Delhi District Court
State vs Harish on 2 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJOT SINGH AUJLA JMFC-11 (SOUTH-
WEST) DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs Harish @ Suraj
FIR No : 08/2025
U/s : 25/54/59 Arms
P.S : Janakpuri
JUDGMENT
A Registration Number 1415/2025 B CNR No. DLSW02-026288-2025 C Name of the Ct. Dhara Singh complainant
D Name of the accused (1) Harish @ Suraj S/o Sh. Ashok R/o persons &their H. No. A-845, J J Colony, Pankha parentage and addresses Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi E Offence Complained of 25/54/59 Arms Act F Date of commission of 06.01.2025 offence.
G Date of Institution 14.02.2025 H Offence Charged 25 Arms Act
I Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
persons
J Order Reserved on 05.05.2025
K Date of Pronouncement 02.06.2025
L Final Order ACQUITTED
Argued by:-
Ld. APP for State
Sh. Sachin Sain, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Vide this judgment, the accused person is being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in this case FIR No. 08/2025 Police Station Janakpuri for the reasons mentioned below.
State v. Harish @ Suraj
FIR no. 08/25 page 1 of 7
Digitally signed
HARJOT by HARJOT
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.02
17:46:24 +0545
1. CASE OF PROSECUTION:
Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 06.01.2025 at about 11:25 PM at District Park, A5A Block, Possangipur, Janakpuri, accused Harish @ Suraj was found in possession of one buttondar knife from right pocket of his jeans. As such, it is alleged that the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act, 1959 for which FIR No. 08/2025 was registered at PS Janakpuri, Delhi.
2. CHARGE:
In compliance of the procedural mandate u/s. 173 CrPC, charge-sheet against accused was filed in the present matter, upon completion of investigation.
Accused was summoned to face trial and was supplied with the copy of the charge-sheet as per section 207 CrPC (now section 230 BNSS).
Based on the charge-sheet, a charge for the offences punishable u/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. 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 Ct. Dhara Singh PW-2 HC Arun Kumar Rana DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A Sketch of knife Ex. PW1/B Seizure memo of knife Ex. PW1/C Statement of Ct. Dhara Singh Ex. PW1/D Arrest memo of accused Ex. PW1/E Personal search memo of accused Ex. PW1/F Disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW1/G Site plan State v. Harish @ Suraj FIR no. 08/25 page 2 of 7 Digitally signed by HARJOT HARJOT SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.02 17:46:40 +0545 Ex. P1 Case property Ex. PW2/A Tehrir
4. The accused had admitted FIR no. 08/2025 alongwith certificate u/s 63(4) BSA Ex. A1 (colly), GD No. 080A and GD no. 0102A both dated 06.01.2025, Ex. A2 and Ex. 3 and DAD notification dated 29.10.1980, Ex. A4 and hence the examination of the witnesses was dispensed with. This is the entire evidence in this matter.
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
To allow the accused personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 351 BNSS (earlier section 313 CrPC). In reply, accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused further submit that he does not want to lead defence evidence.
6. APPLICABLE LEGAL PROVISIONS:
To establish an offence under s. 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, it must be proved that:
1. That the accused was carrying, possessing or in acquisition of arms or ammunition
2. That such act was in contravention of s. 3 of the Arms Act.
7. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND MARSHALLING OF THE FACTS :
There is no gainsaying that the burden of proof on the prosecution is State v. Harish @ Suraj FIR no. 08/25 page 3 of 7 Digitally signed by HARJOT HARJOT SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.02 17:46:53 +0545 that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused must be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. This being the factual, evidentiary and the legal position of the present case, let us analyze whether the prosecution has been able to successfully prove the guilt of the accused person on the touchstone of "beyond reasonable doubt".
7(a). Absence of independent witness:
In the present case, no public witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution to assuage its claim. It has surfaced in the deposition of PW-1 that accused was apprehended when he was coming out of the District Park, Possangipur and after seeing the police, he tried to move speedly towards the park. The accused was found in possession of one button operated knife from right pocket of his jeans. IO HC Arun Kumar Rana had asked few public persons to join the investigation, however, none agreed by citing their personal reasons. No written notice to join the investigation was served upon the public persons. It is a matter of record that no independent witness was joined by the police.
There is no gainsaying that it is settled proposition of law that absence of public witness would not in itself demolish the case of the prosecution. (See: Appabhai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696). However, the same must be weighed by the court considering the facts of the case. Thus, the fact that despite the easy availability, no public persons were joined is manifest omission on the part of the investigating officials, which casts a doubt on the case of the prosecution. It would be expedient to refer to the dictum of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration 1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the court has discussed the effect of non-joining of public witness, the relevant portion is reproduced below:
" ... According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case State v. Harish @ Suraj FIR no. 08/25 page 4 of 7 Digitally signed by HARJOT HARJOT SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.02 17:47:07 +0545 while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution must lay a good foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the present one. 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."
At this juncture, it would be pertinent to point out the other deficiencies which has punched holes in the case of the prosecution.
7(b). Other deficiencies:
• Sanctity of the sealing of seized case property: The witnesses have also deposed that the case property was seized and sealed with the seal of AKR and the seal was handed over to Ct. Dhara Singh after preparing the seizure memo. However, the seal was not handed over to any independent witness and was only handed over to a fellow police official. Thus, the sanctity of the case property is also doubtful and chances of tampering with seal cannot be ruled out. • Absence of arrival and departure entry: The arrival and departure entry in the present case has not been proved, which is a statutory duty on the police officials. It would be prudent to reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which 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 State v. Harish @ Suraj FIR no. 08/25 page 5 of 7 Digitally signed by HARJOT HARJOT SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.02 17:47:20 +0545 of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal. Note: The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained."
In the present case, the non-proof of departure and arrival entry assumes more significance since no public person was portrayed as a witness on behalf of the prosecution. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as "Rattan Lal Vs. State" 1987 (2) Crimes 29, wherein the Delhi High Court has observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act, the courts will have to approach their action with reservations & thus the matter has to be viewed by the court with suspicion, if the necessary provisions of law are not strictly complied with and then it can at least be said that it was so done with an oblique motive. This failure of the prosecution to bring on record & prove the relevant DD entry as discussed above creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on to the actions of the members of the raiding party.
8. CONCLUSION:
The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is 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 regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Considering the above discussion, the unequivocal conclusion that comes forth is that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused on the touchstone of "beyond reasonable doubt". The recovery of the prohibited arm, which is the sine qua non for bringing home the charge u/s.25 of Arms Act, is marred with State v. Harish @ Suraj FIR no. 08/25 page 6 of 7 Digitally signed by HARJOT HARJOT SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.02 17:47:36 +0545 inconsistencies and appears to be doubtful, owing to the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, the accused Harish @ Suraj 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.
Copy of this judgment be given dasti to State.
HARJOT Digitally signed by Announced in open.
HARJOT SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.02 17:47:43 +0545 court on 02.06.2025 (Harjot Singh Aujla) JMIC -11 South West Dwarka, Delhi 02.06.2025 Certified that this judgment contains 7 pages and each page bears my signature.Digitally signed
HARJOT by HARJOT SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.06.02 17:47:48 +0545 (Harjot Singh Aujla) JMIC -11 South West Dwarka, Delhi 02.06.2025 State v. Harish @ Suraj FIR no. 08/25 page 7 of 7