Delhi District Court
State vs . Jikroo Rehman on 22 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI - 110054
FIR No.169/14
PS Darya Ganj
State Vs. Jikroo Rehman
U/s 25(1-B)(b) Arms Act
CNR No. DLCT-02-001477/14
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 290816/16
(b) Date of offence 01.04.2014
(c) Complainant Ct. Suresh
(d) Accused Jikroo Rehman S/o. Fazloo Rehman, R/o.
House No. 1687, Gali Takath Wali, Chandni
Mahal, Delhi.
(e) Offence 25(1-B)(b) Arms Act
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
(g) Date of Institution 16.04.2014
(h) Final Order Acquitted
(i) Date when judgment was 22.12.2018
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 22.12.2018
1. The present FIR was registered at PS Darya Ganj against the accused namely Jikroo Rehman for the offence U/s 25(1-B)(b) Arms Act.
2. The allegations against the accused are that on 01.04.2014, at about 6:45 pm, at Samta Sthal, Darya Ganj, Delhi, accused Jikroo Rehman was found in possession of one buttondar knife without license in contravention of Delhi Administration Notification FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.1 of 15 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(b) Arms Act.
3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the accused was supplied with copies of challan alongwith annexures in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Charge for the offence u/s 25(1-B)(b) Arms Act was put to the accused vide order dated 15.09.2014 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 6 witnesses.
5. PW-1 is Ct. Jai Pal, who deposed that on 01.04.2014, he was posted at PS Darya Ganj, that on that day he was on patrolling duty with Ct. Suresh, that at about 6:45 pm, when he along with Ct. Suresh were patrolling and reached near Samtha Sthal bus stand, they saw a person who was standing at the bus stop and on seeing them he entered the gate of Samta Sthal in order to hide himself, that they found the activities of the said person to be suspicious, that they found that the said person was trying to hide himself against the wall, that both of them apprehended the said person, that on cursory search of the said person, one button actuated knife was recovered from the right side pocket of the trouser of the said person, that they informed about this to the police station, that at about 7:20 pm, HC Sant Kumar arrived at the spot, that they handed over the recovered knife and the said person to HC Sant Kumar, that HC Sant Kumar prepared the sketch of the knife which is Ex. PW-1/A, that the total length of the recovered knife was found to be 23.5 cm, the length of the butt was 13 cm, the length of the blade was 10.5 cm and the width was 2.5 cm, that there were imprints of flowers and leaves on the butt of the knife, that in the meantime, Ct. Devesh also arrived at the spot along with the seal, that the recovered knife was placed in white cloth and the pullinda was prepared and sealed with the seal of 'DRNG IV', that the seizure memo prepared in this regard is Ex. PW-1/B, that the seal after use was handed over to Ct. FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.2 of 15 Devesh, that the IO/HC Sant Kumar prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for getting the FIR registered, that he left the spot at about 8:45 pm and accordingly went to the PS and handed over the same to DO, that after sometime DO handed over him copy of FIR and original rukka with direction to hand over the same to IO/HC Sant Kumar for further investigation, that he returned to the spot at about 9:45 pm and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka IO Sant Kumar, that the name of the said person was revealed as Jikroo Rehman, that IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW- 1/D, that MHC(M) has produced the case property duly sealed with the seal 'DRNG IV', that the seal was broken with the permission of the Court, that after opening the seal one cloth pullinda is found, that same is taken out, that the cloth is found containing a button actuated knife, that the attention of the witness was drawn towards said knife and the witness states that it is the same knife recovered from the possession of the accused and seized by the IO in his presence, that the knife is Ex. P- 1, that IO recorded his statement in this regard.
6. In the cross examination, PW-1 deposed that they started for patrolling from the PS at about 6:00 pm, that he do not remember the DD number of his departure, that buses were going and coming from the bus stand of Samta Sthal, that people also coming and going from the spot, that IO asked public persons to join the investigation, however, none of them join the investigation and left the spot without disclosing their name and addresses, that IO had not noted down the name and addresses of the such persons and no notice was served upon any such public persons upon their refusal of joining the investigation, that no personal search of accompanying staff was offered before taking the search of the accused, that handing over memo of seal was prepared by the IO and it was handed over to the Ct. Divesh, that Ct. Divesh came at the spot at about 7:45 pm and again went to the PS at about 8:00 pm. He denied that he was not present at the spot and all the proceedings were carried out while sitting in the PS and nothing was recovered from the accused and the knife has been planted upon the accused, that he is deposing falsely.
FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.3 of 15
7. PW-2 is ASI Suresh Chand, who deposed that on 01.04.2014, he was posted at PS Darya Ganj, that on that day, he was on patrolling duty with Ct. Jaipal, that at about 6:45 pm, when he along with Ct. Jaipal were patrolling and reached near Samtha Sthal bus stand, they saw a person who was standing at the bus stop and on seeing them he entered the gate of Samta Sthal in order to hide himself, that they found the activities of the said person to be suspicious, that they found that the said person was trying to hide himself against the wall, that both of them apprehended the said person, that on cursory search of the said person, one button actuated knife was recovered from the right side pocket of the trouser of the said person, that he telephonically informed about this to the DO. At about 7:20 pm, HC Sant Kumar arrived at the spot, that they handed over the recovered knife and the said person to HC Sant Kumar, that HC Sant Kumar prepared the sketch of the knife which is Ex. PW-1/A, that the total length of the recovered knife was found to be 23.5 cm, the length of the butt was 13 cm, the length of the blade was 10.5 cm and the width was 2.5 cm, that there were imprints of flowers and leaves on the butt of the knife, that in the meantime, Ct. Devesh also arrived at the spot along with the DD No. 27-A, that Ct. Devesh was sent to the PS to bring the seal, that after sometime Ct. Devesh returned back from the PS along with the seal, that IO requested 2-3 public persons to join the present investigation, but none of the them agreed and they all left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses, that the recovered knife was placed in white cloth and the pullinda was prepared and sealed with the seal of 'DRNG IV', that the seizure memo prepared in this regard is Ex. PW-1/B, that the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Devesh and he was discharged from the spot, that the IO HC Sant Kumar recorded his statement Ex. PW-2/A and prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Jaipal for getting the FIR registered, that Ct. Jaipal went to the PS, that after sometime, Ct. Jai Pal returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO Sant Kumar, that the name of the said person was revealed as Jikroo Rehman, that IO prepared site plan at his instance Ex. PW-2/B, that IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-1/D , that he along with the IO, Ct. Jaipal, accused and the case property returned back to the PS, that the case FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.4 of 15 property was deposited in the Malkhana and the accused was lodged in the lockup, that MHC(M) has produced the case property which is duly sealed with the Court seal 'SJ' and bearing the particulars of the present case, that the seal is broken with the permission of the Court, that after opening the seal one cloth pullinda is found, that same is taken out, that the cloth is found containing a button actuated knife, that the attention of the witness drawn towards said knife and the witness states that it is the same knife recovered from the possession of the accused and seized by the IO in his presence, that the knife is Ex. P-1.
8. In the cross examination PW-2 deposed that they started for patrolling from the PS at about 05:30 pm, that he do not remember the DD number of his departure. He admitted that DD entry is placed on record. He deposed that buses were going and coming from the bus stand of Samta Sthal, that people also coming and going from the spot, that IO asked public persons to join the investigation, however, none of them join the investigation and left the spot without disclosing their name and addresses, that IO has not noted down the name and addresses of the such persons and no notice was served upon any such public persons upon their refusal of joining the investigation, that no personal search of accompanying staff was offered before taking the search of the accused, that handing over memo of seal was prepared by the IO when it was handed over to the Ct. Divesh, that Ct. Divesh came at the spot at about 7:45 pm and again went to the PS at about 8:00 pm. He denied that he was not present at the spot and all the proceedings were carried out while sitting in the PS and nothing was recovered from the accused and the knife has been planted upon the accused, that he is deposing falsely.
9. PW-3 is ASI Sanjay, who deposed that he is posted as MHC(M) case property at PS, that he has brought the summoned record i.e. register no. 19 for the year 2014 containing entry no. 1862 dated 01.04.2014 vide which case property was deposited in the mallkhana by the then MHC(M), that copy of the same is Ex. PW-3/A (OSR).
FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.5 of 15
10. In the cross examination, PW-3 denied that the seal was tempered when the case property was deposited in mallkhana in the present case.
11. PW-4 is ASI Milan Kumar, who deposed that he is posted as MHC(M)GP at PS Darya Ganj, he had brought the summoned record i.e. Official Seal Register for the year 2014, that as per record, on 01.04.2014, seal of DRGNJ-IV was issued to Ct. Devesh at about 7:50 pm, vide entry at S. No. 41 and the same was deposited back with the MHC(M)GP on the same day at about 10:00 pm vide same entry, that photocopy of the extract of entry no.41 dated 01.04.2014 is Ex.PW-04/A (OSR).
12. In the cross examination, PW-4 admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the present case. He denied that he is deposing falsely.
13. PW-5 is Ct. Davesh Kumar, who deposed that on 01.04.2014, he was posted as constable at PS Darya Ganj, that on that day, DO handed over him copy of DD No. 27-A with direction to hand over the same to HC Sant Kumar at Samta Sthal in front of Ambedkar Terminal, Delhi, that accordingly, he took the DD and reached at Samta Sthal where IO along with Ct. Suresh and Ct. Jai Pal were present along with one person and handed over the DD to the IO, that IO instructed him to go back to the PS and brought the seal from the MHC(M)GP, that he return back to the PS and requested MHC(M) GP to give him the same, that accordingly, MHC(M)GP at PS Darya Ganj issued him seal of DRGNJ-IV at about 7:55 pm, and reached the spot and handed the same to the IO, that IO placed the seal on the pullinda and seal after use was handed over to him to deposit the same with the MHC(M)GP, that he return back to the PS and return the above said seal of MHC(M)GP, that IO recorded his statement in this regard.
14. In the cross examination, PW-5 deposed that he did not make any DD entry when he left the police station, that he return the seal to the MHC(M)GP at about 8:30 pm, that his signature was not obtained on any register at the time of taking over or handing over the seal to the MHC(M)GP. He denied that he has not taken any DD to the spot. FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.6 of 15 He denied that he has not taken any seal from the MHC(M)GP or returned any seal to MHC(M)GP, that he is deposing falsely.
15. PW-6 is ASI Sant Kumar, who deposed that on 01.04.2014, he was posted at PS Darya Ganj as HC, that on that day, he was on emergency duty from 8 am to 8 pm, that on that day, he received information vide telephone that one person was apprehended by Ct. Jaipal and Ct. Suresh and one buttondar knife was recovered from the accused, that after he reached at Samta Sthal Near Ambedkar Stadium, that Ct. Suresh produced the accused Jikru Rehman, that Ct. Suresh produced the recovered knife before him, that he prepared the sketch of recovered knife Ex. PW-1/A, that total length is 23.5 cm, length of butt 13cm, length of blade 10.5 cm, width of blade 2.5 cm, that he recorded the the statement of Ct. Suresh Ex. PW-2/A, that Ct. Devesh came at the spot with DD No. 27-A, that he sent Ct. Devesh to PS Darya Ganj to bring seal, that after sometime, Ct. Devesh brought the seal at the spot, that he seized the recovered knife vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B, that he prepared the tehrir Ex. PW-6/A and handed over the same to Ct. Jai Pal with direction to get the FIR registered, that after registration of FIR he came back to the spot and handed over to him copy of FIR and original tehrir, that he prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Suresh Ex. PW- 2/B, that IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-1/D, that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW-1/B, that he recorded the statement of Ct. Suresh, Ct. Jaipal and Ct. Dinesh, that during investigation, he obtained the previous involvement of accused, that case property is Ex. P-1.
16. In the cross examination PW-6 deposed that he did not serve any notice to the public persons as the public persons left the spot without disclosing their name and addresses, that he did not lodge the DD entry when he left the PS for patrolling duty. He admitted that there were passerby near the spot. He denied that no recovery was effected from the possession of the accused, that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.7 of 15
17. It is pertinent to note that vide separate statement dated 12.09.2019 accused has admitted the genuineness and correctness of DAD notification Ex.PA-1, previous conviction report Ex. PA-2, FIR Ex. PA-3 endorsement on rukka Ex. PA-4 and DD No. 27-A dated 01.04.2014 Ex. PA-5. Accordingly, witness, Dealing Clerk DAD Notification, Ct. Amit, HC Ramesh Chandra were dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 12.09.2018.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
18. PE was thereon closed by the Court and statement of accused was recorded u/s 281/313 CrPC vide order dated 22.12.2018, wherein the accused denied all the incriminating evidence against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Since, the accused did not wish to lead any defence, hence, matter was fixed for final arguments straightaway.
19. Final arguments heard. File perused.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS/CONTENTIONS/ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
20. In the case in hand the accused Jikroo Rehman is charged for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(b) Arms Act.
21. It is the case of prosecution that on 01.04.2014, at about 6:45 pm, at Samta Sthal, Darya Ganj, Delhi, accused Jikroo Rehman was found in possession of one buttondar knife without license in contravention of Delhi Administration Notification and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(b) Arms Act.
22. The manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc. was stated to be conducted FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.8 of 15 on the spot at the time of arrest of the accused and alleged recovery of knife the prosecution version highly doubtful. Record shows that the place of apprehension of accused alongwith knife was a public place. That public persons were asked to join the investigation who did not agree still police officials neither served any notice upon them to initiate prosecution for refusal nor recorded their names or addresses to show that the police officials made bonafide efforts to persuade the public persons to join the investigation. It is apparent from the testimony of PWs that all the proceedings regarding seizure and sealing of knife was done by police officials who were posted in the same police station and not by any independent witness which makes it highly probable that the entire proceeding were conducted at the police station and that the alleged recovery was planted upon the accused at the police station.
23. The non-joining of public witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when no reasonable explanation has been given by prosecution for not joining of public witnesses and no efforts seem to have been made for joining independent witnesses.
24. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during investigation in a case like the present one, reliance may be placed on the following case laws:-
In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1999(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
25. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that 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 evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that place was residential area and one or two persons from the locality could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the public persons had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such persons 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 FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.9 of 15 under the IPC".
26. In case law Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi reported as DHC 1992 CRI LJ 55 it is observed as under:-
"that the recovery is proved by three police officials who have differed on who snatched the Kirpan from the petitioner and at what time. The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola".
27. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Higher Courts, the omissions /failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public witnesses creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and are fatal to the prosecution version which establishes the defence version that there is total false implication of the accused in the present case and that the recovery was planted upon the accused.
28. Furthermore, the testimony of PWs shows that sketch of knife PW-1/A, seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B was prepared before sending the rukka. However, perusal of the said documents clearly shows that the FIR number and other particulars of the present case are mentioned on the said document. No explanation has come from the prosecution to justify as to how the FIR number surfaced on those document which were prepared prior to the registration of the case thereby substantiating the defence version that the alleged recovery was planted at the police station and nothing was recovered from the spot from the possession of the accused. This fact casts a doubt upon the testimony of PWs and entire prosecution version because if the said documents were prepared prior to the registration of the present case, then how the FIR number as well as other particulars of the present case surfaced on the said documents. At this stage, FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.10 of 15 reference can also be made of a case titled as Pawan Kumar Vs Delhi Admn. 1987 CC Cases 585 Delhi wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that the mention of FIR number on recovery memo etc which were prepared prior to lodging the FIR creates doubt and benefit should go to the accused.
29. Being guided by abovesaid case laws, it can be said that the search, seizure and recovery made by the above said police officials was in complete violation of the well established principles of law and the same can be said to be illegal which create grave doubts on the prosecution's version of recovery of alleged illicit liquor from the possession of the accused from the spot and substantiates the defence version that the alleged recovery was planted upon the accused at the police station and that entire proceedings were recorded at the police station and not on the spot.
In the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients 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 cases 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 ingredients 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 rests upon the prosecution..........................."
30. 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 FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.11 of 15 cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC).
31. Being guided by abovesaid case laws, it can be said that the search, seizure and recovery made by the above said police officials was in complete violation of the well established principles of law and the same can be said to be illegal which create grave doubts on the prosecution's version of recovery of alleged illicit liquor from the possession of the accused from the spot and substantiates the defence version that the alleged recovery was planted upon the accused at the police station and that entire proceedings were recorded at the police station and not on the spot.
In the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients 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 cases 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 ingredients 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 rests upon the prosecution..........................."
32. 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 with FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.12 of 15 regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC).
33. Further, perusal of the record reveals that witnesses has not filed DD entry of their arrival and departure. Prosecution witnesses have failed to prove documentary evidence or the DD entries to show their movement from the police station for patrolling or investigation of the case.
34. Regarding the value of making DD entry it is worth mentioning that as per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules it is necessary to record DD Entry of arrival and departure of the police official. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is reproduced as under :-
22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered :-
The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers 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.
At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as Rattan Lal V/s State, 19872 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court "Wherein it has been observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the court will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.13 of 15 prosecution."
In the preset case, the above said provision appears to have not been complied with by prosecution. These omissions on the part of the prosecution create doubt on the version of prosecution.
In the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P" reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients 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 cases 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 ingredients 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 rests upon the prosecution..........................."
35. 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 with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII(2007) SLT 454(SC).
36. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, appreciation of evidence, FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.14 of 15 non joining and examination of independent public witnesses, the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused Jikroo Rehman beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly benefit of doubt goes to the credit of the accused and therefore, he stands acquitted of the offence u/s 25(1-B)(b) Arms Act accordingly.
37. Necessary BB with surety along with latest passport size photograph and residence proof furnished in compliance of Section 437 A CrPC. Same is accepted for a period of six months from today.
38. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
Announced and Signed in the Open Court JAIN 2018.12.22
17:12:56 +0530
on 22.12.2018 (Shilpi Jain)
MM-01(Central)/THC/Delhi
22.12.2018
FIR No. 169/14 PS Darya Ganj State Vs. Jikroo Rehman Page no.15 of 15