Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj Kumar on 31 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL SAINI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
DLSH020077332023
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.:471/2023
Police Station: Jyoti Nagar
(CIS No. 4272/2023)
b Date of the commission of : 20.07.2023
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : Ct,Anil
d Name of Accused person : Manoj Kumar S/o Late Shri
and his parentage and Chander Bhan R/o: H.No. B-
residence 8/296, Gali no. 8, Shakti
Garden, East Gokalpuri, Jyoti
Nagar, Delhi
e Offence complained of : U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
f Plea of the Accused and : Not guilty.
his
examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted
h Order reserved on : 31.07.2025
i Order pronounced on : 31.07.2025
Brief statement of facts of the case and trial proceedings:
1.The case of the prosecution against the accused Manoj Kumar S/o Late Chander Bhan is that on 20.07.2023, at about 11.20 pm, at Near Saboli Phatak, Railway Line, near Shakti Garden, Delhi accused Manoj Kumar S/o Late Chander Bhan was found in possession of one buttondar knife without having Digitally State vs. Manoj Kumar signed by RAHUL FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 1 of 15
2025.07.31
16:26:17
+0530
any licence or permit to keep the same in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration. On the said allegations, accused was booked with the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act and FIR was registered.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused on 01.08.2023 and cognizance was taken. On 17.08.2023, the copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused Tahir in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Thereafter, vide order 17.08.2023, charge was framed against the accused under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Subsequently, prosecution evidence was led and in order to prove its version, prosecution examined three witnesses i.e. PW1 Ct,. Anil Kumar, PW2 Ct.Kuldeep and PW3 HC Ombeer.
4. It is pertinent to note that PW3 ASI Garjan Prasad was dropped from the list of witnesses on account of statement of the accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C dated 14.05.2025, wherein he admitted the registration of FIR along with Certificate u/s 65-B of IEA which is Ex. A1(Colly).
5. A detailed scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses has been done and is hereby discussed in detail.
PW1:Ct. Anil Kumar:- He deposed that on 20.07.2023, he along with Ct. Kuldeep were on patrolling duty vide DD No.83A which is Ex. PW1/A. During patrolling duty at about 11.20 pm, they reached near Saboli Phatak, near Railway Line, Shakti Garden. They saw one boy was coming on foot from the side of Safed Mandir Shakti Garden. After seeing them in police uniform, he turned back and going towards Safed Mandir, fastly. He with the help of Ct. Kuldeep apprehended said person after State vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Digitally PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 2 of 15 signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.07.31 16:26:23 +0530 taking some distance. They asked him why he had turned back, but he did not give any satisfactory answer. Thereafter, he took cursory search of the said accused and recovered one buttondar knife from the right side pocket of his lower. They came to know the name of the said person as Manoj Kumar. He gave information to the PS. After sometime, IO/HC Ombir Singh, reached at the spot and they handed over the accused and case property to HC Ombir Singh.
IO requested public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and went away without giving their names and addresses. IO put buttondar knife on a white blank paper and prepared its sketch memo which is Ex. PW1/B and measurement of the said knife i.e. total length of the knife was 24 cm, length of the blade was 11.4 cm, length of the handle was 12.6 cm, and the width of the said knife was 2.5 cm. Thereafter, IO prepared pullanda of the said knife and sealed it with the seal of MS and IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C and recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/D and prepared rukka and same was handed over to him for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the present FIR and he along with copy of FIR and original rukka came back at the spot and same was handed over to IO. IO prepared site plan at thier instance which is Ex. PW1/E. Thereafter, IO interrogated accused and arrested him vide arrest memo and personal search memos which are Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G. IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW1/H. Thereafter, they along with accused and case property went to PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused was sent to lock up. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs. Manoj Kumar SAINI Date:
2025.07.31 FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 16:26:37 +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 3 of 15 IO recorded his statement and relieved him. He had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property i.e. buttondar knife which is Ex. P1.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he had left the PS at about 11 pm and reached at the spot at about 11.20 pm. He admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there. He admitted that no written notice was served upon any public persons who reused to join and that seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after registration of the FIR. After using the seal, the same was handed over to him. He admitted that IO did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. He did not remember the colour of the clothes of the accused which he was wearing at the time of incident. IO did not seize the clothes of the accused in the present matter. IO handed over rukka to him at around 1.15 am and came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 2.15 am. IO prepared site plan at about 2.30 am. They finally left the spot at about 2.45 am. No videography or photography was done by him and Ct. Kuldeep at the time of recovery of the case property. He had denied the suggestion that the case property was planted upon accused or that accused is falsely implicated in the present matter and he was arrested from his house despite the spot or that he never visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS or that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused or that IO did not request any public persons to join investigation. RAHUL SAINI Digitally signed by RAHUL SAINI State vs. Manoj Kumar Date: 2025.07.31 FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 16:26:47 +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 4 of 15 PW: 2 Ct. Kuldeep :- He deposed that on 20.07.2023, he he along with Ct. Anil were on patrolling duty vide DD No.83A which is already Ex. PW1/A. During patrolling duty at about 11.20 pm, they reached near Saboli Phatak, near Railway Line, Shakti Garden. They saw one boy was coming on foot from the side of Safed Mandir Shakti Garden. After seeing them in police uniform, he turned back and going towards Safed Mandir, fastly.
He with the help of Ct. Anil apprehended said person after taking some distance. They asked him why he had turned back, but he did not give any satisfactory answer. Thereafter, Ct. Anil took cursory search of the said accused and recovered one buttondar knife from the right side pocket of his lower. They came to know the name of the said person as Manoj Kumar. Ct. Anil gave information to the PS. After sometime, IO/HC Ombir Singh, reached at the spot and they handed over the accused and case property to HC Ombir Singh.
IO requested public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and went away without giving their names and addresses. IO put buttondar knife on a white blank paper and prepared its sketch memo which is already Ex. PW1/B and measurement of the said knife i.e. total length of the knife was 24cm, length of the blade was 11.4 cm, length of the handle was 12.6 cm, and the width of the said knife was 2.5 cm. Thereafter, IO prepared pullanda of the said knife and sealed it with the seal of MS and IO seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/C. IO recorded statement of Ct. Anil which is already Ex. PW1/D and prepared rukka and same was handed over to Ct. Anil for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the present FIR and he along with copy of FIR State vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Digitally signed by PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 5 of RAHUL 15 RAHUL SAINI SAINI 2025.07.31 Date:
16:26:54 +0530 and original rukka came back at the spot and same was handed over to IO. IO prepared site plan at their instance which is already Ex. PW1/E. Thereafter, IO interrogated accused and arrested him vide arrest memo and personal search memos which are already Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G, IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused which is already Ex. PW1/H. Thereafter, they along with accused and case property went to PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused was sent to lock up.
IO recorded his statement and relieved him. He had correctly identified the accused as well as case property which is already Ex. P1 in the testimony of PW1.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he had left the PS at about 8.50 pm and he reached at the spot at about 11.20 pm. He admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that no written notice was served upon any public persons who reused to join. He admitted that the seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after registration of the FIR. After using the seal, the same was handed over to Ct. Anil. He admitted that IO did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. He did not remember the colour of the clothes of the accused which he was wearing at the time of incident. IO did not seize the clothes of the accused in the present matter. IO handed over rukka to Ct. Anil at around 1.25 am and he came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 2.30 am. IO prepared site plan at about 3.15 am. They finally left the spot at about 3.30 am. No videography or photography was done by him State vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Digitally signed by PS Jyoti Nagar Pages RAHUL6 of 15 RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.07.31 16:27:06 +0530 at the time of recovery of the case property. He had denied the suggestion that the case property was planted upon accused or that accused is falsely implicated in the present matter and he was arrested from his house despite the spot. He had denied the suggestion that he never visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS or that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused or that IO did not request any public persons to join investigation.
PW: 3 HC Ombeer:- He deposed that on 20.07.2023, he had received DD No. 116A regarding recovery of buttondar knife which is Ex. PW3/A. Thereafter, he reached at the spot i.e near Saboli Phatak, near Railway Line, Shakti Garden where he met Ct. Kuldeep and Ct. Anil and they handed over the accused and case property to him.
He requested public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and went away without giving their names and addresses. He put buttondar knife on a white blank paper and prepared its sketch memo which is already Ex. PW1/B and measurement of the said knife i.e. total length of the knife was 24cm, length of the blade was 11.4 cm, length of the handle was 12.6 cm, and the width of the said knife was 2.5 cm. Thereafter, he prepared pullanda of the said knife and sealed it with the seal of MS and he seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.
PW1/C. He recorded statement of Ct. Anil which is already Ex. PW1/D and he prepared rukka which is Ex. PW3/B, and same was handed over to Ct. Anil for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the present FIR and he along with copy of FIR and original rukka came back at the spot and same was handed over to him. He prepared site plan State vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Digitally signed by PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 7 of 15 RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.07.31 16:27:14 +0530 at their instance which is already Ex. PW1/E. Thereafter, he interrogated accused and arrested him vide arrest memo and personal search memos which are already Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G. He had also recorded disclosure statement of accused which is already Ex. PW1/H. Thereafter, they along with accused and case property went to PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused was sent to lock up.
He recorded statement of Ct. Anil and Ct. Kuldeep and relieved them. On the next day, he had produced the accused before the court and sent him to J/C. He collected DAD notification dated 29.10.1980 which is Ex. PW3/C. After completion of investigation, he had prepared the chargesheet and same was submitted before the court.
He had identified the accused as well as the case property Ex. P1.
During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he had left the PS at about 11.45 pm and reached at the spot at about 11.50 pm. He admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that no written notice was served upon any public persons who refused to join. He admitted that seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after registration of the FIR. After using the seal, the same was handed over to Ct. Anil. He admitted that he did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. He did not remember the colour of the clothes of the accused which he was wearing at the time of incident. He did not seize the clothes of the accused in the present matter. He handed over rukka to Ct. Anil at around 1.00 State vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Digitally PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 8 of 15 signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.07.31 16:27:23 +0530 am and he came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 2.30 am. He prepared site plan at about 3.15 am. They finally left the spot at about 4.00 am. No videography or photography was done by Ct.Anil and Ct. Kuldeep and at the time of recovery of the case property. He had denied the suggestion that the case property was planted upon accused or that accused is falsely implicated in the present matter and he was arrested from his house despite the spot or that he never visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS or that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused or that he did not request any public persons to join investigation.
6. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 1.07.2025 separately wherein accused claimed to be innocent and denied allegations against him and stated that no knife was recovered from his possession and the same is planted upon him. Accused opted to not lead any Defence Evidence. Accordingly, bringing the trial to an end, final arguments were heard from Ld. Counsel for the Accused as well Ld. APP for the State.
Appreciation of Evidence
7. The arguments were addressed by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused in detail.
Ld. APP for the State argued that the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on account of the unfeterred testimonies of the prime prosecution witnesses i.e. the complainant and IO. Ld. APP for the State further argued that this case merits conviction of the accused as the prosecution case stands firmly on its own footing and merely State vs. Manoj Kumar Digitally signed by FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 9 of SAINI Date: 15 2025.07.31 16:27:30 +0530 because of absence of public witnesses, the veracity of police witnesses does not stand negated.
Vehemently denying the arguments of Ld. APP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the Accused argued that the Accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has been made only a victim of circumstances. It was further argued by Ld. Counsel for the Accused that nothing was recovered from the possession of the Accused and this is the reason why no independent witness has been brought by prosecution in this matter. Hence, Ld. Counsel for the Accused strongly argued for acquittal of the Accused in this matter.
Submissions have been duly heard. Record has been carefully perused.
8. 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 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 also a settled proposition of criminal law that 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 Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the Accused to acquittal.
9. Evaluating the facts and evidence discussed above, at the outset, it comes out that no independent witness was joined in the RAHUL SAINI State vs. Manoj Kumar Digitally signed by RAHUL SAINI FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Date: 2025.07.31 16:27:36 +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 10 of 15 investigation. The Hon'ble supreme court in State of Punjab vs. 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]"
10. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that as per the site plan the area from where the Accused was apprehended was busy public road and despite that no public witness has been joined and therefore, absence of public witnesses from the investigation becomes even more apparent. Further, no notice has been served to any of the public persons who did not join the investigation.
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.
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] as follows:
Digitally State vs. Manoj Kumar signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act SAINI Date:
2025.07.31 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 11 of 15 16:27:43 +0530 "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..."
Furthermore, in case titled Roop Chand vs. State of F [1999 (1)C.L.R 69], the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & that:
"...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 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..."
11. Moving further, this Court is conscious of precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Safiullah vs. 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 State vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Digitally signed by PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 12 of 15 RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.07.31 16:28:02 +0530 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."
The case property in the present matter was lying in the Malkhana of the same police station where the police officials having the possession of seal were posted. There was ample opportunity for tampering with the case property. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the Accused.
12. Besides all this, in the present case, the aforesaid lapse on the part of police officials assumes significance on account of another grave contradiction apparent in the document Ex. PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. The sketch memo of the knife Ex. PW1/B and seizure memo of the knife Ex. PW1/C bear the number of FIR. As per the rukka and testimony of witnesses, the sketch memo of the knife and seizure memo were prepared prior to registration of FIR. If that be so then it is questionable as to how Ex. PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B bear the FIR number. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the case property or number of the said FIR was inserted in the document after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously questions the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about the recovery of the case property in the manner alleged by the prosecution. That being so, the benefit arising out of such a situation must necessarily go to the Accused.
In this regard, reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Mohd Hasim V/S State [1999 VI AD (DELHI) 569] wherein it was observed:
Digitally State vs. Manoj Kumar signed by RAHUL FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar SAINI Pages Date: 13 of 2025.07.31 15 16:28:09 +0530 "...documents prepared before registering the FIR bears FIR numbers, meaning thereby either FIR was recorded posterior in time or that documents were prepared after the recording of FIR, and in both cases, prosecution case would collapse."
13. Further, in order to ensure fair investigation, the prosecution witnesses must have offered their personal search to some independent witness. However, as no such precaution was taken by prosecution witnesses the doubt as to the false plantation of the case property upon the Accused cannot be ruled out. In S. L. Goswami Vs. State Of M.P., [1972 CRI.L.J 511 (SC)] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"... 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..."
This also raises doubt about the recovery of the said case property from the present Accused and strengthens the possibility of planting of the case property upon the Accused.
Conclusion
14. 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 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs. Manoj Kumar Date:
SAINI 2025.07.31 FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 16:28:29 +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 14 of 15 regard to the guilt of the Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the Accused.
15. In view of above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Accused Manoj Kumar S/o Late Chander Bhan is acquitted of the charge u/s 25/54/59 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 RAHUL RAHUL SAINI Announced in the open court SAINI Date:
2025.07.31 on 31.07.2025 16:28:36 +0530 (Rahul Saini) Judicial Magistrate First Class-08(Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts,Delhi 31.07.2025 [This judgment contains 15 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] State vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 471/2023 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 15 of 15