Delhi District Court
State vs Arun Singla on 16 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-06,
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Neetika Kapoor, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 28299/2018
Unique Case ID No. -: DLSW020368282018
FIR No. -: 265/2018
Police Station -: Dwarka North
Section(s) -: 25 Arms Act
In the matter of:
STATE
VS.
ARUN SINGLA
S/o Sh. Sushil Singla, R/o Flat No. 102, Sai Paradise Apartment,
Gali No. 3, Bharat Vihar, Dwarka, New Delhi.
.... Accused
ASI Meer Pal Singh, No. 02/DW,
1. Name of Complainant :
PIS No. 28880831
2. Name of Accused : Arun Singla
Offence complained of or
3. : 25 Arms Act
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
Date of commission of
5. : 24.08.2018
offence
FIR No. 254/2022 State Vs. Arun Singla Page 1 of 14
Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
Date:
KAPOOR 2025.10.16
17:42:14
+0530
6. Date of Filing of case : 27.09.2018
7. Date of Reserving Order : 16.10.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025
9. Final Order : Acquitted
Argued by -: Sh. Puspendra Verma, Ld. Substitute APP for the
State.
Sh. Pramod Kumar Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for accused.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 23rd and 24th August, 2018, ASI Meerpal alongwith Ct. Nare,der, Ct. Ajit and Ct. Kamal Singh were on picket duty when one swift car bearing No. DL3CBL 9219 was signaled to the spot but driver tried to take a u-turn. The car was stopped and accused came out of the car and on his cursory search, a button actuated knife was found in his possession. PCR was called on No. 100. IO SI Anuj and HC Gabbar came to the spot and recorded statement of ASI Meerpal. Sketch of the knife was prepared. Knife was seied. Rukka was prepared which was handed over to HC Gabbar, based on which present FIR was registered.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED FIR No. 254/2022 State Vs. Arun Singla Page 2 of 14 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.10.16 17:42:18 +0530
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the charge-sheet against the accused was filed.
3. On his appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC").
4. On finding a prima facie case against the accused, charge under Section 25 Arms Act was framed against accused Arun Singla. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW-1 : ASI Mirpal Singh (complainant)
HC Gabbar Singh had accompanied the
PW-2 :
IO during investigation.
PW-3 : Inspector Anuj Yadav is the IO.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex.PW1/A : Sketch of button actuated knife Ex. PW1/B : Seizure memo of knife Ex. PW1/C : Seizure memo of vehicle Ex. PW1/D : Statement of ASI Mirpal FIR No. 254/2022 State Vs. Arun Singla Page 3 of 14 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.10.16 17:42:22 +0530 Ex.PW1/E : Site plan Ex.PW1/F : Arrest memo Ex.PW1/G : Personal search memo Ex.PW1/H : Disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW3/A : Rukka
6. PW-1 ASI Mirpal Singh stepped into the witness box and deposed that on the intervening night of 23rd and 24th of August, 2018 he was posted at PS Dabri as ASI but he was performing duty in DCP reserve from 16.08.2018 to 31.08.2018. On the said night, he alongwith three police officials namely Ct. Narender, Ct. Ajit and Ct. Kamal Singh were performing picket duty at back side of DDU college, Sector 3, Dwarka and their duty hours from 12:00 am to 5:00 am. They were checking vehicles coming from the side of Bindapur towards Dwarka. At about 1:45 am, one Swift car bearing No. DL3CBL 9219 came from the side of Bindapur and signaled him to stop the car but driver of the car tried to take u turn and on seeing that they approached towards the car and got it stopped. They asked him about the fact that why he was taking u turn despite the fact that they asked him to stop the vehicle and when he failed to give any satisfactory reply, cursory search was made and he was found in possession of one button actuated knife. Thereafter, he dialed No. 100 and informed the control room about recovery of button actuated knife. After some time, SI Anuj Yadav and HC Gabbar Singh reached at the spot. Custody of accused Arun Singhla and button actuated knife was handed over to SI Anuj. Thereafter, IO SI Anuj prepared sketch of the button actuated knife which is Ex.PW1/A. Button actuated knife was put in the white pullanda and sealed with the seal of 'AY' FIR No. 254/2022 State Vs. Arun Singla Page 4 of 14 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.10.16 17:42:24 +0530 and thereafter, seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. IO seized the vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. IO recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/D, based on which, rukka was prepared and handed over to Ct. Gabbar for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Gabbar reached at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. IO prepared site plan which is Ex.PW1/E. IO arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded which is Ex.PW1/H. Identity of accused was not disputed qua this witness. Witness correctly identified the case property in the court.
7. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he deposed that he had made the separate departure entry before leaving the DCP office, Sector 19, however but failed to remember the DD number.
They had not maintained any register while checking the vehicle. No public persons were present at the spot when accused was apprehended. However, vehicles were passing the road. He made call on No. 100 at about 2:00 am and SI Anuj alongwith HC Gabbar reached at the spot after half an hour. He admitted that no notice was served to any public persons to join investigation. He failed to remember the exact time when his statement was recorded by IO SI Anuj. He admitted that he used a smartphone with camera but did not click any photographs or make videography of recovery of case property. He denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting in PS. He denied the suggestion that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of the accused or at his instance or he was deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion that case property has been FIR No. 254/2022 State Vs. Arun Singla Page 5 of 14 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.10.16 17:42:28 +0530 falsely planted upon the accused.
8. Further, PW-3 Inspector Anuj Yadav stpped into the witness box and deposed that in the year 2018 he was posted as SI at PS Dwarka North. On the intervening night of 23 rd and 24th August, 2018, he was on emergency night duty with HC Gabbar in PS. He was informed by the DO that illicit knife was recovered from a boy. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Gabbar went to the spot i.e. behind DDU college, Sector 3, Dwarka where ASI Meerpal produced a boy and knife recovered from him. He prepared sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW1/A. He seized the knife vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He recorded statement of ASI Meerpal which is Ex.PW1/D, based on which, he prepared rukka which is Ex.PW3/A and present FIR was registered. Site plan was prepared which is Ex.PW1/E. He arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/F. Personal search memo was prepared which is Ex.PW1/F. He recorded disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW1/H. I also impounded the vehicle from where the knife was recovered vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. Case property was deposited in the malkhana. Statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded and on completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in the court. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court.
9. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness had reached the spot at around 12:00 am and had left the spot finally at 12.30 am. Witness admitted that he had not seen the case property as same had been handed over to me in a sealed condition. Witness denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter or that no recovery was effected from him. Witness denied the suggestion that FIR No. 254/2022 State Vs. Arun Singla Page 6 of 14 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.10.16 17:42:32 +0530 all the documents were prepared while sitting in PS. Witness denied the suggestion that he had not conducted fair and proper investigation in the present matter. Witness denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
10. Testimony of PW-2 is similar in tenor to PW-3 as he had accompanied PW-3 during investigation. He was duly cross-examined and discharged.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
11. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Pursuant thereto, he stated that he does not wish to lead any defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS
12. I have heard the learned APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
13. It is argued by the learned APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that the prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the recovery FIR No. 254/2022 State Vs. Arun Singla Page 7 of 14 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.10.16 17:42:35 +0530 from the accused and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony mere because they are police officials. He contends that the accused has contravened the notification issued by the competent authority under law and thus is liable for the offence. He contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
14. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel has argued that the whole case is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
15. The accused has been charged for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Under sub-clause (1-B)(b) of the provision, acquisition, possession or carrying of arms in contravention of notification issued under Section 4 of the Arms Act is an offence. Section 4 stipulates that the Central Government can regulate possession, acquisition or carrying of certain arms not firearms in any area whenever it is necessary or expedient in public interest. After the notification, possession of such arms in that specified area without any license would be a breach liable to be punished under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act. Further, it is settled that FIR No. 254/2022 State Vs. Arun Singla Page 8 of 14 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.10.16 17:42:39 +0530 possession under the provision ought to be conscious possession. ( Reliance is placed on Gunwantlal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1972) 2 SCC 194 in this regard.)
16. It is noted that the notification itself has not been produced in evidence. However, as the notification has been issued under delegated authority under Section 4 of the Act, it is 'law' as appearing under Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and this Court can take judicial notice of the said law. Law includes notifications having force of law {Refer: Article 13 of the Constitution, Section 3(29) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 etc.} Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
17. In the present matter, there are two star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW-1 and PW-3. PW-1 is a spot witness and also the complainant. He had recovered the alleged button actuated knife from the accused. As such, his testimony is of prime importance in the present matter. In his examination-in-chief, PW1 deposed about the incident and stated that he was on picket duty alongwith other police officials. They had apprehended the accused and during his search, a button actuated knife FIR No. 254/2022 State Vs. Arun Singla Page 9 of 14 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.10.16 17:42:43 +0530 recovered from the possession of the accused Arun Singla. The IO was then called from the police station.
18. However, in the opinion of this Court, the testimony of all the star witnesses does not inspire confidence. Even though mere fact that the witnesses are police officials is not sufficient to doubt their testimony, the other factors discussed below throw a doubt on the reliability of the police witnesses. In this regard, it is to be noted at the outset that the prosecution has failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that the police witnesses were on patrolling duty of the date of incident.
19. The prosecution has not tendered into evidence any arrival/departure entries of the official witnesses to support its case. The departure/arrival entry in the Daily Diary would have been a substantial piece of evidence to corroborate the version of the police officials. It is pertinent to mention here that the duty to record the departure and arrival is mandatory for the police officials, as per Rule 49, Chapter 22 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The relevant port of the said Rule reads as under-:
"22.49 - 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 of elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on the arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal."
FIR No. 254/2022 State Vs. Arun Singla Digitally signed by Page 10 of 14 NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.10.16 17:42:47 +0530
20. Therefore, non-production of DD entries to prove that the witnesses were on patrolling duty on the day of incident, throws a doubt on the presence of the police officials at the place of incident.
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES
21. The next assertion of the ld. counsel for the accused is that no independent witnesses were joined by the police. He has argued that non-joining of public witnesses is fatal to the prosecution's case. On the contrary, Ld. APP for the State has argued that the prosecution version cannot be disbelieved merely because all the witnesses are police officials.
22. Although it is true that non-joining of independent witnesses cannot be a sole ground to discard the evidence of police witnesses (Refer: Appabhai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696), however, evidence in every case is to be weighed in light of the peculiar facts of the case. As per version of the witnesses, the accused was apprehended at around 5:55 PM. PW2 in his examination in chief admitted that spot was near a metro line. He stated that though public persons were present at the time of recovery he had requested the passers-by to join the investigation but no one came forward. He also admitted that he did not record the name of the persons and no written notice was served upon those persons who had refused to join the investigation. PW2 also stated that though public persons were present at the time of recovery but none of them joined investigation.
23. The IO PW-3 also stated that he had not recorded FIR No. 254/2022 State Vs. Arun Singla Page 11 of 14 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.10.16 17:42:51 +0530 statement of any public persons to join investigation. In this regard, it is admitted by all the prosecution witnesses that the spot where the recovery was allegedly made, vehicles were passed. However, the site plan does not depict the presence of any public witness/passerby. On the one side of the spot from where recovery was made is at DDU College back side Picket, Sector 3, Dwarka, which clearly reflects that spot of the incident was a crowded spot however, despite presence of public persons, no public persons had joined investigation. The reason for doing the same is the stereotypical refusal on part of such persons to join the instigation. There is no justification as to why the IO did not issue any notice to the public persons. Failure to join the investigation would entail penal consequences and this shows that no sincere efforts were made to join such witnesses. The availability of public persons at/near the place of incident is undeniable. Thus, the fact that despite availability, no public persons were joined, casts a doubt on the version of the prosecution.
OTHER DEFICIENCIES
24. Further, the PW1, PW-2 and PW-3 in their deposition have stated that case property was sealed with the seal "AY", however, no seal handing over or taking over memo is on record. Pertinently, there is no documentary evidence to show if the seal was deposited in Malkhana and the same was outside the reach of the IO/other police officials. What was the fate of the seal remains unexplained. As such, it is seen that prosecution has not been able to lead evidence to show proper chain of custody of the FIR No. 254/2022 State Vs. Arun Singla Page 12 of 14 Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2025.10.16 17:42:54 +0530 property. The links are missing and benefit of the same must be given to the accused.
25. Thus, from the above discussion, it is evident that circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to punch holes in version of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution cannot be set to be proved on the requisite threshold. Therefore, it is inevitable to conclude that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that button actuated knife was recovered from possession of the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative and against the prosecution.
CONCLUSION
26. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offences under Section 25 Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has been successful in pointing out the deficiencies in the case of the prosecution. The recovery of the illicit arm from the possession of the accused, which was the essential ingredient of the offence, is highly doubtful, owing to various circumstances. The evidence of police witnesses is not reliable and no independent witnesses were joined, despite abundant availability. Other inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution have crumbled the whole case of the prosecution.
FIR No. 254/2022 State Vs. Arun Singla Page 13 of 14
Digitally
signed by
NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.10.16
17:42:58
+0530
27. Resultantly, the accused Arun Singla is entitled for benefit of reasonable doubt and is hereby found not guilty. He is hereby ACQUITTED of the offence under Section 25 Arms Act.
28. The accused has already furnished personal bond as per the mandate of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he has undertaken that he shall put in his appearance before the appellate court within the prescribed period in case an appeal is filed and admitted for hearing. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced and signed in the open court on 16th Day of October, 2025.
Digitally signed by NEETIKA NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.10.16
17:43:10 +0530
(Neetika Kapoor)
JMFC-06/SWD/Dwarka Court
New Delhi/16.10.2025
**It is certified that this judgment contains 14 pages, and each page bears my signature** FIR No. 254/2022 State Vs. Arun Singla Page 14 of 14