Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit Chauhan on 15 May, 2025
State Vs. Rohit Chauhan
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. P BHARGAV RAO
DLET020095802018
FIR No.59/2016
PS - Krishna Nagar
U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act
State Vs. Rohit Chauhan
JUDGMENT
1) Sr. No. of the case 4472/2018
2) Date of offence(s) 23.01.2016
3) Complainant Ct. Neeraj, No. 1052/East, PS
Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
4) Accused person(s) Rohit Chauhan S/o Sh. Mahesh
R/o H.No.A-4, Rani Garden,
Shastri Nagar, Geeta Colony,
Delhi
5) Offences Under Section 25/54/59 of
Arms Act, 1959.
6) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7) Final Order Acquitted
8) Date of institution 03.12.2018
Digitally
signed by P
P
BHARGAV
BHARGAV
RAO
Date:
9) Date of judgment 15.05.2025
RAO 2025.05.15
16:23:03
+0530
FIR No. 59/2016 PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 1/10
State Vs. Rohit Chauhan
JUDGEMENT
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 23.01.2016 at about 10:15 pm at Gali No.1, West Kanti Nagar near Nala Road, Delhi, the accused was found in possession of one desi katta, as per seizure memo, against the notification issued by Delhi Administration. According to prosecution, accused thereby committed offence punishable under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed and the accused was consequently summoned. Charge for the offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act was framed against the accused on 25.09.2021 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined six witnesses. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution were the police officials. PW1 ASI Neeraj Kumar was the complainant, recovery and eye-witness of the present case. He had allegedly caught the accused red-handed with the country-made pistol. He witnessed the entire proceedings conducted by the investigating officer. PW2 Ct. Sanwar Mal had deposited the case property in FSL. PW3 SI Ram Kumar accompanied the IO on the date of incident who then took the complaint to the PS for registration of FIR. PW4 Retd. SI Yashpal Singh was the investigating officer of the present case. After receiving the information about the apprehension of the Digitally P signed by P BHARGAV RAO accused with a prohibited arms, he allegedly reached at the spot BHARGAV Date:
and conducted the entire proceedings such as recording of RAO 2025.05.15 16:23:40 +0530 statement of the complainant, preparation of tehrir, registration of FIR No. 59/2016 PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 2/10 State Vs. Rohit Chauhan the FIR, preparation of the seizure memo, preparation of the sketch of the pistol, arrest of the accused, recording of his disclosure statement etc. PW5 Retd. SI Sahansarvir is the second IO in the present case. PW6 HC Hawai Singh is the MHC(M) who had brought register No.19.
4. In view of statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C. dated 29.03.2023 witness at S/No. 02 (Duty Officer) of list of witnesses was dropped.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. on 28.04.2025. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused. Accused denied all the allegations and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused opted not to lead evidence in his defence.
6. Final arguments from both sides heard. Record perused.
ARGUMENTS
7. Ld. APP for the State has argued that material on record clearly points towards guilt of the accused. He has submitted that the testimony of prosecution witnesses inspires confidence and there are sufficient ground to convict the accused.
8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that there are various discrepancies in testimonies of prosecution witnesses and hence accused should be given benefit of doubt. Digitally He has further submitted that no public witness was examined by signed by P BHARGAV P BHARGAV RAO RAO Date:
2025.05.15 the prosecution in the present case. Also, the police officials did 16:23:46 not comply with the statutory provisions of Section 52 & 100 +0530 FIR No. 59/2016 PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 3/10 State Vs. Rohit Chauhan Cr.P.C at the time of alleged recovery which would raise doubts over the case of prosecution.
9. I have heard the rival submissions and have also carefully gone through the entire material available on record and evidence led on behalf of the prosecution.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS/CONTENTIONS/ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
10. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution.
11. During the final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution did not examine even a single public witness to prove the recovery of case property from the possession. All the recovery witnesses were police officials.
12. It is a well settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100(4) of the Cr.PC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation.
13. From the overall testimony of the witnesses, it appears that Digitally no sincere efforts, have been made to join the public persons in signed by P BHARGAV the investigation. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are P RAO BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2025.05.15
16:23:51
+0530
FIR No. 59/2016 PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 4/10
State Vs. Rohit Chauhan
police witness. Not even a single public witness was examined by the prosecution nor joined in the investigation and no plausible reason could be put forward by the prosecution witnesses that for what reason they were unable to gather support from public or independent witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration.
14. In the instant case, it should be noted that the recovery was effected from the accused at around 10:15 PM from a public place, and, therefore, public persons must have been present there at the time of the alleged recovery. In fact, the PWs in their testimonies had categorically deposed that the public persons did not join the public witnesses in the investigation.
15. This reason given by the PWs is neither sufficient nor plausible. Neither the details of those public persons were brought on record nor any legal action was taken against those persons under relevant sections of law who had declined to assist the police in investigation. If the public persons were really present at the spot, then the police officials should have made endeavor to get them join the investigation. They should have issued notice asking them to join the investigation. On their refusal, necessary action as per law could have been taken against them.
16. The failure on the part of the police personnel could only suggest that they were not interested in joining the public persons Digitally signed by P BHARGAV P RAO BHARGAV Date:
2025.05.15 in the police proceedings. Failure on the part of the police RAO 16:23:58 officials to make sincere effort to join public witnesses for the +0530 FIR No. 59/2016 PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 5/10 State Vs. Rohit Chauhan proceedings when they may be available creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. Reference can be taken from the decision of Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under;
"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 shops were open and one or two shop keepers 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. While the testimony of the police officials cannot be discarded away merely because of the fact that no public witnesses were not examined, however, their testimonies have to be scrutinised in more detail. If it is found that the police officials during the course of investigation did not even make endeavour to ask the public witnesses to join the investigation, did not even ask their names and details etc. then it would cast a very serious doubt on the testimonies of the police officials. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tahir v. State (Delhi) [(1996) 3 SCC 338], dealing with a similar question, the Hon'ble Apex Court held interalia the following:
"In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down Digitally signed by P BHARGAV that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the P RAO BHARGAV Date:
2025.05.15 police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by RAO 16:24:04 +0530 some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since FIR No. 59/2016 PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 6/10 State Vs. Rohit Chauhan they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. The obvious result of the above discussion is that the statement of a police officer can be relied upon and even form the basis of conviction when it is reliable, trustworthy and preferably corroborated by other evidence on record."
18. The requirement of the police officials to make endeavour to ask the public witnesses to join the proceedings was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1997 SC 2417, wherein it interalia held the following:
"In a given case it may so happen that no such person is available or, even if available, is not willing to be a party to such search. It may also be that after joining the search, such persons later on turn hostile. In any of these eventualities the evidence of the police officers who conducted the search cannot be disbelieved solely on the ground that no independent and respectable witness was examined to prove the search but if it is found -as in the present case -that no attempt was even made by the concerned police officer to join with him some persons of the locality who were admittedly available to witness the recovery, it would affect the weight of evidence of the Police Officer, though not its admissibility"
19. Therefore, in view of the above mentioned case law, it becomes clear that while the testimony of the police officials cannot be discarded away forthwith in the absence of any public witnesses, however, it would be prudent to examine or scrutinise their testimonies more closely and should preferably be corroborated. The accused may be convicted on the basis of the Digitally testimonies of the police officials if their testimonies are found to signed by P P BHARGAV RAO BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2025.05.15
16:24:10
+0530 be reliable and trustworthy.
FIR No. 59/2016 PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 7/10
State Vs. Rohit Chauhan
20. Further, the prosecution did not tender in evidence necessary DD entry to prove departure of the IO from the police station after receiving the information about the apprehension of the accused and recovery of weapons from his possession. Similarly, arrival entry of the police officials along with the accused and the case property was also not tendered in evidence by the prosecution. At this stage, reference can be taken from the provision enshrined in 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, which is reproduced as under:
"Chapter 22 rule 49 Matters to be entered in Register no. II. The following matters shall amongst others, be entered:-(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers 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.
21. Perusal of the above rule clearly suggests that the police officials are mandated to record their time of arrival and departure on duty at or from the police station. In the instant case, this provision has not been complied by the concerned police witnesses. It has been held in Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that:
"if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the Courts will have to approach their action with reservations. 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, Digitally the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution P signed by P BHARGAV RAO version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the BHARGAV RAO Date:
2025.05.15 prosecution."
16:24:18
+0530
22. Since all the witnesses are police personnel and the FIR No. 59/2016 PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 8/10 State Vs. Rohit Chauhan necessary safeguards in the investigation have not been followed by the IO, I am of the view that chances of false implication of accused cannot be ruled out at the instance of the police.
23. Further, as per the testimonies of PWs, the case property i.e. country made pistol were sealed by the PW4 with the seal of "YPS". As per PW4, he had handed over the seal to Ct. Neeraj after using the same. It would mean that the seal was directly handed over to another police official. The said seal was not handed over to any independent person before/after use. Even the seal handing over memo was not prepared by the IO.
24. In the judgment titled Ramji Singh vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 452, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court while discussing the purpose of giving seal to independent person has held the following:
"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."
25. Therefore, in view of the above, this creates further doubts in the case of prosecution as to whether the case property allegedly recovered from the accused has not been tampered with.
26. It is true that evidence is to be weighed and not counted but in this case whatever evidence has been produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to fortify the edifice of the Digitally prosecution's case and the prosecution fails to prove all the links.
signed by P
BHARGAV
P RAO
BHARGAV Date:
RAO 2025.05.15
16:24:24
+0530 In case where the prosecution has failed to prove all the links, the
FIR No. 59/2016 PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 9/10
State Vs. Rohit Chauhan
benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. As such the accused deserves acquittal in the present case.
27. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case beyond reasonable doubt.
28. Hence, the accused Rohit Chauhan S/o Sh. Mahesh is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
Announced in open court
Today i.e. 15.05.2025
P Digitally signed by
P BHARGAV RAO
BHARGAV Date: 2025.05.15
RAO 16:24:30 +0530
(P. Bhargav Rao)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05 District East/Karkardooma Courts FIR No. 59/2016 PS Krishna Nagar Page No. 10/10