Delhi District Court
State vs . Vinit @ Shole on 10 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVLI TALWAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 06, CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 438/2021
PS - Civil Lines
U/s - 25/54/59 Arms Act
State Vs. Vinit @ Shole
JUDGMENT
(a) Criminal Case No. 12795/2021
(b) CNR No. DLCT02-024718-2021
(c) Date of 09.11.2021 commission of offence
(d) Name of the Ct. Lal Singh complainant
(e) Name of the Vinit @ Shole s/o Late Sh. Raj Pal Singh r/o I-20, accused person(s), Aruna Nagar, Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi his parentage and residence
(f) Offence(s) Section 25/54/59 Arms Act complained of or proved
(g) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
(h) Final Order Acquitted
(i) Date of institution 24.11.2021 of case
(j) Date when Not reserved judgment was reserved
(k) Date of judgment 10.05.2022 Brief reasons for the decision of the case: -
1. The present charge-sheet has been filed u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act. The SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.05.10 16:08:55 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 1 of 18 genesis of the prosecution story is that on 09.11.2021 at about 10:30 P.M. at Chappan Pahadi near Delhi Jal Board Gate, Aruna Nagar, Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Civil Lines, the accused was found in possession of one buttondar knife which is in contravention of the Delhi Administrative notification.
2. On finding a prima facie case to proceed against the accused, cognizance of the offence was taken on 24.11.2021. The provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were duly complied with. Arguments on the point of charge were heard and a formal charge for commission of offence u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act was framed against the accused on 08.12.2021 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses: PW1 HC Pawan Kumar (Investigating Officer), PW2 Ct.
Lal Singh (Complainant), PW3 Ct. Dharmander and PW4 Ct. Mangeja Ram.
4. The record transpires that during the course of trial, the accused admitted the present FIR (without admitting its contents) Ex. A1, DD No. 91A dated 09.11.2021 Ex. A2, DAD notification Ex. A3, Entry No.280/2731 in Register No.19 Ex.A-4, GD No.69-A dated 09.11.2021 Ex.PW2/A, GD No.8-A dated 10.11.2021 Ex. A-5 and GD No.50-A dated 10.11.2021 Ex. A-6 and the examination of formal witnesses qua such documents was accordingly dispensed with.
5. The prosecution evidence was closed on 29.04.2022 and the accused was examined u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating evidence was put to him. The accused submitted that he is innocent SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.05.10 16:09:04 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 2 of 18 and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the case property was planted upon him. The accused opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
6. Prior to delving into the merits of the present case, it is relevant to discuss the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
7. PW1 HC Pawan Kumar is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 09.11.2021, DD No. 91-A Ex. A2 regarding apprehension of one person with knife was assigned to him, pursuant to which he along with Ct. Mangeja Ram went to the spot i.e., Chhapan Pahari, Near Delhi Jal Board's Gate, Majnu ka Tilla, where Ct. Dharmender and Ct. Lal Singh along with one person and recovered knife were already present. Ct. Lal Singh handed over that person along with recovered knife to him. After interrogation, the name of that person was revealed as Vinit @ Shole. He further deposed that he asked 3-4 public persons to join the investigation, however, none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names or addresses. Thereafter, he prepared the sketch of knife after opening the same with the help of button on it on a white sheet Ex. PW1/A. He seized the knife and prepared a pullanda sealed with the seal of 'PK' and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Mangeja Ram. He further deposed that he prepared the FSL form. Thereafter, he recorded statement of Ct. Lal Singh Ex. PW-1/C and prepared rukka Ex. PW-1/D and handed over the same to Ct. Mangeja Ram with direction to take the same to PS for getting the FIR registered. He took the same to PS and after some time, he returned to the spot along with original rukka, complaint and original FIR and SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.05.10 16:09:11 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 3 of 18 handed over the same to him for further investigation. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/E at the instance of Ct. Lal Singh. He recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW1/F, arrested him vide memo Ex. PW1/G and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/H. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Mangeja Ram, Ct. Lal Singh, Ct. Dharmender, accused and case property returned to the PS. Case property was deposited malkhana and accused was lodged in lockup after his medical examination. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the Court. The witness correctly identified the accused as well as case property Ex. P1 during his testimony before the Court.
During his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, the witness deposed that he received DD entry at about 11:03 PM and reached the spot in ten minutes thereafter. He further deposed that the distance between the PS and the spot was about 1KM. He further deposed that all the documents were prepared at the spot. He further deposed that the accused was taken to Aruna Asif Ali Hospital by Ct. Lal Singh, Ct. Mangeja Ram and Ct. Dharmender on motorcycle and that they returned to the PS after medical examination at about 4:58 AM. He admitted that the spot was a busy public place and there were several houses and shops situated near the spot and people were coming and going from there. He further admitted that no person from the houses and shops was called to join the investigation and that no public witness was cited as a prosecution witness. He further admitted that the name of the public persons who refused to join was not mentioned and no notice was served upon them. He denied the suggestion that the knife was an ordinary knife and could be SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.05.10 16:09:18 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 4 of 18 purchased from anywhere as easily available in the market. He further admitted that no handing over or taking over memo of the seal was prepared by the IO. He deposed that all the documents were prepared at the same time in one go and no alteration or addition was made in any of the documents. He further deposed that they finally left the spot at about 03:00 AM. He further deposed that he had not made any separate DD entry for their departure for patrolling and that the same might have been made by the DO. He further deposed that they went to the spot on foot. He further deposed that he prepared sketch firstly, thereafter seizure memo and thereafter rukka. He admitted that no photograph of the case property was taken at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot along with the other staff. He further denied the suggestion that the accused was not apprehended at the spot and that he was lifted from his house and was falsely implicated in the present case. He further denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and the recovery had been planted upon him. He further denied that all the proceedings were carried out while sitting in the PS and that the signatures of accused taken on blank papers and were later on misused as disclosure statement and other documents.
8. PW2 Ct. Lal Singh is the complainant. He deposed that on 09.11.2021, he along with Ct. Dharmender were on beat patrolling duty vide DD No. 69-A, attested copies of which is Ex.PW2/A. While patrolling, when they reached at Chhapan Pahari, Near Delhi Jal Board Gate, Majnu ka Tilla, they saw one person coming from the side of Nirmal Hirdaya Church. On seen them in uniform, he got frightened and started moving in opposite direction. On suspicion, he SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.05.10 16:09:25 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 5 of 18 along with Ct. Dharmender apprehended that person and on his cursory search, one buttondar knife was recovered from the right side rear pocket of his wearing pants. He telephonically informed the matter to DO. After some time, HC Pawan along with Ct. Mangeja Ram reached the spot. He handed over that person along with recovered knife to IO. After interrogation, the name of that person was revealed as Vinit @ Shole. The witness correctly identified the accused as well as case property Ex. P1 during his testimony before the Court.
During his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, the witness deposed that all the documents were prepared at the spot. He further deposed that the accused was taken to Aruna Asif Ali hospital by him, Ct. Mangeja Ram and Ct. Dharmender on motorcycle and that they returned to the PS after medical examination at about 4:00-4:30 AM. He admitted that the spot was a busy public place and there were several houses and shops situated near the spot and people were coming and going from there. He further admitted that no person from the houses and shops was called to join the investigation and that no public witness was cited as a prosecution witness. He further admitted that the name of the public persons who refused to join was not mentioned and no notice was served upon them. He denied the suggestion that the knife was an ordinary knife and could be purchased from anywhere as easily available in the market. He admitted that no handing over or taking over memo of the seal was prepared. He deposed that all the documents were prepared at the same time in one go and no alteration or addition was made in any of the documents. He further deposed that they finally left the spot at SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.05.10 16:09:32 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 6 of 18 about 03:00 AM. He further deposed that he had not made any separate DD entry for their departure and that the same might have been made by the DO. He further deposed that they went to the spot on foot and that IO came to the spot on his personal motorcycle. He further deposed that IO prepared sketch firstly, thereafter, seizure memo and, thereafter, rukka. He admitted that no photograph of the case property was taken at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot along with the other staff. He further denied the suggestion that the accused was not apprehended at the spot and that he was lifted from his house and was falsely implicated in the present case. He further denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and the recovery had been planted upon him. He further denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were carried out while sitting in the PS and that the signatures of accused taken on blank papers and were later on misused as disclosure statement and other documents.
9. PW3 Ct. Dharmender deposed on similar lines as PW2 Ct. Lal Singh.
The witness correctly identified the accused as well as case property Ex. P1 during his testimony before the Court.
During his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, the witness deposed that all the documents were prepared at the spot. He further deposed that the accused was taken to Aruna Asif Ali hospital by him, Ct. Mangeja Ram and Ct. Lal Singh on motorcycle and that they returned to the PS after medical examination at about 4:15 AM. He admitted that the spot was a busy public place and there were several houses and shops situated near the spot and people were coming and Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.05.10 16:09:45 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 7 of 18 going from there. He further admitted that no person from the houses and shops was called to join the investigation and that no public witness was cited as a prosecution witness. He further admitted that the name of the public persons who refused to join was not mentioned and no notice was served upon them. He denied the suggestion that the knife was an ordinary knife and could be purchased from anywhere as easily available in the market. He admitted that no handing over or taking over memo of the seal was prepared. He deposed that all the documents were prepared at the same time in one go and no alteration or addition was made in any of the documents. He further deposed that they finally left the spot at about 02:30-03:00 AM. He further deposed that he had not made any separate DD entry for their departure and that the same might have been made by the DO. He further deposed that they went to the spot on foot and that IO came to the spot on his personal motorcycle. He further deposed that IO prepared sketch firstly, thereafter, seizure memo and, thereafter, rukka. He admitted that no photograph of the case property was taken at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot along with the other staff. He further denied the suggestion that the accused was not apprehended at the spot and that he was lifted from his house and was falsely implicated in the present case. He further denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and the recovery had been planted upon him. He further denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were carried out while sitting in the PS and that the signatures of accused taken on blank papers and were later on misused as disclosure statement and other documents. Digitally signed SHIVLI by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.05.10 16:09:55 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 8 of 18
10. PW4 Ct. Mangeja Ram deposed on similar lines as PW1 HC Pawan Kumar. The witness correctly identified the accused during his testimony before the Court.
During his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, the witness admitted that the spot was a busy public place and there were several houses and shops situated near the spot and people were coming and going from there. He further admitted that no public person was called to join the investigation and that no public witness was cited as a prosecution witness. He deposed that he could not say how many public persons were requested by the IO to join the investigation. He admitted that the name of the public persons who refused to join was not mentioned and no notice was served upon them. He denied the suggestion that the knife was an ordinary knife and could be purchased from anywhere as easily available in the market. He admitted that no handing over or taking over memo of the seal was prepared by the IO. He deposed that all the documents were prepared at the same time in one go and no alteration or addition was made in any of the documents. He further deposed that they finally left the spot at about 3:00 AM. He further deposed that he had not made any separate DD entry for their departure for patrolling and that the same might have been made by the DO. He further deposed that he did not know the number of the DD. He further deposed that no arrival entry was made in the PS on that day. He further deposed that IO prepared sketch firstly, thereafter, seizure memo and, thereafter, rukka. He admitted that no photograph of the case property was taken at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot along with the other staff. He further denied the suggestion that the accused SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.05.10 16:10:04 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 9 of 18 was not apprehended at the spot and that he was lifted from his house and was falsely implicated in the present case. He further denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and the recovery had been planted upon him. He further denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were carried out while sitting in the PS and that the signatures of accused taken on blank papers and were later on misused as disclosure statement and other documents.
11. This is the entire evidence on case record.
12. I have given a considered thought to the rival submissions made by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. LAC for accused keeping in view the material available on the judicial file.
13. Ld. APP for the State has contended that prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the offence in question.
14. Per contra, Ld. LAC for accused has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and the case property has been planted upon him. It has been further argued that no independent public witness was asked to join the investigation despite availability and the only witnesses examined by the prosecution are the police officials whose testimonies are not reliable without corroboration by public witnesses. Thus, it has been argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and the accused is entitled to acquittal. Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2022.05.10 16:10:10 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 10 of 18
15. In the aforementioned backdrop, the Court shall now proceed to deliberate upon the evidence appearing on record so as to evaluate if the prosecution has proved its case on the requisite yardsticks or not.
16. Before proceeding with the appreciation of evidence, the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is to be borne in mind, that prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have and accused is entitled to benefit of reasonable doubts in the prosecution story and any such doubts in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
17. It has been argued by Ld. LAC for accused that no public witness was joined by the IO during investigation of the present case and at the time of alleged recovery of the case property, despite their availability. Reference is made to the testimony of all prosecution witnesses, who during their cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, admitted that the spot was a busy public place and there were several houses and shops situated near the spot and people were coming and going from there. They also admitted that no person from the houses and shops was called to join the investigation and that no public witness was cited as a prosecution witness. They further admitted that names of public persons who refused to join the investigation were not Digitally signed mentioned and no notice was served upon them.SHIVLI by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2022.05.10 16:10:17 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 11 of 18 Ld. LAC for accused submits that the prosecution has only examined police officials whose testimonies are not reliable without corroboration by public witnesses. He has further argued that recovery of case property has been planted upon the accused.
No doubt, it is settled law that the testimony of police witnesses can be relied upon if it inspires confidence of the court but in this case, no plausible explanation has been put forth by the prosecution for failure to join public witnesses during the investigation and specifically at the time of alleged recovery of case property, despite their availability in compliance of Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. The same brings the seizure under a cloud of doubt.
Reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana 1999 (1) CLR 69 wherein it was observed 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 SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.05.10 16:10:25 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 12 of 18 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 facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful''.
Reference is also made to the judgment in the case titled as Anoop Joshi V/s State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that, "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 shopkeeeprs 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".
Admittedly, the spot was a crowded and busy place. However, for reasons unexplained by the IO, no efforts were made by him to join SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.05.10 16:10:32 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 13 of 18 any public witness in the investigation of the present case, especially during recovery of case property. This Court is of the considered opinion that in order to lend credibility to the prosecution case and to ensure transparency and fairness during search and seizure, some independent person should have been associated by the IO during investigation. However, no sincere efforts were made by the IO to persuade any public witness to join the investigation and admittedly, no written notice was also served upon any of the public persons. It has also not been mentioned as to what action was taken against those persons who refused to join the investigation.
18. It has been further argued by Ld. LAC for accused that case property has been tampered with as admittedly, no separate handing over or taking over memo of the seal was prepared by the IO. Perusal of testimony of PW1 IO HC Pawan Kumar reveals that pursuant to seizure of case property, he sealed the case property with the seal of 'PK' and seal after use was handed over to PW4 Ct. Mangeja Ram. Thereafter, after completion of necessary formalities, the case property was deposited in the Malkhana.
It is pertinent to note that admittedly, the seal after use was not handed over to any independent person. It was handed over by the IO to PW4 Ct. Mangeja Ram only. This Court is of the considered opinion that PW4 himself being a material recovery witness in the present case would always be interested in the success of the case of the prosecution and thus chances of tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2022.05.10
16:10:38 +0530
FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 14 of 18
Reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah vs State (Delhi Administration) 49 (1993) DLT 193 wherein it was held that:
"It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to the independent witness Public Witness Even the Public Witness does not utter a word regarding the handing over of the seal after use. Therefore, the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the Investigating Officer or with the other member of the raiding party therefore the possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of the parcel cannot be ruled out."
Reference is also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ramji Singh v. State of Haryana, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 452, wherein it was held that, "The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property."
In the present case, the possibility of tampering of case property cannot be ruled out as it was lying in the same Malkhana where the police official having possession of the seal was posted.
19. It is further pertinent to note that seizure memo of the buttondar knife Ex. PW1/B as well as sketch memo of the knife Ex. PW1/A bear the number and particulars of the present FIR. As per the rukka Ex. PW1/D and testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the seizure memo and sketch memo of buttondar knife were prepared prior to the SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.05.10 16:10:45 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 15 of 18 registration of FIR. If that be the case, the prosecution has not offered any explanation whatsoever as to how number and other particulars of the present FIR are mentioned on the seizure memo and sketch memo of knife in the same ink and handwriting as the remaining contents of these documents.
Reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Giri Raj vs State 83 (2000) DLT 201 wherein it was held that, "The number of the FIR (Ex. PW-2/A) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any explanation whatsoever as to under what circumstances number of the FIR (Ex. PW-2/A) had appeared on the top of the said documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot before its registration. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW-2/A) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution. That being so, the benefit arising out of such a situation must necessarily go to the appellant."
20. Ld. Defence counsel has also pointed out a material contradiction in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to the effect that PW1 IO HC Pawan Kumar, during his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.05.10 16:10:53 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 16 of 18 accused, deposed that he went to the spot on foot whereas PW2 Ct. Lal Singh and PW3 Ct. Dharmender, during their cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, deposed that they went to the spot on foot, however, IO came to the spot on his personal motorcycle.
21. It is also pertinent to note that no efforts were made by any of the police officials to lift the chance finger prints from the knife in question. Had any such efforts been made, there would have been scientific evidence in the present case which would have been crucial for the case of prosecution. However, no such efforts were made to collect this scientific evidence for reasons unexplained by the IO.
22. It has been further contended by Ld. LAC for accused that all documents of the present case were prepared in the police station and not at the spot of alleged incident and the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. Reference is made to the testimony of all prosecution witnesses, who during their cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused, admitted that no photograph of the case property was taken at the spot.
23. Thus, there are major lacunaes in the case of the prosecution. The aforementioned lacunaes and contradictions surfacing from the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses makes it extremely doubtful that on the fateful day, the accused was found in possession of buttondar knife at the alleged time and place. Furthermore, the recovery of case property from the possession of accused has also not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts since no independent public witnesses have been joined during the Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.05.10 16:11:00 +0530 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 17 of 18 investigation and at the time of alleged recovery of case property, thereby diluting the case of the prosecution.
24. Thus, in light of the discussion made above, this Court is of the firm view that prosecution has failed to establish the charge levelled against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. Thus, the accused cannot be held liable for the offence with which he has been charged. Accordingly, accused Vinit @ Shole is acquitted in the present case for the offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act.
25. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused at the time of commencement of trial stand cancelled. Surety, if any, stands discharged. Documents, if any, shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any, stands cancelled. Case property, if any, shall be disposed of as per rules after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TALWAR Date:
2022.05.10 on : 10.05.2022 16:11:06 +0530 (SHIVLI TALWAR) MM-06(C)/THC/Delhi/10.05.2022 FIR No. 438/2021 PS Civil Lines State vs. Vinit @ Shole Page No. 18 of 18