Delhi District Court
State vs Balram@Ramu on 11 September, 2025
STATE Vs. BALRAM @ RAMU
IN THE COURT OF MS. PARUL SHARMA
JMFC-13, DWARKA COURT (SOUTH WEST), NEW
DELHI
DLSW020618782022
STATE Vs. BALRAM @ RAMU
FIR No. 278/2022
P.S Chhawla
Case No. 12960/2022
Date of commission of offence 21.05.2022
Date of institution of the case 14.10.2023
Name of the complainant Sandeep
Name of accused and address Balram @ Ramu S/o
Sh. Ramdev
R/o Jhuggi No. L-76, 4
no. Fatak, near
telephone exchange,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved Section 25/54/59 of
Arms Act
Offence charged Section 25 Arms Act
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquitted
Date when reserved for judgment 20.08.2025
Date of judgment 11.09.2025
Cr. No. 12960/2022 FIR No. 278/2022 Page no. 1/13
Digitally
signed by
PARUL
PARUL SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.09.11
16:41:00
+0530
STATE Vs. BALRAM @ RAMU
JUDGMENT
Vide this judgment, accused Balram @ Ramu is being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in this case FIR No. 278/2022, PS: Chhawala.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:
1. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution is that on 21.05.2022 at about 10:40 PM, at Jhatikara road near the cut leading towards Paprawat Village, you accused Balram @ Ramu was found in possession of one buttondar knife. Thus, it is alleged that the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act, 1959.
2. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed upon which cognizance was taken. Accused appeared before the court and complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. Arguments were heard pursuant to which charge for offence punishable u/s 25 of the Act was framed qua the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Vide separate statement of the accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C, documents i.e. FIR, certificate under Cr. No. 12960/2022 FIR No. 278/2022 Page no. 2/13 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.11 16:41:05 +0530 STATE Vs. BALRAM @ RAMU Section 65B Indian Evidence Act and DAD Notification were admitted.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. Three witnesses in total were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. Following oral and documentary evidences were led by the prosecution:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 HC Praveen PW-2 HC Sandeep PW-3 ASI Vinay Kumar DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A Sketch of recovered knife Ex. PW1/B Seizure Memo Ex. PW1/C Disclosure statement (inadvertently mentioned as seizure memo) Ex. PW1/D Arrest memo (inadvertently mentioned as seizure memo) Ex. PW1/E Personal search memo (inadvertently mentioned as seizure memo) Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW2/B Seizure memos of mobile phone.
Ex. PW2/C Tehrir Cr. No. 12960/2022 FIR No. 278/2022 Page no. 3/13 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date: SHARMA 2025.09.11 16:41:10 +0530 STATE Vs. BALRAM @ RAMU Ex. PW2/D Site Plan Ex. P1 Case Property
5. PW-1 HC Praveen deposed that on 21.05.2022, he was posted in PS Chhawala as HC and during intervening night of 21-22.05.2022, he alongwith HC Sandeep were on emergency duty. At about 10:15 PM they reached near Jhatikara Mor, a secret informer met them and informed HC Sandeep that one person who, has previously also been involved in various crimes, would be coming in some while to meet his friend and would be in possession of arm/knife. He further deposed that HC Sandeep informed the SHO concerned about the secret information and after receiving the directions from the SHO concerned, they alongwith the secret informer went to the spot. He further deposed that at about 10:40 PM, the secret informer signaled towards one person coming on foot from Jhatikara Mor and the informer left the spot. He alongwith HC Sandeep apprehended the said person who disclosed his name to be Balram @ Ramu and upon cursory search of the said person by HC Sandeep, one button actuated knife was recovered from the right side pocket of his pant. HC Sandeep prepared the sketch of knife on the paper Ex.PW1/A. The said knife was put in a pullinda made Cr. No. 12960/2022 FIR No. 278/2022 Page no. 4/13 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.11 16:41:14 +0530 STATE Vs. BALRAM @ RAMU of white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'SK' and seal after use was handed over to him. The knife was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW1/C, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, the case property was deposited to malkhana. Accused was got medically examined and put to lockup at PS JP Kalan. IO recorded his statement and thereafter, discharged. Accused as well as case property was duly identified by him.
6. PW-1 was cross-examined wherein he admitted that he did not remember the DD entry vide which they left the PS on that day and the spot of recovery was a residential and presumably crowded area. Further, no photographs were clicked neither by him nor by IO at the time when such recovery was effected from the accused. He also admitted that no written notice was served to the public persons or the neighbours. He further admitted that no seal handing over memo was prepared and the seizure memo was prepared prior to registration of FIR as FIR no. and other details were mentioned thereafter and no written intimation was given to the senior officials/SHO concerned regarding the secret information. The seizure memo was shown to the witness upon which his signatures were not there.
Cr. No. 12960/2022 FIR No. 278/2022 Page no. 5/13 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.11 16:41:18 +0530 STATE Vs. BALRAM @ RAMU
7. PW-2 HC Sandeep deposed that on 21.05.2022, he was posted in PS Chhawla as HC and during intervening night of 21-22.05.2022, he alongwith Ct. Praveen were on emergency duty. At about 10:15 PM they reached near Jhatikara Mor, a secret informer met them and informed HC Sandeep that one person who has previously also been involved in various crimes and would be coming in some while to meet his friend and would be in possession of arm/knife. He further deposed that he informed the SHO concerned about the secret information and after receiving the directions from the SHO concerned, they alongwith the secret informer went to the spot. He further deposed that at about 10:40 PM, the secret informer signaled towards one person coming on foot from Jhatikara Mor and the informer left the spot. He alongwith Ct. Praveen apprehended the said person who disclosed his name Balram @ Ramu and upon cursory search of the said person by him, one button actuated knife was recovered from the right side pocket of his pant. He prepared the sketch of knife on the said paper Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point B. The said knife was put in a pullinda made of white cloth and sealed with the seal of 'SK' and seal after use was handed over to Ct. Praveen.
He further deposed that two mobile phones were also Cr. No. 12960/2022 FIR No. 278/2022 Page no. 6/13 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.11 16:41:22 +0530 STATE Vs. BALRAM @ RAMU recovered from the possession of the accused which were found to be stolen case properties and the same were seized vide separate seizure memos Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B respectively. Thereafter, he prepared tehrir Ex.PW2/C and handed over the same to Ct. Praveen and after the registration of FIR he came back to the spot with IO ASI Vinay Kumar and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO. He handed over the custody of accused, case property and seizure memo to the IO and IO prepared site plan at his instance Ex.PW2/D. He correctly identified the case property Ex.P1.
8. PW-2 was cross-examined wherein he stated that he did not remember the DD entry vide which they left the PS on that day and the spot of recovery was a residential and presumably crowded area. Further, no photographs were clicked neither by him nor by IO at the time when such recovery was effected from the accused. No written notice was served to the public persons or the neighbours. He further admitted that no seal handing over memo was prepared by IO. He further deposed that the seizure memo was prepared prior to registration of FIR as FIR no. and other details were mentioned thereafter and no written intimation was given to the Cr. No. 12960/2022 FIR No. 278/2022 Page no. 7/13 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.11 16:41:27 +0530 STATE Vs. BALRAM @ RAMU senior officials/SHO concerned regarding the secret information.
9. PW-3 ASI Vinay Kumar deposed that on 22.05.2022, he was posted in PS Chhawla as ASI and on that day, present case was marked to him after registration of FIR. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Praveen went to the spot i.e. Jhatikara Mor, Paprawat Village where HC Sandeep met them and produced accused as well as seized buttondar knife before him thereafter, he interrogated accused (present in the court, correctly identified). He arrested as well as personally search the accused vide memos Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E both bearing his signatures at point C and recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW1/C bearing his signatures at point C. Thereafter, they returned to PS alongwith accused and case property. Case property was deposited in malkhana. He recorded statements of witnesses. On completion of investigation he prepared chargesheet and filed the same in the court.
10. PW- 3 ASI Vinay Kumar deposed that he had not made any separate GD entry (Vol. DO had made the same) and did not inquired and recorded statement of any public person due to late night hours. He further admitted that the case property was handed over to him in seized condition and he had not seen it.
Cr. No. 12960/2022 FIR No. 278/2022 Page no. 8/13 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.11
16:41:31
+0530
STATE Vs. BALRAM @ RAMU
11. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, PW at serial no. 4 as per list of prosecution witnesses was dropped and formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with.
12. Thereafter PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C:
13. Statement of the accused u/s 313 read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him. The accused denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Accused further opted not to lead any evidence in his defence, hence DE was closed. FINAL ARGUMENTS:
14. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence u/s 25 of Arms Act has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
15. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and since nothing incriminating has Cr. No. 12960/2022 FIR No. 278/2022 Page no. 9/13 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.11 16:41:35 +0530 STATE Vs. BALRAM @ RAMU appeared against the accused, therefore, he deserves acquittal for the offence charged.
16. Submissions have been heard and considered. Records of the case have been duly perused.
APPLICABILITY OF LAW, APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS:
17. To establish an offence under s. 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, it must be proved that:
i) That the accused was carrying, possessing or in acquisition of arms or ammunition
ii) That such act was in contravention of S. 3 of the Arms Act.
18. Burden of proof u/s 101 Indian Evidence Act always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal. Going by the said principle, case of the prosecution is suffering from multiple inconsistencies and incoherencies thereby rendering its version highly incredible. The said discrepancies are discussed hereinafter one by one.
A) Doubtful recovery of knife Cr. No. 12960/2022 FIR No. 278/2022 Page no. 10/13 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.11 16:41:40 +0530 STATE Vs. BALRAM @ RAMU Recovery of alleged buttondar knife itself from the possession of the accused is surrounded with reasonable suspicion and doubts. It has been admitted by both the prosecution witnesses that alleged recovery from the accused was effected from a public place. Further, no public person joined as a witness to the said recovery and no notice was given for the said refusal/non-compliance. Despite fully aware about the provision contained under Section 100 Cr.P.C, no sincere attempts were made by the IO to join public witnesses in the present case. The alleged recovery was neither photographed nor video graphed. It is settled proposition of law that absence of public witness would not in itself demolish the case of the prosecution. However, the same must be weighed by the court considering the facts of the case. Failure of the IO to take any steps despite the ready availability of public witnesses creates a reasonable doubt over the alleged recovery from the possession of the accused. (Reliance placed on the case of "Anoop Joshi vs. State", 1999 (2) C.C Cases 314 (HC) and "Sadhu Singh vs. State of Punjab", (1997) 3 Crimes 55 (PH)) B) Possibility of tampering with the seal After sealing the case property with seal of 'SK', the aforesaid seal was handed over to PW-1 HC Praveen. PW-1 HC Praveen was a recovery witness and had also Cr. No. 12960/2022 FIR No. 278/2022 Page no. 11/13 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.11
16:41:44
+0530
STATE Vs. BALRAM @ RAMU
apprehended the accused. He was also subsequently a part of the investigation in the present case. Thus, the seal was not handed over to any independent witness and it remained in the possession of police officials of the same PS. Furthermore, no seal handing over was memo was prepared by the IO. Therefore seal was well within the reach of the IO. Hence, the possibility of tampering with the seal cannot be ruled out.(Reliance placed on the case of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452 and Safiullah v. State, (1993) 49 DLT 193) C) Absence of arrival and departure entries In the present case, the prosecution failed to bring on record necessary DD entries to prove the arrival and departure of the members of raiding team to and from the spot of occurrence. Reference in this regard is made to provision enshrined in Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules as per which the police officials are mandated to record their time of arrival and departure on duty at or from the police station. It should be noted that if PW-1 HC Praveen and PW-
2 HC Sandeep who apprehended the accused Balram @ Ramu were on emergency duty, the prosecution should have at-least brought the relevant records showing their arrival and departure to and from the station and thereby proving their presence at the spot. However, no such DD entries have Cr. No. 12960/2022 FIR No. 278/2022 Page no. 12/13 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.11
16:41:48
+0530
STATE Vs. BALRAM @ RAMU
been produced. This becomes all the more important when cloud of doubt is casted over the recovery of alleged knife from the possession of accused due to absence of independent public witnesses.
CONCLUSION
19. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove any cogent and reliable piece of evidence to bring home guilt of the accused for offence u/s 25 of Arms Act. Further due to several lacunas in the prosecution story, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, thus entitling him for acquittal in the present case.
20. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offence u/s 25 of Arms Act and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Balram @ Ramu is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 25 of Arms Act.
21. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused. Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Announced in the open court on 11.09.2025. Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.11 16:41:53 +0530 (Parul Sharma) JMFC-13/Dwarka Courts 11.09.2025 It is certified that this judgment contains 13 pages, all signed by the undersigned.
Cr. No. 12960/2022 FIR No. 278/2022 Page no. 13/13