Delhi District Court
State vs Firoz on 22 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL SAINI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
DLSH020080712025
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.: 197/2025
Police Station: Jyoti Nagar
(CIS No. 3371/2025)
b Date of the commission of : 19.04.2025
the offence
c Name of the Complainant : Ct.Siddarth
d Name of Accused person : Firoz S/o Samad R/o: H. No.
and his parentage and A 56, Gali no. 1, Pappu
residence Colony, Shaheed Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP.
e Offence complained of : u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act and
f Plea of the Accused and : Pleaded not guilty.
his examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted u/s 25/54/59 Arms
Act
h Order reserved on : 22.12.2025
i Order pronounced on : 22.12.2025
Brief statement of facts of the case and trial proceedings:
1.The case of the prosecution against the accused Firoz S/o Samad is that on 19.04.2025, at 9.45 pm, at Nala Road, Service Road, Jal Board Office, Ambedkar College, Delhli within jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar accused was found in possession Digitally signed by RAHUL State vs. Firoz RAHUL SAINI FIR No. 197/2025 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act SAINI Date:
2025.12.22 15:59:49 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages +0530 1 of 14 of one buttondar knife in contravention of DAD notification and had committed the offence. The accused was booked with the offence under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act and FIR was registered.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused on 06.05.2025 and cognizance was taken on 31.05.2025 and on appearance of the accused, the copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused on the same day in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Thereafter, vide order 27.06.2025, charge was framed against the accused under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Subsequently, prosecution evidence was led and in order to prove its version, prosecution examined three witnesses, out of five witnesses as cited by the Prosecution.
1. A detailed scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses has been done and is hereby discussed in detail.
PW: 1 HC Anand Kumar:- He deposed that on 19.04.2025 on receipt of DD no. 76A Ex. PW1/A, regarding recovery of buttondar knife he went to the spot i.e. Nala Road, Service road, near Jal Board Office, Ambedkar College, Delhi where he met Ct. Siddharth and Ct. Akash. They handed over the accused and case property to him.
Thereafter, he had interrogated the said person who revealed his name as Firoz. After that, the had requested public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and went away without giving their names and addresses. Thereafter, he had State vs. Firoz FIR No. 197/2025 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Digitally signed by PS Jyoti Nagar RAHULPages RAHUL 2 of 14 SAINI Date:
SAINI 2025.12.22 15:59:56 +0530 put buttondar knife on a white blank paper and prepared its sketch memo which is Ex. PW1/B and on measurement the total length of the knife was 23.9 cm, length of the blade was 11 cm, length of the handle was 12.9 cm, and the width of the said knife was 2.6 cm. Thereafter, he had prepared pullanda of the said knife and sealed it with the seal of AK and had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. He had recorded statement of Ct.Siddharth which is Ex. PW1/D. He had prepared rukka which is Ex. PW1/E and same was handed over to Ct. Siddharth for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to PS and got registered the present FIR and he came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and same was handed over to him. Thereafter, he had prepared site plan at the instance of Ct. Siddharth which is Ex. PW1/F. Thereafter, he had arrested accused vide arrest memo and personal search memos which are Ex. PW1G and Ex. PW1/H respectively. He had also recorded disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW1/I. During personal search of the accused, one laptop grey colour was recovered from the handbag which was carried by the accused at that time. After enquiry, he came to know that the said laptop is the case property of E FIR No.80038843/2025, PS Jyoti Nagar and he had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/J. After that, he had also prepared a video for recovery of the case property and he uploaded the same on E Sakshya. The certificate of E sakshya is Ex. PW1/K. The video was made by him on his mobile phone make VIVO. The video was played at E sakshya App Ct. Siddharth was holding one buttondar knife and one bag in his hand and that the buttondar knife and bag was recovered from the possession of the accused and IO was saying State vs. Firoz Digitally signed by FIR No. 197/2025 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 3 of 14 SAINI Date:
2025.12.22 16:00:08 +0530 that the buttondar knife and bag was recovered from the possession of the accused. The video is Ex. P1.
Thereafter, they along with accused and case property went to PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused was sent to lock up.
Witness further stated that he had recorded statements of Ct Siddharth and Ct. Akash and relieved them.
On the next day, he had produced the accused before the court and sent him to J/C. Further, after completion of investigation, he had prepared the chargesheet and same is submitted to the court. Thereafter, he had collected DAD Notification from the concerned office which is Ex. PW1/L. After completion of investigation, he had prepared the chargesheet and same was submitted in the court.
Witness had correctly identified the accused as well as the case property i.e. buttondar knife which is Ex.P2.
During cross examination by Ld. LAC for the accused witness deposed that he had left the PS at about 9.45 pm and reached at the spot at about 10 pm. Witness admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that no written notice was served upon any public persons who refused to join and that seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after registration of the FIR. Further, it is admitted that he did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. Further, he did not seize the clothes of the accused in the present matter. He had handed over rukka to Ct.Siddharth at around 11 pm and he came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 12.50 am. Thereafter, he had prepared State vs. Firoz Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI FIR No. 197/2025 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Date:
SAINI 2025.12.22
16:00:23
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 4 of 14
+0530
site plan at about 1.00 am. Witness had admitted that the case property was recovered prior to his reaching at the spot and that he had prepared videography from his mobile phone after reaching the spot. Witness had denied the suggestion that he prepared a false video to falsely implicate the accused in the present matter and the said video was not prepared at the time of recovery of the case property. Further, he did not search CCTV camera near the spot. Witness had denied the suggestion that the case property was planted upon accused or that accused was falsely implicated in the present matter or that he was arrested from his house despite the spot or that he never visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS or that he did not request public persons to join the investigation or that he never conducted fair investigation.
PW: 2 Ct. Akash:-He had deposed the similar version as deposed by PW1 HCAnand as they were on patrolling duty in the area of PS Jyoti Nagar.
During cross examination by Ld. LAC witness deposed that he had left the PS at about 8.30 pm and reached at the spot at about 9.30 pm. Witness admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that no written notice was served upon any public persons who refused to join and that seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after registration of the FIR. Further, it is admitted that he did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. Further, he did not seize the clothes of the accused in the present matter. He had handed over rukka to Ct.Siddharth at around 10.30 pm and he came back at the spot with copy of FIR at Digitally signed by State vs. Firoz RAHUL RAHUL SAINI FIR No. 197/2025 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act SAINI Date:
2025.12.22 16:00:32 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 5 of 14 +0530 around 11.00 pm. Witness admitted that IO prepared a false video to falsely implicate the accused in the present matter and the said video was not prepared at the time of recovery of the case property. IO did not search CCTV camera near the spot. Witness had denied the suggestion that the case property was planted upon accused or that accused was falsely implicated in the present matter or that he was arrested from his house despite the spot or that he never visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS or that he did not request public persons to join the investigation or that he never conducted fair investigation..
PW: 3: HC Siddharth:- He had also deposed the similar version as deposed by PW1 HC Anand and PW2 Ct. Aakash as they all were on patrolling duty.
During cross examination by Ld. LAC witness deposed that he had left the PS at about 8.00 pm on govt. motorcycle and he did not recollect its registration No. and reached at the spot at about 9-9.30 pm. Witness admitted that the spot was a public place and public persons were coming and going there and that no written notice was served upon any public persons who refused to join. He further admitted that the seizure memo and sketch memos were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and nothing was changed after registration of the FIR and that IO did not prepare seal handing over memo and receiving over memo. Further, IO did not seize the clothes of the accused in the present matter. IO handed over rukka to him at around 11.15 pm and he came back at the spot with copy of FIR at around 11.35 pm. IO prepared site plan at about 11.40 am. Witness admitted that he and Ct. Akash did not offer his search to the accused before State vs. Firoz Digitally signed by FIR No. 197/2025 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 6 of 14 SAINI Date:
2025.12.22 16:00:38 +0530 taking his search. Witness admitted that he had prepared videography from his mobile phone at the time of recovery. Witness had denied the suggestion that IO prepared a false video to falsely implicate the accused in the present matter and the said video was not prepared at the time of recovery of the case property. IO did not search CCTV camera near the spot. Witness had denied the suggestion that the case property was planted upon accused or that accused is falsely implicated in the present matter or that he was arrested from his house despite the spot or that he ever visited at the spot and all proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS or that IO did not request public persons to join the investigation or that IO never conducted fair investigation.
5. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 27.10.2025, witness mentioned at Sl. No. 2 HC Arvind Kumar was dropped from the list of witnesses as accused has admitted the genuineness of the FIR along with Certificate u/s 65-B of IEA qua the present case in his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C which is Ex. A1(Colly)
6. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 13.11.2025 separately wherein accused claimed to be innocent and denied allegations against him and stated that no knife was recovered from his possession and the same is planted upon him. Accused opted to not lead any Defence Evidence. Accordingly, bringing the trial to an end, final arguments were heard from Ld. Counsel for the Accused as well Ld. APP for the State.
Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date:
SAINI State vs. Firoz SAINI 2025.12.22 16:00:45 +0530 FIR No. 197/2025 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 7 of 14 Appreciation of Evidence
7. 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 police 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.
8. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the Accused. Further, it is also a settled Digitally signed by State vs. Firoz RAHUL RAHUL Date:
SAINI SAINI 2025.12.22 FIR No. 197/2025 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 16:00:51 +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 8 of 14 proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the Accused. Also, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the Accused to acquittal.
9. Evaluating the facts and evidence discussed above, at the outset, it comes out that no independent witness was joined in the investigation. The Hon'ble supreme court in State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh [AIR 1994 SC 1872] , held that :
"It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice has been caused to the Accused and also examine the evidence in respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions have not been complied with and further consider whether the weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for independent corroboration. This again depends on question whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with these provisions. [Emphasis supplied]"
10. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that as per the site plan the area from where the Accused was apprehended was busy public road and despite that no public witness has been joined and therefore, absence of public witnesses from the investigation becomes even more apparent. Further, no notice has been served to any of the public persons who did not join the investigation. State vs. Firoz FIR No. 197/2025 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act Digitally signed by RAHUL PS Jyoti Nagar Pages RAHUL SAINI 9 of 14 SAINI Date:
2025.12.22 16:00:59 +0530 Considering the above facts, it comes out that there was no lack of time and opportunity with the IO to associate some independent witnesses with the search and strictly comply with the provisions of code of criminal procedure.
The above stated observation of this court is fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemraj vs. State Of Haryana [AIR 2005 SC 2110] as follows:
"the fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case..."
Furthermore, in case titled Roop Chand vs. State of F [1999 (1)C.L.R 69], the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & that:
"...It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI State vs. Firoz SAINI Date:
2025.12.22 FIR No. 197/2025 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act 16:01:06 +0530 PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 10 of 14 facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful..."
11. Moving further, this Court is conscious of precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Safiullah vs. State, [1993 (1) Rcr (CRIMINAL) 622] , that :
"The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. ..... Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the Accused."
The case property in the present matter was lying in the Malkhana of the same police station where the police officials having the possession of seal were posted. There was ample opportunity for tampering with the case property. Hence, considering the legal position, the benefit of doubt should be given to the Accused.
12. Besides all this, in the present case, the aforesaid lapse on the part of police officials assumes significance on account of another grave contradiction apparent in the document Ex. PW1/B i.e. sketch memo of the knife, seizure memo of knife is Ex.PW1/C and seizure memo of Grey Colour lap top and handbag is Ex. PW1/J. The sketch memo of the knife Ex. PW1/B, seizure memo of knife is Ex. PW1/C and seizure memo of Grey Colour lap top and handbag is Ex. Ex. PW1/J bear the number of FIR. As per the 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 Ex. PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C and Ex. PW1/J bear the FIR number. This gives rise to two State vs. Firoz Digitally signed by FIR No. 197/2025 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL RAHUL SAINI PS Jyoti Nagar Pages SAINI 11 of 14 Date:
2025.12.22 16:01:14 +0530 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."
13. Further, in order to ensure fair investigation, the prosecution witnesses must have offered their personal search to some independent witness. However, as no such precaution was taken by prosecution witnesses the doubt as to the false plantation of the case property upon the Accused cannot be ruled out. In S. L. Goswami Vs. State Of M.P., [1972 CRI.L.J 511 (SC)] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"... in our view, the onus to proving all the ingredient of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the Accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in case where the defence of the Accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the Accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the Accused even at the initial stage to prove something State vs. Firoz Digitally signed by FIR No. 197/2025 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 12 of 14
2025.12.22
16:01:22
+0530
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. It is also pertinent to mention here that video was played by IO on his mobile, however, nothing material had come on record which shows that the recovery has been made from the accused. It is only seen that Ct. Siddharth was holding one buttondar knife and one bag in his hand and saying that buttondar knife and bag were recovered from the possession of the accused. Perusal of the video does not shows that the recovery was effected from the accused and it only shows that IO Ct. Siddharth is saying that he recovered the said articles from accused.
Conclusion
14. The onus and duty to prove the case against the Accused was upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the Accused.
15. In view of above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Accused Firoz S/o Samad stands acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act framed in the present case. Case property be confiscated to the State. Same be Digitally destroyed.
signed by RAHUL RAHUL SAINI SAINI Date:
2025.12.22 State vs. Firoz 16:01:29 +0530 FIR No. 197/2025 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 13 of 14
16. Accused is directed to furnish the bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date:
SAINI Announced in the open court SAINI 16:01:47 2025.12.22 +0530 on 22.12.2025 (Rahul Saini) Judicial Magistrate First Class-08(Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts,Delhi 22.12.2025 [This judgment contains 14 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] State vs. Firoz FIR No. 197/2025 u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act PS Jyoti Nagar Pages 14 of 14