Delhi District Court
State vs Mukesh @ Bholu Ors on 7 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL METROPOLITAN FIRST CLASS -03,
NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Sh. Himanshu Sehloth, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 5286574/2016
FIR No. : 51/2012
Police Station : KNK Marg
Section(s) : 387/506/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
1. MUKESH @ BHOLU
2. MANISH CHAUHAN
3. RAVINDER KUMAR ......Accused Person.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.02.2012, at around 9:00 PM, within
the jurisdiction of Police Station K.N.K. Marg, at Mangu Chicken Corner,
Sector-17, DDA Market, Rohini, the accused persons namely:
a. Mukesh @ Bhola
b. Manish Chauha
c. Ravinder Kumar
in furtherance of their common intention, criminally intimidated the
complainant Anil Kumar, wherein accused Mukesh @ Bhola allegedly
brandished and used a buttondar knife during the course of the incident to instill
fear.
Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against all the
accused persons. Compliance under Section 207 CrPC was carried out and
thereafter, charges were duly framed under:
FIR No. 707/2020 State Vs. Mukesh @ Bholu and ors Page No. 1 of 8
• Sections 387/506 R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against all
three accused; and
• Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against accused Mukesh @
Bhola alone.
All accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. Evidence Led by the Prosecution: To prove its case, the prosecution
examined a total of six witnesses. Three witnesses--ASI Kishori Lal and SI
Suresh Chand (who expired during trial), and Deepak (who failed to appear
despite repeated summons)--were formally dropped from the list of witnesses.
2.1 PW1 - Anil Kumar (Complainant): This witness was the complainant
and also the sole star witness of the prosecution. However, he completely
denied the incident and turned hostile. He stated that some drunk customers had
come to the shop and left when police arrived. He denied any threat or any
extortion. He failed to identify the accused persons. He disowned his signatures
on all the memos by claiming that the police took his signatures on blank
papers. He denied that site plan was made at his instance. He also denied that he
joined investigation on 11.02.2012 and that accused Ravinder was arrested at
his instance. He also stated that he had signed the complaint at the instance of
the police. He also denied that knife was used during such incident. He
specifically denied use of any knife or witnessing knife or its recovery.
No cross-examination was conducted by the defence counsel, despite
opportunity.
2.2 PW2 - HC Surender Pal: A formal witness who recorded DD No.
30A and proved registration of the FIR. He had no direct knowledge of the
incident. He was not cross-examined by the defence.
FIR No. 707/2020 State Vs. Mukesh @ Bholu and ors Page No. 2 of 8
2.3 PW3 - ASI Ram Babu: Deposed about the arrest of accused Ravinder at
Khera Village upon identification by the complainant. However, this
identification was never corroborated by PW1, who denied knowing any of the
accused. He also proved arrest and personal search memos, and referred to
disclosure statements, none of which led to any recovery.
He was not cross-examined by the defence.
2.4 PW4 - Ct. Lokender: Claimed to be present at the time of arrest and
recovery. Allegedly recovered a buttondar knife from accused Mukesh's right
pocket. No public witness was cited despite presence of crowd. No photographs
or videos were taken of the recovery proceedings. PW4 stated that the knife was
sealed by the IO with the seal of "SK" and the seal was handed over to him.
There is no whisper of seal handing over memo. The memos i.e., personal
search memo, arrest memo referred by the witness which were allegedly
prepared in the presence of PW1 were denied their execution by PW1.
Therefore, their credibility remains highly doubtful.
He was not cross-examined by the defence.
2.5 PW5 - Vijay Kumar (Home Department): Formally proved the
notification that declared buttondar knife as a prohibited weapon under the
Arms Act.
He was not cross-examined.
2.6 PW6 - HC Satish (PCR Staff): Deposed that he received a PCR call
qua exposure of pistol and reached the scene, where the accused had already
been apprehended by the IO and knife was recovered. Witness did not witness
the actual incident.
He was not cross-examined.
FIR No. 707/2020 State Vs. Mukesh @ Bholu and ors Page No. 3 of 8
3. Statement of Accused and Defence Evidence:
The statements of all three accused persons were recorded under Section
313 CrPC, wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them.
Each of the accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated in the
present case and that the witnesses have deposed falsely against them. No
specific defence was taken.
The accused persons chose not to lead any defence evidence.
4. Arguments
4.1 Arguments on behalf of the State: Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for the State submitted that the prosecution has examined material witnesses
and proved relevant documents on record, including the recovery of a prohibited
buttondar knife from accused Mukesh @ Bhola. It was argued that the presence
of the accused persons at the spot stands supported by the police witnesses, and
the recovery is sufficient to establish the offence under the Arms Act. It was
further contended that the testimony of official witnesses should not be
discarded solely for want of public witnesses, and the incident constitutes
offence within the meaning of Sections 387 and 506 IPC. The State prayed for
conviction of all the accused as charged.
4.2 Arguments on behalf of accused: Learned counsel for the accused persons
submitted that the prosecution's case suffers from serious infirmities, starting
with the star witness (PW1) turning completely hostile, thereby demolishing the
substratum of the prosecution case. It was argued that no public witness was
associated with the alleged recovery despite the area being crowded, and that
the memos were signed by PW1 who has disowned them. The knife was neither
sent for forensic analysis nor proved through any independent or scientific
means. The defence further pointed out that procedural lapses including lack of
FIR No. 707/2020 State Vs. Mukesh @ Bholu and ors Page No. 4 of 8
photographs, video recording, or proper sealing procedures, render the recovery
doubtful. It was submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, all accused are entitled to acquittal.
5. Appreciation of Evidence and Analysis:
Presumption of innocence is not a mere technical abstraction; it is the
foundational shield protecting every individual accused of a crime. The burden
squarely lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt--
clear, cogent, and credible. With this in mind, the evidence is appreciated in
respect of each accused and each alleged offence.
(A) Accused Mukesh @ Bhola
a) Section 387 IPC.
Section 387 IPC requires not merely an apprehension of death or grievous hurt,
but that such apprehension be caused with the intent to commit extortion. The
fulcrum of the prosecution here was PW1, the complainant. Yet, he offered no
assistance. He disowned the incident, repudiated the identity of the accused, and
denied any role being played by Mukesh or others in threatening or demanding
anything.
The prosecution, in its zeal, relied on police witnesses and documents allegedly
bearing the signature of PW1. But when that very witness demolishes the case
from within, the edifice cannot stand merely on circumstantial remnants. An act
alleged to be so grave cannot rest upon shaky procedural scaffolding.
Thus, the charge under Section 387 IPC fails against Mukesh.
b) Section 506 IPC
The gravamen of criminal intimidation lies in the creation of fear--real,
palpable, and immediate. Here, the prosecution failed to show any trace of fear
induced in the mind of PW1. The alleged threat dissipates into mere conjecture
FIR No. 707/2020 State Vs. Mukesh @ Bholu and ors Page No. 5 of 8
when the person threatened refuses to acknowledge any apprehension.
PW1 neither alleged any intimidation nor spoke of any consequence. A penal
provision cannot be invoked when the supposed victim repudiates the very
happening of the crime. The accused cannot be expected to fight a phantom
charge.
Accordingly, the charge under Section 506 IPC also fails.
c) Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act
This charge demands a higher evidentiary threshold. It is a strict offence, one
that penalizes mere possession. However, possession must be proved with
procedural sanctity--and not left to speculative inferences.
Here, the prosecution claims that a buttondar knife was recovered from
Mukesh's pocket. But not a single independent witness was called to confirm
the same, despite public presence. Neither photography nor videography of the
recovery proceedings have been conducted. No sealing memo has been
prepared. The knife, though produced, remained a mute witness--never
matched with fingerprints, never corroborated by forensic science.
Moreover, the very witness (PW1) whose presence was essential at the
recovery, denied being present and denied any recovery taking place. In such a
scenario, possession becomes a shadowy assertion, insufficient to hold a man
guilty under criminal jurisprudence.
As Justice Krishna Iyer would note--"Vague suspicions and the authority of the
uniform cannot substitute for the rigour of proof demanded by law."
Resultantly, the charges under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act are not made out
against Mukesh.
B. Accused Manish Chauhan
a) Section 387 IPC
FIR No. 707/2020 State Vs. Mukesh @ Bholu and ors Page No. 6 of 8
No specific allegation is made against Manish in the complaint. His presence is
not affirmed by the complainant. The prosecution fails to attribute any distinct
role to him in the supposed attempt at extortion. The documents do not whisper
his intent; nor do the witnesses name him in action.
The charge under Section 387 IPC thus remains unproved.
b) Section 506 IPC
Manish, like Mukesh, is not stated to have uttered threats. No overt act is
assigned. In the absence of such articulation, criminal intimidation cannot be
conjured.
Charge under Section 506 IPC is not established.
C. Accused Ravinder Kumar
a) Section 387 IPC
Ravinder's alleged identification by PW1 at the time of arrest stands completely
dismantled by PW1's own testimony, where he refused to identify any of the
accused. In criminal trials, identity is sine qua non. Without it, prosecution rests
on an empty dais.
Hence, the charge under Section 387 IPC falls.
b) Section 506 IPC
There is no role attributed to Ravinder. No words, gestures, or actions
suggesting threat. Silence from prosecution renders the charge illusory.
Section 506 IPC charge fails.
6. Conclusion
In the fine balance of criminal justice, it is better that ten guilty men go
unpunished than one innocent suffer. Where witnesses turn hostile, evidence
lacks procedural integrity, and accusations float without foundation, a court
must act not with conjecture but with constitutional caution.
FIR No. 707/2020 State Vs. Mukesh @ Bholu and ors Page No. 7 of 8
The right to life and liberty is not an empty promise; it is a mandate that
must be protected from false implication and institutional error. Suspicion
howsoever grave, cannot substitute for proof.
7. Resultantly, the prosecution has failed to prove the offences beyond
reasonable doubt and the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt
qua offence u/s 387/506/34 & 25/27 Arms Act. As such, the accused namely
Mukesh S/o Sh. Baljeet singh, Manish Chauhan S/o Raj Singh Chauhan and
Ravinder Kumar S/o Sh. Baldev Singh are hereby found not guilty. They are
ACQUITTED of the offences under section u/s 387/506/34 & 25/27 Arms Act.
ORDER:ACQUITTED Pronounced in open court on 07.04.2025 in presence of the accused person. This judgment contains 8 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU SEHLOTH
SEHLOTH Date: 2025.04.07
(HIMANSHU SEHLOTH)
17:06:47 +0530
JMFC-03 / North / Rohini Courts 07.04.2025 FIR No. 707/2020 State Vs. Mukesh @ Bholu and ors Page No. 8 of 8