Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit@Golu on 23 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. TANIA SINGH
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (CENTRAL DISTRICT),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT0201115502024
FIR No. 265/2024
State Vs. Rohit @ Golu
PS: Gulabi Bagh
U/s: 25 Arms Act
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 20773/2022
(b) Date of offence 30.11.2024
(c) Complainant HC Vijay Singh
(d) Accused Rohit @ Golu S/o Late Mahesh, R/o
H. No. 10682, Gali No. 8, Pratap
Nagar, Delhi
(e) Offence 25 Arms Act
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
(g) Final Order Acquitted
(h) Date of Institution 13.12.2024
(I) Date when judgment was reserved 09.05.2025
(j) Date of judgment 23.05.2025
BRIEF FACTS:-
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.11.2024 ( hereinafter called the date of offence), the complainant along with Ct. Ravinder were on patrolling duty and at about 05.40p.m when they reached near Railway Quarter near Sabzi Mandi Railway Station, they saw one person, who started running away after seeing them. State Vs Rohit @ Golu FIR No. 265/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 1 of 12 They apprehended him, whose name was later on revealed as Rohit @ Golu. On personal search of accused, a buttoned actuated knife was recovered from the right side pocket of pant worn by him at that time.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under section 25 Arms Act was filed before the court on 13.12.2024 and cognizance was taken. On 17.02.2025, charge was framed against the accused u/s 25 Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed Trial.
3. Vide separate statement recorded under Section 294 Cr. PC, accused had admitted FIR No. 265/2024 i.e. Ex. A-1, certificate u/s 63(4) (c) BSA qua FIR i.e. Ex. A-2 and DAD Notification dated 29.10.1980 i.e. Ex. A-3. THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:
4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined three witnesses. Brief testimony of the witness is reproduced below:-
a.) PW-1 is the complainant HC Vijay Singh who deposed that on the date of offence, he along with Ct. Ravinder was on patrolling duty and when they State Vs Rohit @ Golu FIR No. 265/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 2 of 12 reached the spot, they saw one person, who was running away on seeing them. The said person was apprehended by them whose name were later on revealed as Rohit @ Golu. On search, one buttoned actuated knife was recovered from the right side pocket of lower of accused. Thereafter, he informed in the PS. After some time IO/HC Mahesh came to the spot to whom he handed over the accused as well as the recovered knife. IO kept the said knife on a plain paper and prepared sketch of the same which is Ex. PW1/A. IO sealed the said knife in a pullanda with the seal of 'RS'. IO seized the said pullanda vide memo Ex. PW1/B. IO recorded the statement of complainant which is Ex. PW1/C. IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR. After some time, Ct. Ravinder returned to spot with original and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO. IO prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW1/D and arrested accused vide memo Ex. PW1/E. Personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/F and his disclosure statement is Ex. PW1/G. He correctly identified the accused and the case property in Court which is Ex. P1.
During his cross examination, he deposed that the spot is public area and some persons were moving there. IO requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and address and not notice could be served to those public persons due to paucity of State Vs Rohit @ Golu FIR No. 265/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 3 of 12 time. The spot was not covered under CCTV footage. He denied the suggestions that all the writing work was done while sitting in the PS, recovery of knife from the possession of accused at the spot or falsely implicating the accused or planting the case property.
b.) PW2/Ct. Ravinder deposed in evidence that on the date of offence, he along with complainant was on patrolling duty and when they reached the spot, they saw one person, who was running away on seeing them. The said person was apprehended by them whose name was later on revealed as Rohit @ Golu. On search, one buttoned actuated knife was recovered from the right side pocket of his lower. The said person was apprehended by them whose name was later revealed as Rohit@Golu. Thereafter, they informed in the PS. After some time HC Mahesh came to the spot to whom complainant handed over the accused as well as the recovered knife. IO prepared the sketch of the recovered knife. The total length of the knife was found to be 23.5 cms, length of the blade was 11 cms, length of the handle was 12.5 cms and breadth of the knife was 2.5 cms. The said knife was kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of 'RS'. The said pullanda was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. IO recorded the statement of complainant. Thereafter, IO prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. State Vs Rohit @ Golu FIR No. 265/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 4 of 12 After some time, he returned to the spot with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO. IO completed the seizure memo and other documents by putting the FIR number and case particulars on the same. IO had prepared the site plan already Ex.PW1/D at the instance of complainant and arrested the accused vide arrest memo already Ex.PW1/E. Personal search of accused was also conducted vide memo already Ex. PW1/F. IO also recorded the disclosure statement of accused already Ex. PW1/G. During his cross examination, witness admitted that the spot is a public area and some public persons were passing by and IO requested 4-5 persons to join the investigation, however, none of them agreed. He further said that due to paucity of time, no written notice was given to the public persons. He did not remember that at what time they left the PS for patrolling. He said that the spot was not covered under CCTV camera. He denied the suggestions of falsely implicating the accused or planting the case property.
c.) PW-3 is the IO HC Mahesh who deposed that on the date of offence, he received 'DD No. 49A'. He reached at the spot i.e. Railway Quarter near Sabzi Mandi Railway Station where he met HC Vijay (Complainant) and Ct. Ravinder. HC Vijay Singh handed over one person, whose name was revealed as Rohit @ State Vs Rohit @ Golu FIR No. 265/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 5 of 12 Golu and a buttondar knife. He requested public persons to join the investigation but all refused citing personal reasons. He prepared the sketch of the knife, sealed the case property i.e. buttondar knife with his seal 'RS', prepared the seizure memo and rukka which is Ex. PW3/A which was handed over to Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR. He prepared the site plan, arrested the accused, conducted personal search and recorded disclosure statement of accused. The witness identified his signatures on the documents which were exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A, Ex. PW-1/B, Ex. PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex. PW1/E, Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G respectively. The accused and the case property were correctly identified by the witness during trial and the case property was exhibited as Ex. P1.
In his cross examination, he deposed that he reached at the spot at 06.00PM in his personal motorcycle. He further deposed that there was no CCTV cameras at the spot. He denied the suggestion of not conducting fair and proper investigation, deposing falsely or conducting the entire investigation in the Police Station.
5. Prosecution evidence was closed on 02.04.2025 and the Statement of Accused (SA) under section 313 Cr.P.C. r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 25.04.2025. Accused denied the allegations made against him in the chargesheet State Vs Rohit @ Golu FIR No. 265/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 6 of 12 and by the prosecution witnesses. The accused chose not to lead DE. FINAL ARGUMENTS:
6. As per the Ld. APP, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt as the seizure, recovery, identification of accused and case property, has been proved and no motive has been explained by the accused for falsely implicating him. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has pointed out the contradictions in the version of the prosecution witnesses and has questioned the non-service of notice on public witnesses and submits that it was the duty of the prosecution to explain these irregularities and since the same has not been done, the case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is further argued that the previous involvement record of the accused was searched before his arrest in the present FIR as revealed in the said record.
7. The record has been thoroughly perused and respective submissions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Counsel for the accused have been considered. In order to determine the guilt of the accused, it has to be seen if the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel for the State Vs Rohit @ Golu FIR No. 265/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 7 of 12 accused has pointed out certain contradictions. These contradictions shall be examined and it shall be ascertained if they have generated a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution.
8. PW-1/complainant has stated in his examination that he had seized the recovered knife in a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal 'RS'. There is no deposition to the effect if the seal was handed over to the accompanying police official. There is no seal handing memo or return memo on record. Moreover, the prosecution has not even explained if PW-1 and PW-2 offered themselves for search before searching the accused. In these circumstances, the defence of the accused that the case property has been planted seems to have some strength to it.
As per the law laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Orissa High Court reported as Rabindernath Prusty vs. State of Orissa, it has been held:-
''10. The next part of the prosecution case is relating to the search and recovery of Rs. 500/- from the accused. One of the formalities that has to be observed in searching a person in that the searching Officer and others assisting him should give their personal search to the accused before searching the person of the accused. (See AIR 1969 SC 53 : (1969 Cri. L.J
279), State of Bihar Vs. Kapil Singh). This rule is meant to avoid the possibility of implanting the object which was brought out by the search.
There is no evidence on record whatsoever that the raiding party gave their personal search to the accused before the latter's person was searched. Besides the above, it is in the evidence of PWs 2 and 5 that the accused wanted to know the reason for which his person was to be searched and the reason for such search was not intimated to the accused. No independent witness had witnessed the search. In the above premises, my conclusion is that the search was illegal and consequently the conviction based thereon is State Vs Rohit @ Golu FIR No. 265/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 8 of 12 also vitiated''.
9. Next, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has questioned the non-joining of public persons at the time of recovery. As per the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the non-joining of public witness was deliberate as no proceedings were held at the spot and the case property is planted. On this premise, when testimony of PW-1, and PW-2 are considered, certain questions do arise which have not been explained by the prosecution. As per PW-1 and PW-2, 4-5 public witnesses were present at the spot when the accused was apprehended and the IO requested them to join the proceedings but they refused. All the prosecution witnesses admit that no notice was served on these public witnesses. The said submission cannot absolve the IO from the mandatory requirement of the manner of search and seizure. It is a well settled proposition of law that non-joining of public witness shrouds a doubt over the fairness of investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. This only ensures fairness in investigation but since the same has not been done in the present case and also because no document has been placed on record to show if any sincere effort was made by the IO to make these witnesses join the investigation, it cannot be said that the investigation was fair and unimpeachable. At this stage, it is also relevant to mention the law laid down in State Vs Rohit @ Golu FIR No. 265/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 9 of 12 paragraph 6 of the judgment in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
" ... According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
10. Though this Court is conscious of the fact that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696, but, in the present case, the mandatory requirement of joining the public witnesses has been conveniently ignored and it seems, deliberately no notice was served by the IO.
11. Section 25Arms Act reads as under:-
Punishment for certain offences:- Whoever-
(a) manufacturers, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5; or
(b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm in contravention of section 6; or State Vs Rohit @ Golu FIR No. 265/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 10 of 12 [***]
(d) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
12. In the case of Irfan Khan Vs State (NCT of Delhi), arising out of SLP(Crl.) No (s). 12510 of 2023 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, dated 03.12.2024, it is held that:-
"8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid conclusions as set out in the charge- sheet would indicate that there is no allegation whatsoever that the buttondar knife recovered from the appellant was in violation of any of the stipulations contained in the DAD Notification dated 29th October, 1980 which mandates that 'no person in the Union Territory of Delhi shall "manufacture, sale or possess for sale or test" spring actuated knives, gararidar knives, buttondar knives and other knives which open or close with any other mechanical device with a sharp edge blade of 7.62 cms, or more in length and 1.72 cms or more in breadth in the Union Territory of Delhi.'
9. The notification whereby, a buttondar knife having blade dimensions of 7.62 cms or more in length and 1.72 cms or more in breadth has been brought under the mischief of the Arms Act, would be applicable only when the recovered knife is meant for the 6specified reasons i.e., "manufacture, sale or possession for sale or test" as indicated in the DAD notification.
10. Manifestly, on going through the report under Section 173 CrPC, there is not even a whisper that the appellant's possession of the said buttondar knife was for any of the prohibited categories as indicated in the DAD Notification. Hence, the totality of the evidence collected by the investigation officer is not sufficient to draw even a remote inference that by simply being found in possession of the buttondar knife, the appellant acted in violation of the DAD Notification".
13. In the present case as well, prosecution has failed to establish that the State Vs Rohit @ Golu FIR No. 265/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 11 of 12 accused was in the possession of button actuated knife for the purpose of sale or test or any other prohibited categories as enumerated in the DAD notification dated 29.10.1980 which is Ex. A-3.
14. Thus, keeping the above discussion in mind, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused Rohit @ Golu S/o Late Mahesh is entitled to be exonerated of the charges against him. The accused is accordingly acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act.
Announced and Signed in the Open Court on 23rd May, 2025 ( TANIA SINGH) Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-02 Central/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi(A) State Vs Rohit @ Golu FIR No. 265/2024 PS Gulabi Bagh Page No. 12 of 12