Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj on 10 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Manoj
FIR No : 239/2023
U/s : 286 IPC and Section 9B of Explosive Act
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020397352024
2. Date of commission of offence : 29.10.2023
3. Date of institution of the case : 25.06.2024
: HC Malkhan Singh
4. Name of the complainant
Meena
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Manoj
address S/o Satish Kumar
R/o H. no.49, ITI
Colony, J. P. Kalan,
Delhi
6. Offence complained of : 286 IPC and Section
9B of Explosive Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 10.04.2026
Argued by:- Mr. Pankaj Gulia, Ld. APP for the State.
Mr. Harvinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Page 1 of 17
Date:
FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj AHLAWAT 2026.04.10
15:11:44
+0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.10.2023 at about 10:45 PM at H. no.49, Gali no.4, Near Chopal ITI Colony, J. P. Kalan, New Delhi, accused was found in possession of explosives (total weighing 16.670 kg) for the purpose of selling without licence in contravention of rules made u/S 5 of The Explosives Act, 1884 and Rule 113 of The Explosives Rules, 1983 and thus he committed an offence punishable U/s 9B of The Explosives Act, 1884. Further, he kept the above said explosive substance as mentioned in seizure memo without taking due caution so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or likely to hurt or injury to public at large and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 286 of IPC for which FIR no.239/2023 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused was filed. The court took the cognizance against the accused and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused, notice under Sections 286 of IPC and Section 9B of Explosive Act was served upon the accused on 24.03.2025. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWATABHINAV FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 2 of 17 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.04.10 15:12:03 +0530 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
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 HC Malkhan Singh Complainant PW-2 ASI Jagdish Prasad Investigating Officer PW-3 HC Gajender Destroyed case property DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Seizure memo qua case property Ex.PW1/B Statement of complainant Ex.PW1/C Site plan Ex.PW1/D Arrest memo Ex.PW1/E Personal search memo Ex.P1 Photographs of case property Ex.PW2/A Rukka Ex.PW2/B Disclosure statement of accused ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.239/2023 alongwith certificate u/S 65B (colly) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.A2 DD no.80, 81, 61 and 45 Ex.A3 Case property destruction order Ex.A4 Entry in register no.19 Ex.A5 RC no.180/21/23 dated 22.11.2023 Ex.A6 FSL result
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses, the same are as follows.
PW1 HC Malkhan Singh deposed that on 29.10.2023, he was on patrolling duty alongwith HC Ajay and when they reached near RTRM hospital gate no.2, one secret informer met and told him that one person had brought some fire crackers in gali no.4, J. P. Kalan and thereafter, he shared this information with duty officer and went Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date: FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 3 of 17 AHLAWAT 2026.04.10 15:12:08 +0530 to gali no.4, J. P. Kalan, where they saw one person, who was carrying two cloth bags and entering inside a house. He further stated that they stopped him and checked his bags which was found containing fire crackers and he shared this information with DO. He further stated that the person revealed his name as Manoj and after sometime, ASI Jagdish Prasad and Ct. Kalu Ram came at the spot and he handed over the custody of accused and case property to IO ASI Jagdish Prasad. He further stated that IO took out some crackers from both the kattas and sealed the same with his seal and the remaining crackers put in one of the bag and it was separately sealed. He further stated that on weighing the sample bag was weighed around 3.5 kg and other bag was weighed around 16.6 kg. He further stated that IO prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW1/A, recorded his statement Ex.PW1/B, prepared rukka and got the FIR registered through him. He further stated that IO prepared the site plan at his instance Ex.PW1/C, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/E and thereafter accused was released on bail and case property was taken to PS and deposited with MHC (M). The witness identified the case property in photographs as Ex.P1 (colly) and the accused present before the Court. In the cross-examination, he stated that they went to the spot at around 10:30 pm and when they reached at the spot, some public persons were passing from there. He further stated that katta was recovered in presence of public persons but no public person had been cited as a witness in the present case nor joined in investigation and no CCTV camera was installed at the spot. He further stated that the fire crackers were carried in plastic bag made from plastic katta and at the time when we apprehended accused, he was entering his house while carrying crackers and he was not selling the same. He further stated that accused was not burning the fire crackers at that time and he had a Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV Date:
FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 4 of 17 AHLAWAT 2026.04.10 15:12:14 +0530 secret information that accused has brought the fire crackers for selling the same. He further stated that he went to the spot on government motorcycle and IO also came at the spot on government motorcycle. He further stated that samples were taken to PS on government motorcycle by the IO and he took remaining crackers on his government motorcycle.
5. PW2 ASI Jagdish Prasad deposed that on he received DD no.81A regarding seizure of illegal crackers at ITI Colony and thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Kalu Ram went to the spot i.e. H. no.49, Gali no.4, ITI Colony, Delhi, where they met HC Malkhan and HC Ajay and they handed over the custody of accused and case property to him. He further stated that he took out some crackers from both the kattas and sealed the same with his seal and the remaining crackers put in one of the bag and it was separately sealed. He further stated that on weighing the sample bag was weighed around 3.630 kg and other bag was weighed around 16.670 kg. He further stated that he sealed both the sacks with the seal of JP and handed over the seal after use to HC Malkhan and he prepared the seizure memo, recorded statement of HC Malkhan and prepared rukka Ex.PW2/A and got the FIR registered through HC Malkhan. He further stated that he prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Malkhan, arrested accused, conducted his personal search and recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW2/B. He further stated that accused was released on bail, case property was taken to PS and deposited with MHC (M) and deposited the sample case property at FSL Rohini. The witness identified the case property in photographs as Ex.P1 (colly) and the accused present before the Court. In the cross-examination, he stated that on the day of incident, he reached to the spot at about 11:15 pm and met HC Malkhan, HC Ajay and some public persons were Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 5 of 17 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.04.10 15:12:22 +0530 also present there alongwith accused, who was apprehended by HC Malkhan. He further stated that no public person had been cited as witness in the present case nor joined in investigation and no CCTV camera was installed at the spot. He further stated that he went to the spot on his personal bike and the alleged recovered explosive were brought back in ERV to the PS.
6. PW3 HC Gajender deposed regarding destruction of case property as per Court order and filing of charge-sheet before the court.
7. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining witnesses in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with.
No other PW was left to be examined, hence, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
8. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he had stated that he was innocent and had falsely been implicated in the present case. Accused further stated that he did not want to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 6 of 17 2026.04.10 15:12:27 +0530
10. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offence.
11. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
12. The provisions of Sections 286 IPC and Section 9B of Explosive Act are as follows:
Section 286 IPC- Negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance - Whoever does, with any explosive substance, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from that substance, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 9B - Punishment for certain offences - (1) Whoever, in contravention of rules made under section 5 or of the conditions of a licence granted under the said rules-Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT
ABHINAV Date:
FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 7 of 17 AHLAWAT 2026.04.10 15:12:34 +0530
(a) manufactures, imports or exports any explosive shall he punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) possesses, uses, sells or transports any explosive shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both; and
(c) in any other case, with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
(2) Whoever in contravention of a notification issued under section 6 manufactures, possesses or imports any explosive shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both; and in the case of importation by water, the owner and master of the vessel or in the ease of importation by air, the owner, and the master of the aircraft, in which the explosive is imported shall, in the absence of reasonable excuse, each be punishable with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.
(3) Whoever,-
(a) manufactures, sells, transports, imports, exports or possesses any explosive in contravention of the provisions of clause (a) of section 6A; or
(b) sells, delivers or despatches any explosive in contravention of the provisions of clause (b) of that section, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both; or
(c) in contravention of the provisions of section 8 fails to give notice of any accident shall be punishable,--
(i) with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or
(ii) if the accident is attended by loss of human life, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
13. The allegations levelled against the accused person are segregated into two parts:
Firstly, that on 29.10.2023 at about 09:20 PM at Baba Hari Das Book Depot, Dabar Enclave, Rawta Mor, J. P. Kalan, New Delhi, Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV Date:
AHLAWAT FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 8 of 17 2026.04.10 15:12:40 +0530 accused was found in possession of explosives (total weighing 3.5 kg) for the purpose of selling without licence in contravention of rules made u/S 5 of The Explosives Act, 1884 and Rule 113 of The Explosives Rules, 1983 and thus he committed offence punishable U/s 9B of The Explosives Act, 1884.
Secondly, accused was found in possession of abovementioned fire crackers and kept the same without taking due caution so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or likely to hurt or injury to public at large and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 286 IPC.
14. Let us deal with the first set of allegations against the accused regarding offence punishable under Section U/s 9B of The Explosives Act, 1884. The accused has been charged for the offence of possessing explosive in the present case. The prosecution is also required to prove that the accused was possessing the explosive without having any licence/ permit in that regard and kept the above said explosive substance without taking due caution so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or likely to hurt or injury to public at large.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
15. It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. 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. It is imperative for the Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 9 of 17 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.04.10 15:12:45 +0530 prosecution to successfully establish the recovery of the said alleged articles from the possession of the accused. It is only after the prosecution has proved the possession of the alleged articles by the accused, that the accused can be called upon to account for the same.
The non-joining of any independent / public witness
16. It is evident from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that no public witness to the recovery of the explosive has been either cited in the list of prosecution witnesses or has been examined by the prosecution. PW1 who is the person who firstly saw and apprehended accused with the alleged explosive substance stated in his cross-examination that the katta with explosives was recovered from accused in presence of public persons. Similarly, IO PW2 who went on the spot after being informed that a person with explosive substance had been apprehended also stated in his cross examination that there some public persons were also present but no such persons has been either cited as a witness nor joined in the investigation. Thus, it is not the case of prosecution that public witnesses were not available at the spot. As evident from the site plan Ex.PW1/C the spot of alleged recovery is from a house in the ITI colony. Apparently, IO PW2 never joined the said owner of the house nor any other person of the locality. From THE perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made by the investigating officer. These facts are squarely covered by the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as, Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein it was observed as under:
Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWATABHINAV Date:
FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 10 of 17 AHLAWAT 2026.04.10 15:12:51 +0530 ".........18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."
17. Further, in a case law reported as Roop Chand v. The State of Haryana, 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:
"........The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner.
18. 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 no serious efforts were undertaken by the investigating agency to join them. 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 Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV Date:
AHLAWAT FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 11 of 17 2026.04.10 15:12:57 +0530 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 the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the IO must have proceeded against them under the relevant provision 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 afterthought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful."
19. In fact, in this regard, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C also accords assistance to the aforesaid finding, by providing that whenever any search is made, two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality are required to be made witnesses to such search, and the search is to be made in their presence.
20. Under Section 100(8) Cr.P.C, refusal to be a witness can render such non-willing public witness liable for criminal prosecution. Despite the availability of such a provision, no sincere attempts were made by the police to join witnesses in the present case. Therefore, non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of law, even though public witnesses were easily available in the vicinity, makes the prosecution version highly doubtful.
21. This court is conscious of the legal position that non-joining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, evidence in every case is to be sifted through in light of the varied facts and circumstances of each individual case. As observed above, the testimony of the police witnesses in the present case is not worthy Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 12 of 17 AHLAWAT Date:
2026.04.10 15:13:02 +0530 of credit. In such a situation, evidence of an independent witness would have rendered the much-needed corroborative value, to the otherwise uncompelling case of the prosecution, as discussed above, and hereinafter.
Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer
22. As per the version of IO PW2, after sealing the case property and with the seal of "JP", the seal was handed over to PW1 HC Malkhan. However, HC Malkhan was a part of the investigation in the present case who apprehended the accused with alleged articles. Also, there is no document to show that the seal was deposited in malkhana. Therefore, the circumstances under which the seal was obtained and used is under a shadow of doubt. As such, the seal was never handed over to any independent witness. Moreover, the seal handing over memo has not been prepared. This assumes great significance owing to the fact that the sample was sent to FSL Lab only on 22.11.2023, i.e. after a period of about 23 days from the date of alleged seizure i.e. 29.10.2023. There is no seal handing over memo on the judicial file. Hence, it can be presumed that no handing over memo of seal was prepared by the IO in this regard. In addition to this, there is no taking over or handing over memo on record to show as to when the seal was taken back from HC Malkhan or if it remained with him forever. The seal remained with the police officials of the same police station and therefore, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of the IO and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWATABHINAV Date: AHLAWAT FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 13 of 17 2026.04.10 15:13:07 +0530
23. In this regard, judgment in case titled as Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452, may be adverted to, wherein it was observed in paragraph 7 that:
"....The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out. In the present case, the seal of Investigating Officer- Hoshiar Singh bearing impression HS was available with Maha Singh, a junior police official and that of Deputy Superintendent of Police remained with Deputy Superintendent of Police himself. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with seals as well as seized contraband and samples cannot be ruled out."
24. Similarly, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah v. State, (1993) 49 DLT 193, had observed:
"9. ... The seal after use were kept by the police officials themselves therefore the possibility of tempering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tempered with. The prosecution could have proved from the CFSL form itself and from the road certificate as to what articles were taken from the Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused..."....
11. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to the independent witness P.W.5. Even the I.O. P.W.7 does not utter a word regarding the handing over of the seal after use. Therefore, the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the Investigating Officer or with the other member of the raiding party therefore the possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of the parcel cannot be ruled out...."
25. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, the possibility of misuse of seal and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
26. Furthermore, doubts are raised with respect to false implication of accused person from the fact that although all the prosecution Digitally signed by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 14 of 17 2026.04.10 15:13:12 +0530 witnesses remained at the spot for considerable period of time but no photographs of the case property or the spot were taken. No efforts were taken to lift chance prints of the accused person from the Katta in which explosive was kept which could have lend credence to the prosecution version. Also, despite the spot being surrounded by shops and residence, no efforts or reasons are forthcoming regarding presence of any CCTV cameras.
27. Further, fact of the accused being present at the spot is also shrouded with clouds of ambiguity and cast doubt over the actual presence of the accused at the spot as no credible piece of evidence has been brought by the prosecution, rendering the version of the prosecution unworthy of credit and giving rise to the suspicion that the accused person has been falsely implicated in the present case.
28. Now in the present case, as the presence of accused at the spot is under a shadow of cloud and nothing has been brought on record to show that accused was having explosive, therefore, without any direct evidence, nothing has been brought by the prosecution to show that accused kept the explosive substance without taking due caution so rashly and negligently. Although the accused had not led any defence evidence. However, primary duty is of the prosecution to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Based upon the above, the prosecution failed to prove that the subject property i.e. explosives were found from the possession of accused. Accordingly, offence u/S 9B of Explosive Act is not made out.
29. The second set of allegations against the accused revolves around offence punishable under Section 286 IPC that accused kept the Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWAT ABHINAV Date:
FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 15 of 17 AHLAWAT 2026.04.10 15:13:19 +0530 above said explosive substance without taking due caution and with rash and negligence so as to endanger human life.
30. Ld. Counsel for accused stated that prosecution has not been able to prove that accused was having possession of the said articles and thereby primary offence of Section 9B of the Explosive Act has not been established accordingly be granted benefit of doubt.
31. As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs, possession of explosive substance from the accused is not established by the prosecution and neither the presence of the accused at the spot is established nor the fact that accused person was present at the spot has been established. No material has been produced by the prosecution to sustain the charge framed under Section 286 IPC. As the possession of the material from accused person has not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of which would accrue to the accused person.
CONCLUSION
32. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused person is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused person to acquittal.
Digitally signed by ABHINAV AHLAWATABHINAV Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.04.10 FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 16 of 17 15:13:24 +0530
33. There is no gainsaying that if two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede to the existence of a reasonable doubt. The aforementioned lacunae in the story of the prosecution render the version of the prosecution doubtful, leading to the irresistible conclusion that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged by the prosecution. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence in order to prove the commission of and guilt of the accused person for offences under Sections 286 of IPC and Section 9B of Explosive Act beyond reasonable doubt, thus, entitling the accused person to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
34. Accordingly, this court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offences under Section 286 IPC and Section 9B of The Explosives Act, 1884 and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Manoj is thus, acquitted of the offences under Sections 286 IPC and Section 9B of The Explosives Act, 1884.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open court ABHINAV
ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
on 10.04.2026 in the presence 2026.04.10
15:13:30
of the accused. +0530
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/10.04.2026
Note:- This judgment contains 17 pages and each page has been Digitally signed signed by me. by ABHINAV ABHINAV AHLAWAT Date:
AHLAWAT 2026.04.10 15:13:35 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/10.04.2026 FIR No.239/2023, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Manoj Page 17 of 17