4-5 public persons to be the part of investigation, however, they refused citing their personal exigency. It is pertinent to observe that PW-1 and PW-2 have admitted that in the area from where the accused was apprehended there were 4-5 people at the spot and despite that no public witness has been joined. Further, it is admitted by all above prosecution witnesses that neither names have been recorded nor any notices have been served State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 13/21 to any of the public persons who refused to join the investigation nor IO recorded the statements of any such public persons.
14. On a careful perusal of the documentary records relied on by the prosecution, it is quite clear that neither the tehrir which is Ex.PW1/C nor FIR which is Ex.A-1 mentioned any public witness or independent witness. It is also pertinent to note that the alleged spot of incident is near the bus stand and site plan which is Ex. PW-1/D also shows that there is a garden, red light area and lal quila near the spot, which implies that there was ample opportunity with the police official to have the independent witnesses join the investigation. No person from the said area has been made to join the investigation in the matter by the IO and no reasons whatsoever have been given for this lapse. The reasons given above raise serious doubts at the version of the prosecution.
15. 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. Merely mentioning that public persons were requested to join the investigation is of no avail. The names of those persons are not mentioned. It is not mentioned as to what action was State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 14/21 taken against those persons who refused to join the investigation.
16. 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) "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..."
17. Furthermore, in case titled ROOP CHAND V/S STATE OF HARYANA, 1999 (1)C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana held as following:
"...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 State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 15/21 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..."
18. In the present case, all the three prosecution witnesses examined in the present matter are police witnesses. The testimony of official witnesses doesn't find any corroboration from any independent source. In the opinion of this court, non-joining of independent/public witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case and creates serious doubts regarding the genuineness of investigation proceedings done at the spot.
19. As per the prosecution version, a button actuated knife had been recovered from the possession of the accused. To substantiate this allegation, the prosecution produced rukka Ex. PW1/C which mentioned that the case property was first sketched, measured, seized and sealed only thereafter, the rukka was sent for registration of FIR. Same version of this story is reproduced in statements given by PW-1 and PW-2 recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Further, all the prosecution witnesses in their examination-in-chief in the court deposed that the recovered knife was sealed, then seizure memo and sketch memo of the case property have been prepared first and later State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 16/21 on, rukka was prepared on the basis of which an FIR has been registered at PS. However, the seizure memo and sketch of the case property bear an FIR number. As per rukka and statements of PW-1 and PW-2 u/s 161 Cr.P.C and in their testimonies before the court, at the time of the seizure the FIR number was not available and therefore, the FIR number could not have figured on the seizure memo or the sketch. The existence of the FIR number on these documents suggests that the seizure memo, and sketch memo were all prepared after the registration of the FIR. In view of the above discussion, it is not clear whether FIR was registered before all paperwork related to the case property was done or after. This erodes the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out. This further pointed out the quality of investigation done by police in the present matter.
20. Here, it is relevant to refer to case law reported as Mohd. Hashim v. State 1999(6) A.D. (Delhi) 569, wherein it was observed that when documents are prepared before the registration of FIR and it contains the FIR number, then inference has to be drawn that either FIR was recorded prior in time or the documents were prepared later on and in such cases benefit of the doubt is to be given to the accused.
State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 17/21
21. Another lacuna in the prosecution case is regarding the procedure to use seal and its handing over after use. This Court is conscious of precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Safiullah v. State 1993 (1) RCR (CRIMINAL) 622, that:
"The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. ..... Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
22. Coming to the factual matrix of the present case, all witnesses have deposed in their examination-in-chief that PW-2/IO has seized and sealed the case property at the spot in clothed white pullanda with the seal of SK. PW-2 deposed that after that seal was handed over to PW-1/Ct. Anil Kumar, however no handing over memo was surfaced in the record or exhibited in the prosecution evidence. The seal was handed over to the material prosecution witness, who is already interested in the case of the prosecution and not handed over to an independent witness nor deposited in malkhana. No explanation has come on record as to why the handing over memo was not made or the seal was not handed over to an independent witness or deposited in malkhana. In such a factual backdrop, the seal remained with the police officials of the same police station and therefore, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out.
State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 18/21 Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of the said witness and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property.
23. In this regard, judgment in a case titled as Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452, may be adverted to, wherein it was observed in paragraph 7 that:
"...The very purpose of giving a seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out."
24. With regard to the personal search of the accused before the alleged recovery of the buttondar knife from the possession of the accused, it was stated by the PW-2 ASI Rakesh that he made a cursory search of the accused. During the examination-in-chief of the above witness, he has not mentioned giving the opportunity to the accused to search himself before and then did the personal search of the accused so as to eliminate the chance of planting illegal arms. Even during his cross-examination, he admitted that no personal search was offered to the accused before searching him. This fact was not mentioned in either tehrir or the statement of PW-2 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, which further State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 19/21 erodes the testimony of the PW-2 in this regard. In the case of Orissa High Court reported as Rabindernath Prusty v/s State of Orissa, it was held that "One of the formalities that have to be observed in searching a person is that the searching Officer and other assisting him should give their search to the accused before searching the person of the accused."
25. In S. L. GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF M.P., 1972, CRI.L.J 511 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"... 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..."
26. In the present case, no independent witness deposed about the search being done by the accused before his personal search whereby the buttondar knife was recovered from him. All these circumstances raise serious doubt regarding the fairness and credibility of investigation proceedings conducted by the police at the alleged date, time and place.
State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 20/21 CONCLUSION:
27. 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 regard to the guilt of the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused.
28. In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Accused Rihan @ Faisal S/o Firoz is acquitted of the charges u/s 25 Arms Act framed in the present case. Case property be confiscated to the State. Same be destroyed. File be consigned to Record Room subject to compliance of section 437-A Cr.PC.
Digitally signed by MEENA Announced in the open court MEENA CHAUHAN
CHAUHAN Date:
today i.e., 09.01.2023 2023.01.09
17:06:17 +0530
(MEENA CHAUHAN)
Metropolitan Magistrate-08
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi [This judgment contains 21 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Rihan @ Faisal FIR No. 382/22 PS Kotwali 21/21