Delhi District Court
State vs Sunil Kumar Alias Sonu on 7 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL SAINI,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
DLSH020003102025
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.541/2024
Police Station: Jyoti
Nagar
(Cr.Case No.68/2025)
b Date of the commission of : 22.07.2024
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : Ct.Vipin Kumar
d Name of Accused person : Sunil Kumar @ Sonu
and his parentage and S/o Jagpal Singh
residence R/o: H. No. E 102, Gali no.
5, Ashok Nagar, Delhi
e Offence complained of : U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
f Plea of the Accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted
h Order reserved on : 07.05.2025
i Order pronounced on : 07.05.2025
Brief statement of facts of the case and trial proceedings:
1.The case of the Prosecution against the Accused Sunil Sharma @ Sonu S/o Jagpal Singh is that on 26.12.2024 at 8.30 pm near Loni Gol Chakkar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar, accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration. On the said allegations, Accused was booked Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu SAINI Date:
2025.05.07 15:46:54 FIR No. 541/2024 +0530 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 1 of 18 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 08.01.2025 whereupon Cognizance was taken in this matter on 10.01.2025 and the copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused. On the same day, charge was framed against the Accused Sunil Kumar @ Sonu S/o Jagpal Singh under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Subsequently, Prosecution evidence was led and in order to prove its version, Prosecution has examined three witnesses i.e., PW1 Ct. Vipin, PW2 Ct. Naval and PW3 HC Satender. The remaining witnesses i.e., DO/ASI Bal Kishan and Shri Nathu Ram Dealing Hand Dy. Secretary who had proved the DAD notification dated 29.10.1980 were dropped from list of witnesses on account of statement of the Accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C dated 17.03.2025 wherein he admitted the registration of FIR and certificate u/s 65B IEA (Ex. A1 Colly).
4. After the conclusion of the Prosecution evidence, statement of Accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 09.04.2025 separately wherein Accused claimed to be innocent and denied allegations against him. Accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is innocent.
Despite opportunity Accused opted to not lead any Defence Evidence. Accordingly, bringing the trial to an end, final arguments were heard from Ld. LAC for the Accused as well Ld. APP for the State.
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.05.07 State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu 15:47:02 +0530 FIR No. 541/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 2 of 18 Appreciation of Evidence
5. The arguments were addressed by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. LAC 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 because of absence of public witnesses, the veracity of public witnesses does not stand negated.
Vehemently, denying the arguments of Ld. APP for the State, Ld. LAC 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. LAC 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. LAC for the Accused strongly argued for acquittal of the Accused in this matter.
Submissions have been duly heard. Record has been carefully perused.
6. A detailed scrutiny of the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses has been done and is hereby discussed in detail.
6.1. PW: 1: Ct. Vipin:- He deposed that on 26.12.2024, he along with Ct. Naval were on patrolling duty. During patrolling Digitally signed by RAHUL State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
FIR No. 541/2024 2025.05.07
15:47:09
+0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 3 of 18
duty they reached at Nala Road, Jal Board near Loni Gol Chakkar. At about 8.30 pm, one person came from the side of Kardampuri, Ambedkar College and going towards Nala Service Road to Loni Gol Chakkar. After seeing them in police uniform, he turned back and going towards Ambedkar College. He with the help of Ct.Naval apprehended said person after taking some distance. They asked him why he 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 pant. They came to know the name of the said person as Sunil Kumar @ Sonu. He gave information to the duty officer on his mobile phone. After sometime, IO/HC Satender came at the spot and he handed over accused and case property to him. IO requested public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and went away without giving their names and addresses. IO interrogated the accused. IO prepared videography and photography of the recovery of the case property and same was uploaded on E Sakshya.
IO had shown the videography in his mobile phone which is Ex. P1.
Thereafter, IO put buttondar knife on a white blank paper and prepared its sketch memo which is Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A and measurement of the said knife i.e. total length of the knife was 23.7 cm, length of the blade was 11.5 cm, length of the handle was 12.2 cm and width was 2.8 cm. Thereafter, IO prepared pullanda of the said knife and sealed it with the seal of ST and IO seized the same vide Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu SAINI Date:
2025.05.07 15:47:16 FIR No. 541/2024 +0530 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 4 of 18 seizure memo Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point A. IO 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 came back at the spot and he handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to the IO. IO prepared site plan at their instance which is Ex. PW1/D,bearing his signature at point A. IO interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memos and personal search memos which are Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F, both bearing his signatures at point A. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW1/G, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, they along with accused and case property went to PS and case property was deposited with the malkhana and accused was sent to lock up. IO recorded his statement.
He had identified the accused as well as the case property which is is Ex. P2.
During cross examination by Ld. LAC for the accused witness deposed that he did not make any separate departure entry before leaving PS. He had left the PS at about
7.30 pm and he reached at the spot at about 8.00 pm. He admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that that no written notice was served upon any public persons who reused to join or that seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after registration Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu SAINI Date:
2025.05.07 15:47:24 FIR No. 541/2024 +0530 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 5 of 18 of the FIR. He admitted that he did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. He does 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 10.00 pm and he came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 10.40 pm. IO prepared site plan at about 10.45 pm. He admitted that the case property was handed over by him and Ct. Naval to the IO. He had denied the suggestion that IO prepared fake video of recovery of case property at PS or that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused. 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 IO did not request public persons to join the investigation or that he never visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS PW 2 Ct. Naval:- He deposed that on 26.12.2024, he along with Ct. Vipin were on patrolling duty. During patrolling duty they reached at Nala Road, Jal Board near Loni Gol Chakkar. At about 8.30 pm, one person came from the side of Kardampuri, Ambedkar College and going towards Nala Service Road to Loni Gol Chakkar. After seeing them in police uniform, he turned back and going towards Ambedkar College. He with the help of Ct. Vipin apprehended said person after taking some distance. They asked him why he turned back, but he did not give any satisfactory answer. Thereafter, Ct. Vipin took cursory Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu SAINI Date:
2025.05.07 FIR No. 541/2024 15:47:31 +0530 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 6 of 18 search of the said accused and recovered one buttondar knife from the right side pocket of his pant. They came to know the name of the said person as Sunil Kumar @ Sonu. Ct. Vipin gave information to the duty officer on his mobile phone. After sometime, IO/HC Satender came at the spot and he handed over accused and case property to him. IO requested public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and went away without giving their names and addresses. IO interrogated the accused. IO prepared videography and photography of the recovery of the case property and same was uploaded on E Sakshya.
IO had shown the videography in his mobile phone which is already Ex. P1.
Thereafter, IO put buttondar knife on a white blank paper and prepared its sketch memo which is already Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A and measurement of the said knife i.e. total length of the knife was 23.7 cm, length of the blade was 11.5 cm, length of the handle was 12.2 cm and width was 2.8 cm. Thereafter, IO prepared pullanda of the said knife and sealed it with the seal of ST and IO seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point B. IO recorded statement of Ct. Vipin and prepared rukka and same was handed over to Ct. Vipin for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the present FIR and he came back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to the IO. IO prepared site plan at their instance which is already Ex. PW1/D,bearing his signature at point B. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.05.07
15:47:37
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu +0530
FIR No. 541/2024
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 7 of 18
IO interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memos and personal search memos which are already Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F, both bearing his signatures at point B. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused which is already Ex. PW1/G, bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, they along with accused and case property went to PS and case property was deposited with the malkhana and accused was sent to lock up. IO recorded his statement.
He had correctly identified the accused as wellas the case property which is Ex. P1.
During cross examination by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he did not make any separate departure entry before leaving PS. He had left the PS at about 7.55 pm and reached at the spot at about 8.15 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 the seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after registration of the FIR and that IO did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. He does 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. Vipin at around 10.00 pm and he came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 10.50 pm. He admitted that the case property was handed over by him and Ct. Naval to the IO. He had denied the suggestion that IO Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu 2025.05.07
15:47:44
FIR No. 541/2024 +0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 8 of 18
prepared fake video of recovery of case property at PS or that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused. IO prepared site plan at about 10.55 pm. 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 IO did not request public persons to join the investigation or that he never visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS. PW: 3 HC Satende:- He deposed that he had received DD no.71A regarding recovery of buttondar knife which is Ex. PW3/A and thereafter he went to the spot i.e. Nala Service Road, Jal Board near Loni Gol Chakkar where he met Ct. Vipin and Ct. Naval and they handed over 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 interrogated the accused. He prepared videography and photography of the recovery of the case property and same was uploaded on E Sakshya.
IO has shown the videography in his mobile phone which is already Ex. P1. The certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW3/B, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he put buttondar knife on a white blank paper and prepared its sketch memo which is already Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point C and measurement of the said knife i.e. total length of the knife was 23.7 cm, length of the blade was 11.5 cm, length of the handle was 12.2 cm and width Digitally signed by RAHUL State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
FIR No. 541/2024 2025.05.07
15:47:52
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 9 of 18
was 2.8 cm. Thereafter, he prepared pullanda of the said knife and sealed it with the seal of ST and he seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point C. he recorded statement of Ct. Vipin which is already Ex. PW1/C, bearing his signature at point B and prepared rukka which is Ex. PW3/C, bearing his signature at point A and same was handed over to Ct. Vipin for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the present FIR and he came back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to him. He prepared site plan at the instance of Ct. Vipin and Ct. Naval which is already Ex. PW1/D,bearing his signature at point C. He interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memos and personal search memos which are already Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F, both bearing his signatures at point C. He recorded disclosure statement of accused which is already Ex. PW1/G, bearing his signature at point C. Thereafter, they along with accused and case property went to PS and case property was deposited with the malkhana and accused was sent to lock up. He recorded statements of Ct. Vipin and Ct. Naval. On the next day, he had produced the accused before the court and sent him to J/C. He obtained the DAD notification dated 29.10.1980 which is already Ex. A2.
After completion of investigation, he had prepared chargesheet and same was submitted before the court for trial.
He had correctly identified he accused as well as the case property which is Ex. P2 during the testimony of PW1.
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu 2025.05.07
15:47:59
FIR No. 541/2024 +0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 10 of 18
During cross examination by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused witness deposed that he did not make any separate departure entry before leaving PS. He had left the PS at about
8.55 pm and reached at the spot at about 9.00 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 and that the seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after registration of the FIR. He further admtited that he did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. He does 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. Vipin at around 10.05 pm and he came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 10.45 pm. He prepared site plan at about 11.00 pm. He admitted that the case property was recovered by Ct. Naval and Ct. Vipin prior to his reaching at the spot. 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 prepared fake video of recovery of case property at PS or that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused or that IO did not request public persons to join the investigation or that he never visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.05.07 15:48:05 State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu +0530 FIR No. 541/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 11 of 18
7. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that Prosecution is required 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.
8. Evaluating the facts and evidence discussed above, at the outset, it comes out that no independent witness was joined in the investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter titled as 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 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu SAINI Date:
2025.05.07
FIR No. 541/2024 15:48:11
+0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 12 of 18
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]"
9. At this stage, it is also crucial to observe that witnesses have admitted that no public persons have been made to join the investigation in this matter despite the fact that the spot of the incident is a public place where public persons were present. Further, no notice has been served to any of the public persons who did not join the investigation. It is also pertinent to note that the alleged incident has occurred on a busy public road and therefore, absence of public witnesses from the investigation becomes even more apparent.
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 of India in Hemraj vs. State Of Haryana [AIR 2005 SC 2110] as follows:
"The fact that no independent
witness though available, was
RAHUL
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu SAINI
FIR No. 541/2024
Digitally signed
by RAHUL SAINI
Date: 2025.05.07
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 15:48:18 +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 13 of 18
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 as Roop Chand vs. State of Haryana [1999 (1)C.L.R 69], the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held 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 Digitally signed by RAHUL State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
FIR No. 541/2024 2025.05.07
15:48:25
+0530
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 14 of 18
public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the Prosecution case highly doubtful..."
10. 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 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.
11. 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/A and Ex. PW1/B. The sketch memo of the knife Ex. PW1/A and seizure memo of the knife Ex. PW1/B bear the number of FIR. Upon watching the Videograpy, it revealed that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused rather IO was seen giving alleged weapon in the hand of the accused. As per the Digitally signed by RAHUL State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
FIR No. 541/2024 2025.05.07
15:48:33
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act +0530
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 15 of 18
rukka and testimony of witnesses, the sketch memo of the knife and seizure memos were prepared prior to registration of FIR. If that be so then it is questionable as to how the said documents 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:
"...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."
12. 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:
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.05.07 State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu 15:49:00 FIR No. 541/2024 +0530 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 16 of 18 "... 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
13. 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 regard to the guilt of the Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the Accused.
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL SAINI
SAINI Date:
2025.05.07
15:49:09
+0530
State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu
FIR No. 541/2024
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 17 of 18
14. In view of above said discussion, the Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Accused Sunil Kumar @ Sonu S/o Shri Jagpal Singh 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 Date:
Announced in the open court SAINI 2025.05.07 15:49:17 +0530 on 07.05.2025 (Rahul Saini) JMFC-08(Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 07.05.2025 [This judgment contains 18 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] State vs Sunil Kumar @ Sonu FIR No. 541/2024 U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 18 of 18